Pony ponderings…

Have you ever overheard a small debate between children related to #economics? Some at theMarketSoul (c)1999 -2013 find themselves in Spain this weekend, relaxing with family and the following conversation between young siblings are worth repeating.
In some bizarre way, it relates to labour economics and the minimum wage:
Pony
Pony (Photo credit: Moyan_Brenn_BE_BACK_IN_SEPTEMBER)
We had just observed a single horse drawn carriage in the streets of Marbella, when the conversation kicked off.
C1 “What is the minimum wages?”
C2 “I don’t know, why should I?”
A1 “It currently is around €7.00 / hour or something very close”
C1 “Ok, so if one apple costs say €1, then the pony should get 7 apples an hour for working, right?”
C2 “Why?” [by the way C1 is 13 years old and C2 is 11 years old”
C1 “Because that is the minimum wage”
C2 “That doesn’t make any sense!”
C1 “What do you mean it does not make any sense, it is simple mathematics?”
C2 “Why should the pony get 7 apples per hour? What if it only wants 3 apples and something else?”
C1 “Because that is the minimum wage!”
C2 “Yes, but the pony might not want so many apples. The pony might want to choose for itself how many apples it wants”
C1 “Now you don’t make any sense to me at all!  The pony should get exactly what the minimum wage is, or more”
C2 “But the pony might not want or need all those apples. It might need fewer apples, but want more oats or something else. The pony should choose and not someone else…”
And thus we had a little insight into an economic debate between the ‘social cohesion’ leaning child and the ‘libertarian’ leaning child. No fisticuffs or bad mouthing, but different opinions and different attitudes to life. It will be interesting to listen into another conversation along these lines.
With a binding minimum wage of w the marginal ...
With a binding minimum wage of w the marginal cost to the firm becomes the horizontal black MC ‘ line, and the firm maximises profits at A with a higher employment L . However in this example the minimum wage is higher than the competitive one, leading to involuntary unemployment equal to the segment AB. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
We agree with C2’s questions on where the choice for the minimum wage really lies. The wage level should be determined by the provider of the labour, whether individually or collectively bargained, but there should be no interference from government in this process.
Take note Europe, this is just one factor contributing to your long drawn out decline. Markets, not quasi-markets and constant political interference and distortions in the markets; should determine clearing prices or wages.
But this seems to be a lesson a child can learn, but not grown up political leaders…
theMarketSoul ©2013

The Future is Collaboration

The future of work and engagement has already begun. That is stating the blatantly obvious, but are we really prepared for it, yet?

A Spinning Jenny, spinning machine which was s...
A Spinning Jenny, spinning machine which was significant in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Here is a little taster of what we think the future of work will look like for most individual participants in the labour and skills supply market.

The key is that the industrialised ‘factory’ and production line models are now slowly but surely falling apart. The expectation for grown up individuals to turn up 5 days a week and sit at ‘battery hen‘ cubicles and perform tasks a ‘production line’ manager allocates and oversees are numbered.

The slow revolution was unleashed in the third industrial revolution or rather the digital age revolution at least 20 years ago when personal computers become more prevalent. We wrote about this HERE.

This image was selected as a picture of the we...
Clusters (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The fundamental problem today is that no one has yet effectively resolved the ‘contracting’ and hence TRUST problem of delivery on a large scale. We can do it effectively on the micro level, with freelancers selling there individual skills on small tasks and projects, where the risk of failure or an adverse outcome is mitigated. However, we have not yet evolved far enough up the trust hierarchy to fully outsource mission critical projects to ‘clustered’ skills and solution provider hubs, in remote and distant locations, far removed from the core.

Some of the critical inhibitors are these:

  • Immigration policies
  • Commercial legal frameworks
  • Fiscal constraints

Some of the important contributors are:

  • Digitisation and speed of the Internet
  • Platforms where suppliers and demanders of services can be matched
  • A common global business Lingua Franca

These are only a few of the factors either contributing or detracting from moving the revolution on in significant leaps and bounds.

Therefore, to conclude this first stab at a look at the future world of work, we hypothesis that the future will have large groups (what we will call CLUSTERED SKILLS HUBS) of skills pools bidding for contracts to supply services and solutions to leaner and meaner multinationals in cross border transactions and flows that are worth trillions of dollars annually.

Right now, we can’t see any major G20 sovereign government dealing effectively with this challenge, to ensure that they contribute and facilitate the move towards the new future of COLLABORATION.

theMarketSoul ©2013

An Ownership Revolution is required

We have been following the G20 ‘get those naughty multinationals in the tax tent’ debates raging for a few months now, with amusement we have to add; here at theMarketSoul and have the following short thought piece to contribute to the debate.

We know the ‘outrage’ really is all about the what the OECD calls the ‘general erosion of the tax base’, which in our opinion is just a distraction for proper structural reforms in the western democracies contributing to the G20 and OECD coffers.

English: The logo of the Organisation for Econ...
English: The logo of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The real issue is the power of civil society structures, such as multinational corporations, versus nation states. We constantly get an earful on how undemocratic corporations are from a liberal social leftist media and how dangerous unfettered corporate power is.

Yet, multinationals are far more democratic, in both structure and performance, than any sovereign government will ever be. If the corporate governance structure is correctly set up, then every corporate entity has an annual AGM at which point the corporate leaders have to resign, on a rotational basis, depending on individual Articles of Association or Memorandum ofIincorporation provisions (depending in which jurisdiction the corporate entity ‘resides’). How often does a sovereign leader stand down, in comparison and leave it to the popular vote to be re-elected? Certainly not on an annual basis, as is the case for most corporate leaders.

Civitas Foundation for Civil Society logo
Civitas Foundation for Civil Society logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This leads us to the real thought piece of this article, namely the fact that corporate ownership and access to corporate ownership should really be extended to as wide a base as possible, rather than a few ‘monied’ or opportunist participants in the market.

Legislation around employee share ownership schemes are still very cumbersome and rules, rather than principles driven.

The real revolution we require is not around a new tax base or recapitalizing democratic bankrupt nation states; however we require a revolution of democratic corporate ownership to sweep the length and breadth of the land, in order to spread the risk, add additional wealth creation opportunities (and hence a widened wealth tax base) for smaller, leaner and meaner governments to address. This a cry from civil society to the inner ‘goodness’ of political society to sit up, take serious stock and work on longer-term solutions to the erosion of their tax bases, rather than the usual headline grabbing short-termist market distorting interventions the G20 governments are so infamous.

theMarketSoul ©2013

The Economics of Social breakdown

How do we define the state of our nation at the moment?

For a little while now we have been experiencing an ‘unease’ with the communication revolution and the disparate nature of communication tools at our disposal. On the surface it would appear that what is happening is that rather than bind together a society it is having exactly the opposite effect.

The recent riots in the UK is just a small manifestation of this general unease.

From a purely economic and dispassionate analysis of the situation, we would offer the following opinion:

We don’t have a ‘broken society‘, as is such an often uttered phrase, but rather a complete misunderstanding of the disconnect between our ‘old / slow business models’ and the pace at which technology moves and changes the rules of engagement.

The pace of change in organisational design, planning and execution models lags multiple-fold behind the pace of technological advancement. It almost has an exponential relationship and due to this factor, we have not yet come to grips with applying new technology to ‘old world’ thinking, with its checks and balances and control mechanisms.

The disconnect between the pace of the communication revolution and the nature of diminishing returns has led to a massive gap in appreciating the fact the occasionally we have to pause and reflect on where we are and where we want to be.

Both the continuing economic crisis, pace of change, realisation that the future does not hold the same promise and prosperity as the recent past; are all infliction points that have amplified and spilled over into anger and the violence of the past few days.

So what we have is a ‘broken understanding’ of how different factors of production, such as land, labour, capital, enterprise and innovation has drifted further apart and caused unnecessary and unsustainable concentrations of accumulated power and risk amongst differing population groupings in the UK and elsewhere.

Remember, all five of these factors of production listed above need to work in harmony, in order to add, create and manage value and output that are useful and life sustaining necessities for all citizens.

Let’s address the gap between political and civil society to ensure sustainable progress and development for all.

theMarketSoul © 2011

The Elusive “G” Factor – Part 1

[Economics in a Nutshell]

 

An Introduction

There is a conundrum here somewhere!  As a libertarian leaning Think Tank organization and publication, we instinctively know that more government interference in the economy and bigger government per se is not a good thing.  And so is sovereign debt and the servicing of that debt.  Both are drains on the economy and economic potential of any sovereign nation, yet both are necessary evils too.

But where lies the ‘sweet spot’ between the size of government, fiscal policy, sovereign debt (if necessary)?  The magic formula or ratio between the public and private sectors and their respective shares of the economic output pie?

These are questions the political and business leaders are struggling to understand and define in Europe and the USA at this point in time in order slowly and arduously drag their economies back to a ‘normal growth cycle’.

Economy
Economy (Photo credit: Donald Macleod)

Part of the challenge we believe is the massive imbalance created by the shifting nature and sources of production, combined with the rapid uptake of technology and the disruptive influences of technology.  Our planning cycles and hence levels of understanding and ability to adjust the factors of productions to keep up with these disruptive forces are being severely challenged.  Or maybe our grasp of the theory underpinning our economic models just aren’t up to coping with the rapid nature of change and forces of change in the global economy.

As has been argued in previous articles, by its very nature the instruments we utilise to adjust economic activity and output in specific geographical locations, namely fiscal (tax) and monetary policy, are very blunt instruments and not as effective and able to cope with the speed of change in given economies.  But are their any other mechanisms we can utilise to adjust unfavourable behaviours and activities in order to get back to equilibrium?

A further factor we believe is a lack of understanding of where exactly we are in the global economic adjustment life-cycle.  There is no real comprehensive understanding and agreement at best of these influences.  True mechanisms like the G8 now G20 have been created to address more global challenges, but there is hardly ever consensus and a collective will to act in unison to address the bottlenecks and imbalances in global economic activities.

With this introductory article we have laid out some of the areas to explore and bring back into the ‘light of scrutiny’ as part of a deeper understanding of the nature of our global economic state and status.

theMarketSoul © 2011

Economy
Economy (Photo credit: John H McCarthy)

Short-sighted: Actor behaviour in the market for competitiveness

Competition is a good thing.  Of that we are sure.

It is one of the key ingredients of a dynamic market process, yet is competition and the potential negative consequences of short-sightedness a means or an end in itself?

Today we argue that the unfettered aspiration of competing for competition’s sake and the shedding of what is seen as non-core processes and competencies in organisation, will eventually lead to sub-optimal performance and is an unsustainable practice.

In the unrelenting search for shareholder value creation, which is the fiduciary and main responsibility of the board of any shareholder / equity owned organisation, we believe that sub-optimal decisions are being taken, both because of target operating model enhancements and short-term return of investment (ROI)

 

One of the underlying objectives of International Harmonisation of Financial Regulatory Standards (as currently promoted by the IASB & FASB) is the desire for greater transparency and ultimately more regular and frequent reporting cycles.  The view is that the greater the frequency in reporting, the less information asymmetry will be in the market, thereby eliminating insider trading and other undesirable ‘sharp’ market practices that regulatory bodies such as the SECLondon Stock ExchangeNYSENASDAQ, DAX, etc., are trying to stamp out.

 

But if we extend this logic, or rather shorten the current reporting cycles from the regular quarterly updates to say monthly, weekly , daily or even hourly updates, the already short-sighted mentality will become even more sharply focussed.  And this begs the question:  “How will CEOs and other business leaders have to ‘defend’ their decisions on a minute by minute basis under this unrelenting 24 hour news and sensationalism culture”; thus leading to an even more intense short term focus on their part.  Certainly, this must be the worst of all downward spirals and tyranny of information overload?

 

But, by logical extension, this is exactly where we are heading in a decade or two’s time.

 

So, if the focus is then on more short-term results and ‘core processes’ where does this leave the current wave of outsourcing, off-shoring or near-shoring of non-core processes?

 

We contend that the already well established trend of ‘letting go’ of all non-core processes and competencies has a negative effect on the longer-term sustainability of the organisation.

Succession planning could already be outsourced and thus not on the board’s agenda, as recruitment consultancies now fulfil the non-core ‘attraction of suitable candidates’ services, with the traditional Human Resources fulfilling a more Risk mitigation / management functions of ensuring compliance with Health & Safety Executive , employment law, equality laws, etc.

 

Another unintended consequence is the fact that because organisations more and more frequently utilise professional specialists to deliver projects and programmes, the esprit d corps is disappearing from organisational life.  It is difficult for managers to gain this motivational force of esprit de corps when they are managing ‘virtual teams’ and a cadre of temporary service providers through dysfunctional processes of ‘on-boarding’, induction, project management, quality control, motivational traps, engagement, focus, etc.

Therefore, to conclude this opening article in a new series around the ‘new labour market models [1] [2] [3], currently being practiced in the western free market democracies, let us ask the key question that is one of the foundations of the factors of production in achieving economic advancement:

“How do we recognise, incubate, nurture, develop and sustain talent and talent management in our organisation, when this critical activity is handed over to outside consultants who have a different business model and agenda to our corporate ambitions?”

We know that there are some ‘labour supply aggregators’ or forward thinking recruitment consultancies that realise that their own models of engagement has to change, in order for them to move into the value creation and value addition space, but there are still far too many ‘factories’ with conveyor belt mentalities out there.  Not to let the corporate ‘talent managers’ off the hook, because if you don’t have people and processes in place to manage the talent anymore, you only have yourself to blame when the ‘transparency machine’ of financial regulatory reform forces you down the channel of short-term decline…

 

theMarketSoul ©2010