More thoughts on productivity improvements & outsourcing
I received a lot of feedback on the subject of more jobs being
lost by productivity improvements, than by outsourcing to low-wage
countries. Some people even thought that was a political "spin"
on the problem, to avoid the outsourcing backlash.
Consider this: When jobs are transferred overseas, there is a clear
cause and effect. To save money, jobs are transferred to low-wage
countries. Several magazines have published pictures of the sad faces
of Americans who have lost their jobs, and the happy people who
replaced them at approximately 10-20% of the cost. The clear culprit
is the short-sighted, greedy executive who has chopped heads to save
a buck!
The assumption is that lower-wage workers will not produce equal
quality. But, this is NOT the case - often the quality and quantity
of work is better! Sure, there are some examples of shoddy workmanship,
but those are exceptions. The reality is that equal or better work is
produced at a better price; namely, better productivity. In the
economics of the global village, location is irrelevant.
Beyond that, is the current "jobless recovery" being caused by
outsourcing? Or has improved productivity in the US itself caused
the decline? Forrester Research (quoted in Business Week) estimates
that a productivity improvement of 1% causes a loss of about 1.3 million
jobs. And US productivity has improved by 3-5% annually since the start
of the millennium. So why the uproar about the loss of "only" 300,000
jobs to outsourcing?
Here's the problem: Most people consider layoffs to be caused by revenue
and profit shortfalls. But this is only partially true. When companies
become more productive, fewer people can do the work and so fewer people
are re-hired. There is no clear culprit to take the blame - who can fault
a company for hiring only as many people as they need? By comparison,
"outsourcing" is a clear target.
But, there a more basic, insidious problem here. In the past, many
people thought that productivity improvements would bring a shorter
work-week, and more leisure. In most western countries, this happened
- the work-week was shortened from 6, to 5-1/2, to just 5 days.
Even 4-day weeks were being considered, and leisure industries boomed.
But, with profit as the primary objective, most companies are NOT
interested in shortening the work-week - they simply fire a few people
and make the remaining workforce work harder. Why allow 30-hour-weeks,
when you can fire 25% of the workforce and still get the work done?
The outsourcing drive is just another wrinkle in this scenario.
Productivity is now a global race, an international competition between
regions and nations. It is the source of wealth, the key to improvements
in living standards. Those who can make things cheaper, faster, better
will win! It is the incessant drive for profit has caused joblessness
- not outsourcing.
Business Week - Where Are The Jobs?
USA Today - Economy races ahead, leaving jobs in the dust
Job losses caused by improved productivity, not outsourcing
Return to the TOP
E-voting - serious conflict of interest
I am NOT one who favors "conspiracy" theories - but seriously, I don't
know what to make of this. You tell me what you think.
Walden O'Dell, CEO of Diebold, the company that manufactures many of the
e-voting machines the US will use in the 2004 Presidential election, is
a big Bush fan! He told Republicans in a recent fund-raising letter that
he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to Bush."
O'Dell attended a recent strategy session with other wealthy Bush
benefactors at the president's Crawford, Texas, ranch. The following week,
he sent out invitations to $1,000-a-plate fund-raisers. This was days
Before Ohio qualified Diebold to sell electronic voting machines to Ohio
Counties for the 2004 election. With no paper trail, or traceability!
Diebold is making campaign contributions, while at the same time it is
making the machines that count the votes. It has been proved thst the
Diebold machines are not secure from tampering. And everything inside the
machines is secret. And no one is allowed to see how the votes get counted.
Many election judges have reported that there are numerous party activists
who believe that "the end justifies the means".
What do you think? Should we be worried about this?
Or, should we simply shrug it off?
Will Bush Backers Manipulate Votes to Deliver GW Another Election?
Voting Machine Controversy
Return to the TOP
Hewlett & Packard - architects of the info age
Two engineers, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard started their company in 1938,
in the garage of a ramshackle little house at 367 Addison Street in Palo
Alto, California. A small sign now identifies this as the "birthplace of
Silicon Valley".
HP was more than just another startup - it was the beginning of a new
approach to management, the California alternative to the traditional,
hierarchical corporation. Some 65 years later, the management style of
HP remain the "dominant DNA" for tech companies, and a major reason for
US leadership in the information age.
You know, in America, you can pick up the telephone and talk with just
about anyone. Some 35 years ago, when I had only just arrived In
California, I called Bill Hewlett, one of the founders of famed Hewlett
Packard, in Palo Alto, California. After the usual exchange with the
secretary-watchdogs, I heard him come on the line, "Bill Hewlett..."
I told Mr. Hewlett I was an engineer (like himself) and wanted to start
my own company. Could I come see him to get his advice? He agreed, and
I went to visit.
I've got to tell you - that visit was one of the highlights of my life!
Here he was, the founder of the then $ 1.5b HP, sitting with his feet up
On the desk saying, "Call me Bill." I rattled off a million questions:
When did you start? What were your first products? How much did you pay
yourself? When did you get your first full-time financial manager?
Which products are you the proudest of? And Bill answered openly and
directly, with a smile that showed understanding of my wish to learn.
At the end of our 2-3 hours meeting, I told Bill I owed him a lot for his
help. He replied, "You can pay me back by talking freely with other young
engineers when they come to see you."
I founded Action Instruments a couple of years later, and always felt that
Bill Hewlett helped me with the founding principles of this once great
company (now destroyed by Eurotherm, part of Invensys). I have tried to pay
Bill Hewlett back by talking with other engineers and company founders,
passing on the wisdom I received from a great American guru.
Read this wonderful tribute to Bill Hewlett and David Packard in Business
Week (March 29, 2004) - weblink below.
Hewlett & Packard: Architects Of The Info Age
You might also enjoy reading about Action Instruments, the company I founded
with the people orientation and employee-participative management style
I learned from my visit with Bill Hewlett.
Interview with Jim Pinto on the founding of Action Instruments
Return to the TOP
Pinto editorial - "smoking gun" evidence
Former Chairman of Alcoa Paul O'Neill was George Bush's Treasury Secretary.
In a book "The Price of Loyalty" by Ron Suskind, published just 2 months
ago, O'Neill talked about his two years inside the Bush administration. In
their first hour-long briefing at the White House, he was stunned by the
president barely responding to the matters he brought up. At cabinet
meetings, the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people."
He states clearly that, immediately on coming to office in January 2001,
far before the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration was focused on
attacking Iraq. He provided Detailed memos and meeting notes.
This week, Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism chief to Bush, and a
registered Republican who has worked in every administration since Reagan,
exposed Bush's mishandling of 9/11 and the war on Iraq. His book
"Against All Enemies" states clearly that, in spite of his repeated
warnings about Al Qaeda, Bush was focused on Iraq.
On Wednesday, March 24, I was glued to the TV as Richard Clarke testified
in a public hearing before the 9/11 commission. He too stated bluntly
that the Bush administration was focused on Iraq immediately after inauguration,
And ignored Al Qaeda. In a September 7 memo, just a week before 9/11,
he specifically warned of serious ad imminent terrorist threats. And
he was ignored. All the things he recommended to be done, were done
- AFTER 9/11.
I listened to every word of Clarke's responses, to both Democratic as
Well as Republican members of the commission. I was impressed by his
intelligence, experience, demeanor and candor. He apologized for The
administration failures, and his own failures to prevent the awful
9/11 events from happening. No one had done that before!
Instead of refuting Clarke's claims, the Bush Administration launched
a campaign of character assassination, hoping that the story will just
go away. I decided that I would try hard to be objective, and I listened
carefully to the Press Secretary and others, and then finally to the
President himself. I'm afraid I was not convinced.
In my mind, this is "smoking gun" evidence that will not go away.
O'Neill stated and Clarke confirmed (from the inside) that Iraq was top
priority well before 9/11, and bin Laden and Al Quaked were simply ignored.
In his testimony before the 9/11 commission, Clarke stated, "By attacking
Iraq, Pres. Bush greatly undermined the war on terrorism."
At an interview in his office, Bush huffed and puffed, beat his chest
and thumped the table with empty claims that terrorism has always been
his top priority. I couldn't help feeling - is THIS his rebuttal?
President GW Bush has a tendency to mangle words and syntax. He says
"nuculer" when he means "nuclear", and "subliminate" when he means
"subliminal", and mixes up "perseverance" and "preservation". He reduces
facts toward simplistic black or white - shades of gray cause him
discomfort. "You are with us, or against us!" He feels he cannot ever be
wrong - never once have we seen him even remotely admit to any kind of
error. He ignores errors - expecting them to go away. He shows immediate
annoyance or anger if confronted with an opinion with which he doesn't
agree.
On a hunch, I went to Google and found this on the web: a list of the
intelligence-quotients (IQs) of the past 12 US Presidents.
Note from Jim Pinto:
The list of Presidential IQs shown below are NOT correct.
The link I had provided below: On G.W. Bush's IQ (or Lack Thereof)
indicates that this was really a hoax.
I had included it as a satirical note, which offended some people.
It was done in poor taste. I was wrong, and I apologize!
IQ |
President |
182 |
William J. Clinton (D) |
175 |
James E. Carter (D) |
174 |
John F. Kennedy (D) |
155 |
Richard M. Nixon (R) |
147 |
Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) |
132 |
Harry Truman (D) |
126 |
Lyndon B. Johnson (D) |
122 |
Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) |
121 |
Gerald Ford (R) |
105 |
Ronald Reagan (R) |
98 |
George HW Bush (R) |
91 |
George W. Bush (R |
Is this scary, or what? The President of the US is less intelligent
than the average American!
Richard Clarke book - "Against all enemies":
Ron Suskind (Paul O'Neill) - "The Price of Loyalty":
"Analyzating" Bush's Grey Matter
Gray Matter: Rove is Bush's brain
On G.W. Bush's IQ (or Lack Thereof):
Return to the TOP
Or, if you're lazy (you may miss some privileges) simply send a blank email message to :
Sign-up@JimPinto.com
with subject line :
"sign me up for JimPinto.com E-mail news".