I write this with an intention that I hope does not raise the porcupine defenses in anyone, while realizing I might do so. On my travels, I have learned there are “No Small jobs, just small people”. I will admit in my arrogant younger days I might have been guilty of this mindset. But it was more the result of a fear-based mindset with no real knowledge behind it. As mentioned, I have worn a blue and white collar, and sometimes worn both at the same time.  I have observed that sometimes people tend to develop a “self-important” mindset where we elevate the roles we play while minimizing the contributions of those within our own ecosystem. This creates a perception that certain work is either not important, not valued, or not a priority. When this mindset enters an ecosystem it causes some to begin to practice the subtle art of not giving a fudge. This mindset is amplified when communication across the ecosystem is not clear, concise, collaborative, and considerate; so that each person playing a part in the operations feels as though they have been seen and heard. It is important to remember that poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on the part of another. This can be attributed to the culture and poor communication across the organization, the top down hierarchical nature, an inability to trust in delegating responsibilities, entrenched personality driven systems dominating over a system-oriented approach; all which can create the conditions that hold an organization back. On the military battlefield they send scouts out to report on the conditions of the area then absorb, hear, and act on the scouts’ feedback to develop the best possible strategy. An effective organization does the same. There can be no visibility into an area if you fail to talk to the person doing the day to day in the trenches.

Along my journey I gained experience working in a start up culture. When you work in a start-up culture there are no “silos” or “pre-determined” roles. You have an area of focus, but if you have the talent, have the aptitude to solve a problem, then you consistently work cross-functionally across the organization. Point being, you perform all functions required; from taking out the trash, shoveling the snow; to populating a sales database, to creating marketing material, to putting on a show for the CEO or prospective board. The mindset is there is a “job to do” so “do your job” with the awareness there are no small jobs. It also means that teamwork across the organization is vital, so if that means lending a hand you don’t hesitate to do so. It also means recognizing those situations where there might not be enough hands.

It is in those areas that are deemed not important, not a focus, not a prudent use of fiscal resources, where the push to increase efficiencies leads organizations to try to do more with less, increasing the workload shouldered by less bodies, sometimes crossing the line of efficiency into that of abuse; whittling away at a workers morale, dedication, commitment, and desire to go above and beyond what is minimally required. While recognizing most people do the “excellent” work they do because they take pride in what they do, how it reflects on them, and that their act of caring is more than transactional. Sometimes organizations need to admit that it is hard to squeeze water out of a rock, so maybe new strategies are required?  “Speech is a joint game between the talker and listener against the forces of confusion”, an organizations goal should be to make sure they are winning this game.

So, for those of us who can unplug from the work world this Holiday season and get to spend it with family or friends, take a moment to look around. Observe all the people that perform the seen and overlooked roles across our ecosystem; shake the hand of the woman you see cleaning windows, give a fist pump to the janitor sweeping the floor, and treat the waitstaff serving you a meal on your leisure time with the empathy that sends the signal that you appreciate their contribution and the sacrifice they have to make in being away from their family and loved ones. Remembering that not all have the luxury to unplug from the daily grind. Dignity is not defined by a dollar sign, but the time is long past due where we stop nickel and diming these essential parts of our ecosystem, and pay people a living wage while providing them with the tools and training they need to excel?

In my ecosystem, I was part of a simple unspoken act, that reinforced my belief in our potential. On my daily rounds delivering packages to a campus community, the golf cart I used died. It was 20 minutes from where it needed to go across campus, so I placed the cart in neutral and began pushing with one arm while steering with the other. As I made my way, one student, then another, then yet another, added their weight and muscle to the effort. Allowing all four of us to get it to where it needed to be. This example of teamwork, empathy, and willingness to lend a hand is what makes me hopeful that we have it within us to nurture an attitude of gratitude not just during the Holiday Season, but throughout the year.

Have a Happy Holiday

               During my journey I found myself working 12 to 14 hours a day, for an hourly wage, with no health insurance, retirement, and a mountain I was trying to ascend called “Mt. Sallie Mae”. The elevation was quite high and the tools I was using were quite primitive. Being laser focused on this effort left very little time for much else. However, during this period a person traveled into my path who taught me a valuable lesson, one that took me quite a time longer to fully embrace. The lesson I learned was how to be present, pay attention, and appreciate the experience of rebirth we get to see each day by simply tilting our head up into the sky at the beginning and end of each day. That gift of seeing the sunrise and set each day can teach us a multitude of lessons if we are open to receiving them.

               One lesson I am learning is that our economic and environmental systems are not mutually exclusive. The decisions we make economically have consequences environmentally, and our failures to learn from the lessons of what nature tells us, do not create the conditions that allow humanity to “win”, nor do they allow us to create systems that form the foundation of a nurturing partnership. This has manifested itself in how the world reacts and deals with how the climate is impacting subsistence farmers.

               During the past two years we have read stories that the “migrant caravans” from Central America need to stop and that these “criminals” needed to stop coming. We get caught up in trying to treat the symptoms and not the root causes. In the countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, the main reason for this “step migration” is that climate change decimated the livelihood of a large number of subsistence farmers whose reliance on the land is the only way they can support themselves. When this happens, they are forced to move to urban area’s that don’t have the jobs and are overrun with crime, so to simply survive they need to look north. How does the U.S. denial of climate change and its inability to provide its neighbors with the tools it needs to adapt work against us? Lt. Commander Liver-Leighton Barrett, U.S. Navy (Ret) puts it this way “unfortunately, improving resiliencies to drought and other damaging environmental trends don’t feature amongst the projects the U.S. Administration aims to underwrite in the region. This is unfortunate, as it is consequential, since although trends such as human trafficking and gangs are serious problems that must be addressed, if policies do not address the serious climate change factors at play, they will ultimately be ineffective.” His point: If we help farmers figure out a way to work their land, then perhaps they might not have the desperate urgency to seek a better way of life at the U.S. border? People generally want to stay in the places where they have invested sweat equity. So, would helping them develop climate mitigation and adaptation strategies be better than a wall? Might we use those same strategies to help the farmers that live in the Middle of our own country?

               So, what might be the consequence of ignoring climate change in the Southern Hemisphere be? Shifting your focus to West Asia/Middle East and Syria can prove quite constructive. In this part of the world wars over water have been going on for thousands of years.  The earliest conflict over water occurred there over 4,500 years ago when a dispute over access to irrigation water led Urlama, King of the City State of Lagash in ancient Mesopotamia to cut off the water to its neighbor Umma, thus depriving it of water. Water is a scarce resource in Syria, it receives less than 250mm of rainfall a year and is considered “water scarce”.  In 2006, Syria experienced a multi seasonal, multi-year extreme drought that contributed to agricultural failures, economic dislocations and population displacement. This dry period has continued and has been described as the “worst long-term drought and most severe set of crop failures since agricultural civilizations began in the fertile crescent many millennia ago” (Gary Nabhan, as cited in Fernia and Werrell (2012).  In 2008, the U.S. State Department received a diplomatic cable from Damascus, Syria.  In it the author warned of the implications of the drought and how the displacement of large numbers of subsistence farmers could create the “perfect storm” where population displacements could act as a multiplier of the economic and social pressures the country was experiencing. The effects of the drought were compounded by the highly inefficient flood irrigation systems that Assad utilized made worse by the subsidizes that were provided to the production of water intensive crops. Between 2006 and 2009, around 1.3 million inhabitants of eastern Syria were affected by agricultural failures. By 2011, the UN estimated that 3 million people were affected with 1 million people experiencing food insecurity. During this time 1.5 million of these displaced people moved from rural farms to urban cities, thus adding to the pressures that ultimately resulted in the Civil War. It is 2019, have things gotten better?  One wonders if an under reported motivation of Erdogan’s desire to “ethnically cleanse” the Kurds in Syria has anything to do with securing increased control of water resources? In an assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change by the World Bank they concluded that projected decreases in annual precipitation would lead to worsening water scarcity for Southern Turkey and Syria, so is that any part of the current story?

                    The sun will rise and set, the earth will continue its orbit, the question is will we listen to what Mother Nature is telling us? Will we start “valuing” the planet and realize that climate is upstream of economics, and that the planet may recover from what we have done to the planet, but that people might not survive what they have done to it? If we “value” life, then shouldn’t the economic decisions we make be geared towards developing nurturing and resilient pro planet choices? Doesn’t that start with looking at those at the U.S. Southern Border as “Climate Refugees” and developing systemic solutions that allow us to implement adaptive solutions that mitigate the harm, and develop innovative answers that allow us to work in partnership with the planet? I see the sunrise, have learned how to appreciate it in the stillness of the morning, so that is why I am hopeful, but we need to come to the recognition that if we continue to view the economy and environment as mutually exclusive systems; that the sun may set, but we might not be here to see it. So, lets all work towards making sure the light will always shine?

The recent headlines on the UAW leadership being charged with corruption made me think of Abraham Lincoln. He said “nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Unions are an effective and important tool that economic journeymen and women can use to cooperate towards achieving a better life. During the last 30 years when workers wages have stagnated and corporate profits soared, the economists and the legislators were working on dismantling the “power” that Unions had to negotiate on their members behalf. A narrative was told that said that dues lined the pockets of corrupt leaders, that what you paid into the system exceeded what you got out, and that you were better off to go it alone as a free agent.  The funny thing is in our economic ecosystem you do not get paid what you are worth, but what you have the power to negotiate. In our economic ecosystem we have become happy with a system that is O.K. with Goliath always coming out ahead of David. In fact, if you read articles on the subject you often see citizens saying my employer does not provide those benefits, so why should yours. We have been conditioned to accept a race to the bottom in our ecosystem because we often time choose to compete against one another, instead of cooperating with the goal of elevating everyone’s game.

The definition of a Labor Union is “an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members interest in respect to wages, benefits, and working conditions”. Sounds like a pretty good way to increase your leverage and bargaining position in negotiations.  However for this tool to be used effectively we need to make sure that its leaders are ethical. An ethical leader is one who “demonstrates conduct for the common good that is acceptable and appropriate in every area of life.” To do this a leader (1) Acts as the example, (2) Champions the importance of ethics, and (3) Communicates trust, fairness, integrity, openness, compassion, and respect. Unions are good, but unethical leaders are bad. The trick is not to let the bad apples topple the apple cart, because that is exactly what the architects of our ecosystems vacuum want you to do. Those that seek to retain power want us to ruthlessly compete against one another; not cooperate together in one another’s common interest. 

In 1858, Lincoln had a debate with Stephen Douglas in the race for U.S. Senate. In that debate Lincoln said “In this age, and this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.” The architects of that vacuum in our ecosystem have almost successfully convinced workers that competition is better than cooperation, that being a free agent is better than being a team player. When we cooperate we make a choice to harness our power and challenge the existing power structure to up their game; by cooperating we compete against those holding on tight to the reigns of power for a better seat at the negotiating table, and for a more equitable form of capitalism. Humanity is hard wired for altruism, so let’s tap into that wealth of power.

Finally, I leave you with a quote to ponder as you examine our ecosystem: “There are seven things that will destroy us: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Religion without sacrifice; Politics without principle; Science without humanity; Business without ethics” – Mahatmar Gandhi

Each of us, has the opportunity, to help one another write a new story, to change the script, to narrate a different outcome, where we cooperate so we can compete against those who exemplify the destructive actions behind Gandhi’s words. What story do you want to tell?

While traveling along the road on my journey, I came across a quote by J.F.K. that seems relevant today. He said ‘“The Great Enemy of truth is very often not a lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forbears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought’ (1962 Commencement Address at Yale).

               This quote helps explain how the myth of “Trickle Down” has been able to take root in our culture and why members of both political tribes have been so tied to the neo-liberal economic policies that tell us: (1) You can’t raise the minimum wage, (2) You can’t increase the threshold that workers receive overtime benefits from $23,000 to $60,000., (3) That Medicare for All would ruin us, (4) That paid family leave and universal childcare are bad, and (5) Immigrants weaken, not strengthen our ecosystem.

               As humans we gravitate towards stories and storytelling. It is why we spend our attention on the various entertainment vehicles that permeate our culture. Let’s admit it we like to be entertained. Those who seek power understand this and occasionally use this talent to develop myths that they desire to take root. The myth that some in power are seeking to spread is that immigrants take jobs, commit crimes, abuse the social safety net, and undermine what it means to be “American”.

               We need to work hard to prevent this myth based in the dark arts from taking root, while admitting that the story we have told since our founding is based on an innocence we don’t have a right to claim. Part of our story has had chapters where the removal of natives, slavery, Jim Crow, Internment camps, call on us to acknowledge the truth of this; but begin to use the fundamental principles that formed the American Story to include those for whom are innocence has been lost.

               In 1783, George Washington told a group of Irishmen that “America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions.” One of the founding fathers of our nation understood that America needed great people, that would continually help grow our economy.  The part of the American myth we need to fight to preserve is that anyone willing to come to our shores, can become “American”. America was never based on an “ethnic” homogenous tribe, despite the horrors of slavery. Becoming “American” was a verb, not a noun. It was a product of your work, your commitment, and desire to add your story to the American story. Recognizing that we must admit that those not included in the historical record as “Americans” must be made whole.

               Today in our ecosystem, immigrants, both legal and illegal, contribute to our ecosystem.  There is firm consensus among economists that immigration raises incomes on average for native-born workers. In fact, it is newly arrived immigrants that compete against immigrants who arrived earlier for the same employment opportunities.  Immigrants don’t generally compete for the same jobs as U.S. born employee’s but complement them and increase their productivity.  Here is a little secret, most illegal immigrants use a false social security number, meaning they contribute to social security, but do not have a right to those benefits. Meaning that Native born Americans and U.S. Treasury are the greatest beneficiaries.  Immigrants pay $329 billion in state, local, and federal taxes. Undocumented immigrants contribute roughly $11.74 billion a year in state and local taxes, including $7 billion in sales and excise taxes, $3.6 billion in property taxes, and $1.1 billion in personal income taxes; funding our schools, hospitals, highways, and other essential services. If current legal immigration levels were cut by 50%, the Social Security fund who lose $1.5 trillion in revenue. If we gave them a path to citizenship, then their contribution to our ecosystem would increase by $2.18 billion.

               Immigrant entrepreneurs and students are a vibrant and needed part of our ecosystem.  In 2014, Immigrants had $927 billion in spending power that was used to purchase goods and services of their fellow Americans.  Cuts currently proposed to immigration would exclude 22 million people from the U.S. over the next 50 years, causing a 2% drop in GDP by 2040, 12.5% decrease in economic growth, and 4.6 million fewer jobs. International Students are an economic asset, next year in 2020 researchers estimate that there will be 1.3 million unfilled science, technology, engineering, and math jobs, making our companies less vibrant and competitive. For every International Student who gets a S.T.E.M. degree and is hired by a U.S. Company, 2.6 jobs are added to our economy.  For Dreamers, 91% percent are employed or in school, if Congress fails to protect this group, U.S. GDP will drop by $460 billion annually, but if given a path to citizenship they would add $1 trillion dollars over a decade.

               Many of the businesses we are proud of in this country were formed by an educated immigrant.  Over 40% of Fortune 500 businesses were founded by immigrants or their children, responsible for the employment of 10 million people worldwide. Immigrants start 20% of our businesses but only make up 13% of the population. They are responsible for creating the jobs that Native born Americans want to fill.  Contrary to a myth that some want to take root, 43% of all recently arrived immigrants are college graduates, compared to 29% of Native-born Americans.  Ask yourself if the “merit” based system they want to implement were applied to “whites without college degrees”, would those supporting it do so as forcefully as they are? These aspiring “immigrants” are demonstrating what it is to be “American”, living up to those ideals espoused in the founding of our nation.

               In the recent Immigration raids in the South, we heard about how over 600 people where rounded up on the first day of school. Most of these people worked a job that put food in the mouths of all of us. If they have a positive impact on our ecosystem and local community, doesn’t providing them with a path to citizenship make sense?  Where were the stories that sought to hold the large employers responsible for employing/exploiting these workers?  Are these “owners” engaging in a cultural war demonizing the “other” with one hand, and exploiting their labor with the other, allowing them to feed that vacuum? Don’t know the answer, but is it a question we should be asking?  Would a reasonable solution be to make employers of foreign-born workers pay an extra payroll tax, using the proceeds to subsidize low paid workers wages in our ecosystem? Just a thought.

               We have competing myths that are at battle for the soul of our nation. We need to embrace the origin story of what being an “American” is, an action verb embraced by newcomers to this land, who through work, community, and caring, contribute to our story. Giving those that have been denied their rightful place in our national story an equal seat at the table. While rejecting the demonizing of “other”, claiming that you are only “American” if you look a certain way. At the same time busting the myth of “Trickle Down” that seeks to place the consequences, effects, outcomes, and shortcomings of neo-liberal economics at the feet of the immigrant whose pro-growth story and desire to become “American” is what has allowed us to renew our nation, and continue to tell our story. Limiting Immigration does not make us greater; it makes us older, whiter, poorer, and unable to solve our problems. We can tell a better story.

As I highlighted in previous posts, Stock Buybacks after the Trump Tax Cuts have supercharged the vacuum that is sucking profits from the worker and society while neglecting to make investments in assets that I classify as “public goods”. A Senator from Ohio, Sherrod Brown, did a pretty ingenious thing. He built a calculator that can tell you what a worker’s dividend would be if Public Corporations paid a $1.00 to non-executive employees for every $1 Million in stock buybacks. According to Brown, U.S. companies spent a record $806 billion on stock buybacks in 2018, a 55% increase over 2017, and a 36% increase over 2007 (previous record year). In 1989, CEO to worker compensation was 58 to 1, and in 2017 it had grown to 312 to 1. During this time the share of wealth held by the bottom 90% dropped from 33% to 23%. This is further evidence of that vacuum at work.

Top Ten List (Based on Brown’s Calculator as of 2018):

Company	Value of Stock Buyback	Amount of Workers Dividend
Apple Inc.	$72,738,000,000	$72,730.00
Qualcomm Inc	$22,580,000,000	$22,580.00
Wells Fargo & Company	$20,633,000,000	$20,633.00
Bank of America	$20,094,000,000	$20,094.00
JP Morgan Chase	$19,983,000,000	$19,983.00
Cisco Systems Inc.	$17,661,000,000	$17,661.00
Amgen Inc.	$17,900,000,000	$17,900.00
Facebook Inc. (Class A)	$12,879,000,000	$12,879.00
Citigroup Inc.	$14,433,000,000	$14,433.00
Pfizer Inc.	$12,198,000,000	$12,198.00

Prior to Trickle Down economics we used to have a “stake holder” economy. There was a belief that everyone that played a part in the ecosystem had value and were rewarded for their contributions. When we began to shift our ecosystem to a mindset that held the Shareholder above everyone else, we started to pervert the capitalist system that has served us well. Yes, we have booms and busts, have undervalued the contributions of those that were/are marginalized in our society and culture, but the pedestal that we have erected to prop up the Shareholder and CEO does not help us address those problems, nor does it allow us to grow a “stake-holder economy” where we all can contribute and win. The Worker Dividend, that Senator Sherrod Brown is proposing is an attempt to correct a perversion working against us, as we all try to create an ecosystem that has more intention in making the investments in the foundations that allow our ecosystem to flourish and grow. How much economic good and growth could an extra $15,000 to $20,000 provide in a non-executive’s pocket?

What we don’t need to see is a Proposal that indexes capital gains to inflation become law or policy.  Under current rules the gain for the sale of an investment (shares of stock, or real estate) is equal to how much more the item sold for then it cost to buy.  Under the proposed rule, you would be able to calculate inflation into the equation, thus allowing you to shrink the spread seen between the amount used to buy the investment and the amount it sold for when filing your taxes. Capital Gains are already taxed less than ordinary income, so this lowers that bill. In 2018 the Top 20% of U.S. earners, with an average income of around $350,000, collected 90% of the taxable gains with 50% of those gains going to the Top 0.1%, who have an average income of $10.8 million. Couple this with the ability to still utilize “interest deductions”, then you have a tool that super charges that vacuum. Past Administrations have viewed this as illegal, but members of Congress and the White House are proposing such a thing be done by Executive Order, to provide cover for members of Congress that support this sort of policy.

Mull over the two idea’s above, and ask which has the best chance of fertilizing our ecosystem and putting money in the hands of the workers? I believe in Employer based Retirement Plans, prefer Pensions over 401 K’s, understand the power of “compound interest”, but ask if we believe the “shareholder” is of more value, then how are we “valuing” the worker? If we want to leverage the power of compound interest shouldn’t we leverage it as a society in a way so that every “stake holder” benefits from such a system?

Bottom line, doesn’t paying people more and putting more money into people’s retirement while at the same time decreasing the power of that vacuum; create the best pro-growth conditions for our ecosystem? People who are paid more can be empowered to realize better outcomes in education, health, and community; while local and city governments can realize the revenue to make the investments in our education, digital, and physical infrastructure? By allowing the trickle-down game to continue playing, are we just playing ourselves?

Ok, as someone who deals with logistics, package delivery, and the evolving business models operating in the space; I have observed a disconnect between A.I. and the Human delivery driver.

Prior to the emergence of Direct Delivery by Amazon, deliveries were made by UPS, USPS, and Fed Ex. The deliveries generally occurred within a predictable time frame and were made by the same driver. This allowed you to develop a relationship with the driver, allowed the driver to understand your business, all which minimized any disruptions in the service that might develop.

In the past 6 months, I have been in an ongoing battle with Amazon to deliver packages to my place of employment in a timely fashion. Once I create a dialogue with the driver, they understand the businesses needs, and that driver if used on our route again, delivers during our hours of operation. The communication falls apart when Amazon dispatches different drivers daily, each who do not have experience with the route they are delivering packages to. Why do they do this?

From what I have learned, Amazon uses DSP (delivery service partners) to deliver the packages that Amazon routes on their mapping algorithm, which provides direction to the network on how the packages are to be delivered. Problem is that I have been told a driver (1) Can not deviate from the algorithm, and is at times unable to scan the packages at a stop if delivered out of order, (2) they do not differentiate business from residential customers, who may have different needs, different hours, so might require a different approach? Here it seems that the technologist that created the algorithm deployed it without soliciting input from those that make deliveries for a living.

Why would using the same driver make sense for a business: (1) Today, businesses need to provide a secure and safe facility. Having the same driver introduces a degree of predictability (not all can afford an Amazon Hub). (2) As a driver the first thing you do is look at your route and then determine which stops have bathrooms that you may be able to utilize. When you are in a truck all day, knowing where the bathrooms are located are kinda a big deal. (3) Having a different route each day may allow for some optimization, but might also introduce some frustration, as deliveries may arrive after a business is closed. If the purpose of Prime is to deliver within a specified time frame, then is it not in your best interest to live up to your promise? Amazon’s business model in the retail space has been built on the backs of trusted delivery networks, that banked trust will evaporate if they don’t interject a degree of humanity into the algorithmic driven system they are seeking to implement.

My complaint is not with the drivers, but with the rigidity of the technology that has not adapted to the conditions on the ground, and learned that the sheer speed of the promise of one day delivery, does not always “value” the driver, and is overly reliant on an algorithm that does not always serve the best interests of its clients. For a business, predictability, familiarity, and responsiveness are of value, so perhaps adapting to their needs would be a value add?

          Learning how to channel the turtle and the rabbit in one’s life is essential in navigating our ecosystem. Harnessing those forces is important, but when it comes to the ability to access information and knowledge, no or slow connections are not a recipe for success. In the U.S. we label “high speed” internet access as 25 mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speed, a standard that favors large companies that want to treat the internet as a vehicle for the consumption of entertainment rather than one for education, health care, or work.  If you want equal download and upload speeds, then you pay up for it. 

            The nervous system for our informational superhighway in the U.S. is made up of copper and coaxial cable with only a small percentage of our communities utilizing fiber, especially in those that connect people’s homes.  Stateside, fiber, only accounts for 14% of our high-speed connections and local cable companies account for 84% of those connections.  In those area’s where you get 100 mbps 94% of those subscriptions are sold by the cable company.  In rural areas 80% of the population does not have access to 100 mbps internet.  Sixty percent of people making $20,000 or less don’t have wired access-not even copper, but 80% of people making between $50,000 and $75,000 do.  If you travel around the globe you will see that there are countries who do better than we do.  In South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Hong Kong they can get gigabit internet (10 times faster than 100 mbps) for between $30 and $50 a month. In Sweden, 70% of its citizens get 100 mbps internet for download/upload for $35/$40 a month with plans to have 98% of its residents provided with gigabit internet by 2025.  The country of Singapore has a number of companies that offer gigabit fiber internet access to the home for $40-$60 a month.  Back here in the states, in the city of New York, a subscription for 100 mbps download/upload internet will cost you $105, while a 500 mbps connection will run you $305 dollars with no gigabit service available. In the Traveler’s backyard they offer a $300+ gigabit package but the infrastructure underground is only coaxial cable. Makes me wonder how that works? Information pulses through the glass that makes up fiber, faster the pulse, the faster the ride; but if you don’t have the pipes, does it really work? Even cutting-edge wireless needs fiber to work the way it should. Because a system that has a fiber backbone and uses wireless is only as strong as the signal it sends and is weakened the more people draw from it.  So, why is fiber important? It is important because it is a digital and non-digital entrepreneurs gateway to a world that can unleash their creative energies. As mentioned earlier, the U.S. only has 14% high speed fiber while in China there are 120 million households connected to fiber and they will have 300 million of its 455 million households connected to fiber in the year 2020.   

            In the U.S. we treat quality high speed gigabit fiber internet access as a luxury, not as a “public good”. Do we want to build gated communities both digital and physical that enjoy a robust and limitless world of creative tools reserved only for those that can afford it? I know in an earlier post, I mentioned some of the challenges an A.I. economy will present. However, even a world that creates a New Social Contract that values pro social community based service, education, and care, you will still need to leverage the digital tools that will allow you to effectively communicate your services, manage the books, and educate the community. Are we cheating ourselves by surrendering our power to Corporate powers who do not have an incentive to provide gigabit access to all, especially when most of the proceeds of their ventures go to the shareholders; instead of the citizen.  Imagine what our world would look like if way back in 1935, FDR, did not create the Rural Federal Electrification Administration? That government effort led to the possibility of nearly half of U.S. farms having access to electricity by the year 1950.  You think that if we wanted to unlock pent up entrepreneurial energy in under-served areas, and wanted to provide better service to the under-served for business and educational purposes, that a community based local model that put its citizens first might work today?

            In a January 23, 2018 article in Vice, “More than 750 American Communities Have built their own Internet Networks” they describe an effort in some communities where they are offering better service, higher speeds, and more transparency.  According to their figures: there are 55 municipal networks serving 108 communities with a publicly owned fiber to home network, 76 communities offer access to a locally owned cable company that serves most or all the community, and 258 communities are served by a rural electric cooperative.  Large corporate interests resist this effort, in 20 states ISP’s have passed laws that protect their business model and hamper local efforts to build publicly owned local networks. The reason is simple: Profits.  In Seattle, robust competition would cost Comcast between $20 Million to $84 million a year.  Instead of seeing the innovative approach on the local level and accepting the challenge to out innovate and offer better, cheaper broadband; they spend money to lobby politicians and pass laws to prevent people from finding a better way. Is this American capitalism at work, or a regulatory captured perverted version of it? I fear, here in the world of connectivity and the exchange of information that vacuum’s impact is felt as well.

            In an era of dynamic change and a changing climate Municipal networks can nurture and provide a community with resiliency.  A local municipal fiber network can: (1) Allow a community to rebound from Severe weather, (2) Stimulate + Attract New Businesses, (3) Attract + Retain citizens (Homes with gigabit internet access have a 7.1% edge in value over homes with a 25 mbps internet connection, especially when 43% of those millennials able to afford a home say internet connectivity would be a deciding factor), (4) Lower Dependency on Large Incumbent Communication Companies (especially when they don’t see the “value” in connecting your community), and (5) Adapt to technology changes and demands (5G and beyond). If the large windfalls that incumbent players are enjoying are not invested in all of the communities they serve, if profit determines where the fiber is placed, and your ability to pay up determines who gets access, then who are we saying should have access in our ecosystem?

            Information is power, light is transformative, so why don’t we treat next generation high speed internet access the same way we treat electricity and water? Do we want to keep people in the dark?

Resources used:

Fiber, The Coming Tech Revolution, and why America might miss it, Susan Crawford

Fiber Broadband Association:, https://www.fiberbroadband.org/

https://www.hrgreen.com/articles/top-5-ways-municipal-fiber-networks-can-help-communities-with-resiliency/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3np4a/new-municipal-broadband-map

Next Century Cities and Becoming Fiber Ready – A Community Roadmap and Toolkit:

Becoming Broadband Ready

            What I hope I have done through my writing is point out how our current system as structured has not “valued” the work people have done, as evidenced by the low wages a large swath of people has experienced. My conclusion is that it has been the result of Trickle-Down economics and modern business theory that has told us that the primary purpose of a corporation is to maximize “Shareholder Value”. 

            This focus on shareholder value has emerged right around the time that the general purpose technology behind computers, tablets, and smart phones started to become more of a part of our everyday lives.  Some technologists call this the “great decoupling” where improvements in productivity do not translate into higher wages or an increased demand for jobs. During the Industrial revolution innovations like the steam engine and electricity made it possible to ramp up productivity by deskilling the production of goods. What once was done by a skilled craftsman by hand was done by a machine requiring a human to perform at a lower skill level at a greater scale. In the digital age it introduces a “skills bias” into the system that favors higher skilled technological workers who manage digital tools. This makes those who have acted as the cogs and wheels in our ecosystem to become at risk of being replaced.  Numerous studies say that A.I. will displace workers but the numbers they predict vary widely.  Planning how our society will deal with this is crucial.  PwC estimates that by the year 2030 A.I. will add $15.7 trillion to the global economy. 

            A.I. will first focus on taking over tasks that (1) can be optimized using data, and (2) do not require social interaction.  Unlike the days when the steam engine and electricity empowered more people to perform a task, these tasks will be replaced by intelligent machines.  Those industries where white collar workers perform tasks where they take in information and make decisions or recommendations based on that information with minimal social interaction, those will be the most exposed to being replaced by intelligent machines. Once a Digital algorithm is created it can be freely distributed at little to no cost and updated for free. It can also be used to create a business model where “humans” were never part of the equation (see Smart Finance) as the A.I. and the digital tools will compete against employee heavy competitors, thus leading to a reduction in jobs to remain competitive.

            In 2018, the Consulting Firm, Bain and Company, concluded that by 2030 employers will need 20 to 25 percent fewer employee’s (30 to 40 million U.S. workers). If you factor in automation and wage suppression, then 80% of all workers will be impacted.  Initially most of that impact will be felt in those occupations that can be replaced by A.I. algorithms. Moravec’s paradox says that it is easy for A.I. to mimic high level intellectual or computational abilities of an adult, but it is far harder to give a robot the perception and sensorimotor skills of a toddler. So, unlike the physical automation of the Industrial revolution, white collar, not blue-collar work will be the most at risk in the emerging A.I. economy.

            If A.I. will perform tasks better than humans, then wouldn’t it be wise for us to shift our economic ecosystem to one that elevated those area’s where being “human” is the true value we can add?  Would it be worth it to explore policies that ask the question: “are we more than the sum of our economically productive parts”? Our ecosystem at the moment is running the following program “ the purpose of life is to accumulate and hold onto wealth” and we keep refining and repeating the process. Can we do better?

            In Reading “A.I. Super-Powers, China, Silicon Valley and the New World Order” by Kai Fu Lee I was introduced to the idea of a “Social Investment Stipend”.  The Stipend is a decent government salary given to those who invest their time and energy in those activities that promote a kind, compassionate, and creative society. Three broad categories would be eligible: care work, community service, and education. All pro social activities that leverage our humanity. This New Social Contract would be based on valuing and rewarding socially beneficial activities in the same way we currently reward economically productive activities.  It would not replace the social safety net but serve as a way to provide a respectable income to those who choose to invest their energy in socially productive activities.   His point was that in an age in which intelligent machines have supplanted us as the cogs and gears in the engine of our economy, it makes sense to nurture and value all of these pursuits, so we can build a more humane society. We need to make a lot of progress on this front, because at the moment the two fastest growing professions in the U.S. are Home Health Aides and Personal Care Aides (1.2 million jobs by 2026) that earn an average annual income of just over $20,000 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). I believe we would need to transition into such a system, and it would require us to levy a super tax on digital behemoths that control A.I. (if anti-trust laws are not fundamentally altered).  But exploring such an approach is warranted because in an emerging A.I. economy the smaller number of available jobs will consist of lucrative work for highly skilled technological workers (and those capable of repairing the emerging equipment) and low paying jobs in tough industries. The middle will be hollowed out.  From a policy standpoint we need to work at addressing the current inequalities in our ecosystem, updating the system, and then exploring policy idea’s like the one above that can be beneficial to society. I favor this approach over a Universal Basic Income because a UBI accepts a dystopian future where people simply collect a check without being given an opportunity to contribute pro social energy towards socially beneficial activities.  

            This idea can even extend to Climate Change, where we can create a system where people around the world are empowered to pick up the plastic in their communities in exchange for goods and services. Have people power serve as the grass roots recyclers who will clean up the environment and provide the feed stock to an industry that repurposes and recycles the material to make new products. The concept is called Social Plastic, and it is out there, and businesses are currently trying to implement it.

            Planning for the future requires us to abandon short term, quarter to quarter thinking where we maximize shareholder value and cling too tightly to the “hyper individualism” that is rooted in our culture.  Would it make sense to work at transcending the tribal mindset and move towards a system where we foster a more pro social attitude and attempt to build, nurture, and construct a diverse community that values the “humanity” in us? What would such a system have at its foundation? Unconditional Love!      

A theme in my writing is that vacuum and how we have structured our economic ecosystem in a way that undervalues a large segment of our population and their contributions to it. Most of the time I will try to focus on policy prescription idea’s that might be worth a closer look. Today I want to lay out a few questions that I encourage people to “Chew On” as a friend would say.

• How does the marketing message of “fear” in our economic ecosystem cause the majority of Americans to accept the status quo?

•  How does “conditional love” factor into how we perceive and value citizens in our economic ecosystem?

• How do we weaponize someone’s “vulnerability” in our economic ecosystem, and engage in a zero-sum game in which we compete for limited resources in a system that is based on a scarcity marketing message?  

• Why do we accept low wages when the productivity gains made during the last 40 years should have translated into twice the increase for a majority of its citizens?

• Do we allow our idea of “Hyper-Individualism” get in the way of advocating for more collective action that benefits the majority of citizens and realize that we do better when we work as a team? One team?

• How do we let the inaction of our politicians cause us to throw up our hands, and say why bother? Nothing changes? Both parties put tribe before country and say if you’re not in our tribe, your wrong? Even if an idea might be worth listening to?

• Why do we choose to engage in a race to the bottom? Instead of inspiring, encouraging, and motivating one another to engage in a race to the top?

• Why do we let outer appearances dictate how we behave, react, and interact? Culture, ethnicity, faith create the diversity that should strengthen not weaken U.S.? Finally, do the majority of us appear the same when we view one another as an X-ray technician might? So, how different are we?

• Does reacting to perceived grievances accomplish more than proactively understanding another’s position, and listening and hearing what they might have to say? Attempting to walk in another one’s shoes?

Our system of government in the U.S is not an entitlement. It is a legacy system that is operating on investments made long ago. Every system needs to be nurtured so that it may yield a vibrant and valued community where each person’s contribution matters. A system that creates and provides the space needed for all to maximize that opportunity. History is littered with Empires, Republics, and Systems of government that did not survive the test of time. By encouraging the vacuum, by creating more extreme economic divides, whether spatial or social, are we failing to make the necessary updates to our system? What price will we pay for our short-term thinking?

In my writing you see an attempt to point out a vacuum that is sucking profits to the top. This is the result of a perversion of our capitalist system, through the regulatory capture in Washington D.C., that placed tribe ahead of common sense, and power ahead of common sense solutions that would best serve its citizens. Our democratic system is a laboratory of idea’s that has been perverted and is stuck through intentional inaction on the part of our political leaders. We are not willing to challenge the orthodoxy that is entrenched in our systems, and when you fail to adapt in a system the system will eventually fail or be rendered obsolete.

Two idea’s I have come across, seem like they need to be discussed more. The first is the concept of a negative income tax. A negative income tax is a way to provide people below a certain income threshold with money. If you set an income threshold at $40,000 and the negative income tax was 50%, then someone who made $20,000 would receive $10,000 from the government. If you made $35,000, you would get $2,500 from the government (differs from Universal Basic Income where everyone gets a check). In our current system, a welfare recipient is faced with a harsh reality. By working they lose the economic benefits they receive at a greater % then the income they earn, making them worse not better off. A negative income tax would provide people with cash instead of in kind benefits (allowing them to spend on their priorities) and not be subject to an income penalty, as they would always come out ahead with a higher income. As with every policy, the devil is in the details, but something that should get more serious thought. The Earned Income Tax is a version of this, but the captured Congress has been unable to pass an updated version. The Grow American Incomes Now Act is attempting to do so, but more needs to be done.

The Second Idea is “Medicare for All” is actually a common sense job creation approach that would encourage more entrepreneurship. Three things hold back entrepreneurs: (1) Access to Capital with favorable terms for the entrepreneur, (2) Access to high speed internet without data caps, and (3) the ability to cover healthcare costs while launching a new venture. When we talk about the outsourcing of jobs, globalization, and corporate flight from the U.S. we don’t talk about the way our health care system impacts those decisions. I recently read an article on MCS Industries (maker of picture frames, decorative mirrors and kitschy wall decor) a company that has shifted all of its manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China. It employs 175 U.S. employees and 600 people overseas. The CEO, Richard Masters, argued that one of the main drivers of those moves was the increasing cost of health coverage in the U.S. His argument is that decoupling health care from the workplace would benefit entrepreneurship. I believe he has a point. The amount of money spent on administrative costs, the complexity and skills needed to navigate the system, the ever increasing costs of prescriptions, all demonstrate the current system is in some instances directing more capital to the administration of paper, then directing it towards the costs of the actual services and procedures. We resist such idea’s because 156 million Americans are covered by employer based healthcare and large employers use generous health care policies as a carrot to attract employee’s. It also is the result of regulatory capture, tribal warfare, and an anti government nudge that has been telling Americans that the government can’t be trusted. In 2018, Masters formed the Business Initiative for Health Policy, a non profit group of business leaders, economists and health care policy experts trying to explain the financial benefits of such a system. Today he pays many of his employee’s deductibles, and is making the argument that this idea makes economic sense in our ecosystem. If less money went to an employer’s administration of health care costs, could more dollars find their way into an employee’s paycheck? What impact might that have?

So why do we fight it. First, we are told that if we provide “Medicare for All” that we will get 3rd world service and have to wait in long lines. If we are designing the system, and make prudent fiscal policy that makes expedient service a priority, is there room for us to design a system to greatly reduce this concern? In America, we pride ourselves on being the innovators and creators of great human contributions, so why is it that we “fail” to think big when creating policy prescriptions that would allow us to adapt our Capitalist system for the better? We are in an era where the Capitalist system is being perverted and will only continue to become more extreme if we choose inaction. The billionaire is not the enemy, it is how we have allowed the “rules” of the road to be crafted in a way that our Nations “wealth” is not being used to address our societies problems. We can and must design better systems for people and the infrastructure that is its foundation. Are we ready to place common sense ahead of tribe? People on equal footing with profits? Do you want to nurture an abundant capitalist system that values us all? We are at a fork in the road, so what path do you want to choose?