Bigger Games

The Power of Inner Purpose

Bigger Game: Social Industry

My bigger game is to help existing U.S. industrial, manufacturing and distribution companies grow and continually develop the ideas, solutions, products, services and content and meet the needs of a shifted economy, society and culture. Success is integral in that it benefits in practical ways: individuals, investors, organizations, customers, clients, communities, global economic and environmental recovery…and beyond.

This has nothing to do with protectionism or looking backward. Work itself has become more conceptual as manufacturing is automated and computerized. Robert Reich effectively describes it as “symobolic-analytic” value add, which is invisible and not tangible, but critical to new product development. In fact, the lines are increasingly blurred between products and services. I choose to see that as a great (and evolutionary) thing with which to help manufacturing businesses align.

Any job that’s even slightly routine is disappearing from the U.S. But this doesn’t mean we are left with fewer jobs. It means only that we have fewer routine jobs, including traditional manufacturing. When the U.S. economy gets back on track, many routine jobs won’t be returning — but new jobs will take their place. A quarter of all Americans now work in jobs that weren’t listed in the Census Bureau’s occupation codes in 1967. Technophobes, neo-Luddites and anti-globalists be warned: You’re on the wrong side of history. You see only the loss of old jobs. You’re overlooking all the new ones.

The reason they’re so easy to overlook is that so much of the new value added is invisible. A growing percent of every consumer dollar goes to people who analyze, manipulate, innovate and create. These people are responsible for research and development, design and engineering. Or for high-level sales, marketing and advertising. They’re composers, writers and producers. They’re lawyers, journalists, doctors and management consultants. I call this “symbolic analytic” work because most of it has to do with analyzing, manipulating and communicating through numbers, shapes, words, ideas.

Symbolic-analytic work can’t be directly touched or held in your hands, as goods that come out of factories can be. In fact, many of these tasks are officially classified as services rather than manufacturing. Yet almost whatever consumers buy these days, they’re paying more for these sorts of tasks than for the physical material or its assemblage. On the back of every iPod is the notice “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” You can bet iPod’s design garners a bigger share of the iPod’s purchase price than its assembly. Full article

The intellectually challenging, philosophically diverse and politically provocative macro trends include:

  • current state
  • outlook
  • causes

These philosophical differences and resulting political arguments arising from differing vantage points, are exemplified by two excellent articles that juxtapose the differences.

In conclusion, the data appear to show that the real factor in goods job creation (or loss) is the relationship between productivity and production, which unfortunately leaves little room for protectionism (even sans the trade war implications that would create), as unless productivity falls precipitously we would see no net job creation from any such endeavor.

And just so we don’t define this as a US problem, I will direct you to a conference board study that highlights China’s loss of manufacturing jobs to productivity too.

Here are some general conclusions.

1.) The US still manufactures goods. In fact, the US still manufactures plenty of goods. Take a look at the types of exports in the latest trade data from the Census. It includes exports of industrial supplies, capital goods, autos and consumer goods.

2.) While outsourcing does happen — that is, companies do go overseas to open new factories at the expense of US employees — it is not the primary cause of manufacturing job losses.

3.) Going back to the recent post on employment remember that in this recession the unemployment rate of specific groups was heavily influenced by education level. In fact, according to the BLS, higher education levels (college graduates and above) were remarkably untouched in the latest recession while lower education levels (high school graduates, high school with some secondary education) had higher rates of unemployment. Lower levels of education are typically associated with manufacturing and construction employment — the two areas of jobs that account for the largest percentage of job losses in this recession.

US manufacturing would be greatly helped by two developments.

First, China needs to float its currency. A country that has 10% GDP growth but little currency appreciation is obviously manipulating its currency’s value to a high degree. Given China’s growth rate, investors should be flocking to China driving up the yuan’s value. That is not happening. A real free-floating currency would cure a lot of the trade deficit problems.

Secondly, there have been calls for a US industrial policy — that is, for Washington to essentially “pick winners and losers” by promoting some industries that they feel have a high probability of success. Asian countries have been doing this for years with remarkable success and it is a policy which we clearly need to copy. I’m a big promoter of nano-technology, alternative energy and stem cell research, but those are just my choices. There are plenty others out there that would also make sense. Link for Full Article

To close the trade gap and rebuild manufacturing will required a coherent trade and industrial strategy. We must end currency manipulation by China and other Asian countries, aggressively attack unfair trade practices and rebuild manufacturing. We also need to create at least 4 to 5 million jobs in the rest of the economy to help end the recession, and rebuild demand for manufactured products. These are topics for another day. That discussion should start by acknowledging that productivity growth is a key source of strength and competitiveness in manufacturing, and is not responsible for manufacturing job loss.

*The exception was the period from 1979-1989, when the trade deficit also soared and manufacturing employment also dropped. This was also caused by an over-valued currency, which was corrected by the 1985 Plaza Accord. Subsequently, the trade deficit declined and manufacturing employment stabilized. Full Article

So although the analysis is important, what matters to me is now: what I believe about US manufacturing and how I can meet the industry, businesses and people where they are right now.
Bigger Game Back-Story
I was a strategy consultant at the height of Web 1.0 and the dot-com boom of the mid-nineties. Over lunch one day, I shared some stories of my former career as a controller, and subsequently a partner in specialized machine-tool businesses. Most of the employees of the consulting firm came from software and publishing industries and were curious about industrial manufacturing. While looking through one of the brochures of the equipment we manufactured and advanced materials we worked with, one of the web architects commented “you sure have come a long way, Mary”.

I initially resented his comment but eventually realized that it didn’t come from arrogance, but from lack of experience or understanding of the importance of traditional industry, engineering and manufacturing to the future of the U.S. That was when I decided that my bigger game was to use my new technology, media and marketing learning, skills and experience to support the eventual resurgence of U.S. manufacturing, industry and distribution.

The time is now.

Bigger Game: Youth Awareness & Entrepreneurship

My Bigger Game is to create content and curriculum to educate youth “tweens” (age 7-13) about self-awareness and entrepreneurship. Success translates to:

  • Learning and applying practical tools and techniques in business of their choice.
  • Self-leadership embodiment through taking co-creative responsibility for their livelihoods and futures in a shifted world.
  • Exposure to critical reasoning and integral philosophy to fully understand the potential and the consequences of what they do for: themselves, their families, their communities, society, the environment and beyond.

What I observed, as parent and now grandparent, is that young kids absolutely love critical reasoning and thinking. It was great to read that others, experts, shared my conclusion in this recent NYT article:

Professor Lipman’s view opposed that of the child-development theorist Jean Piaget, who asserted that children under 12 were not capable of abstract reasoning. He and others, including Gareth Matthews, a professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, concluded that their curiosity and sense of wonder make children ripe for philosophic inquiry.

“The world is new to them and they want to figure things out,” says Professor Matthews, who has written extensively about children and philosophy. “Young children very often engage in reasoning that professional philosophers can recognize as philosophical, but typically their parents or teachers don’t react in a way that encourages them. They might say, ‘That’s cute,’ but they don’t engage the children in thinking further about whatever the issue is.”

In 1974, Professor Lipman, now 87, started the Institute for the Advancement of Philosophy for Children at Montclair State University, which has since developed curriculum materials that have been translated into more than 40 languages and used in more than 60 countries. But American public schools have been slow to embrace philosophy for children; while outreach programs are offered by a handful of universities — among them the University of Washington andCalifornia State University, Long Beach — many school officials either find the subject too intimidating or believe it does not fit with the test-driven culture of public education these days.

“Our current educational system is about standards and efficiency,” says Joe Oyler, programs coordinator for the institute at Montclair State. “It’s not fast and it’s not clean. We help children become comfortable with ambiguity and responding to it, so it’s tough to fit in.” Full Article

Bigger Game Back-Story
I’m fortunate to have many wonderful kids in my life including from when I was a young kid and the first-born of 8. I was an entrepreneur by age 7 and was always looking for ways to make and sell things and services. But there was little support or nurturing and we were pretty much on our own. As I move through mid-life, I realize I’m happiest and most fulfilled when I’m generative, described by George Vaillant as “to function as society’s ‘keepers of the meaning’.”

At this point in my life I have the awareness, desire and proximity to children to witness the positive effects of a generative adult. What most amazes me is how responsive and enthusiastic they are to learning about business, critical reasoning, their inner life and a multi-dimensional worldview.

There are excellent entrepreneurship and personal development programs for teenagers but I’m convinced that much younger kids, the tween / youth demographic, roughly 7 to 13 years old is a perfect age for the combination of entrepreneurial learning and generative support.

Bigger Game: Conscious Grandparenting

Video:
Dr. George Vaillant shares insights from his decades of following the Grant Study men.