Average is over, Luddites, and America's Broken Bootstraps: an extended reflection

In a 2012 column in the New York Times entitled "Average is Over," Thomas Friedman argues: 

"In the past, workers with average skills, doing an average job, could earn an average lifestyle. But, today, average is officially over. Being average just won’t earn you what it used to. It can’t when so many more employers have so much more access to so much more above average cheap foreign labor, cheap robotics, cheap software, cheap automation and cheap genius. Therefore, everyone needs to find their extra — their unique value contribution that makes them stand out in whatever is their field of employment. Average is over."
According to Friedman, technology, automation, a hyper-connected world, and growing competition from abroad all contribute to an increasingly demanding world for those looking to earn a living and sustain themselves. Over and over he repeats: "average is over," and that sustaining lifestyles which once came easy will increasingly demand more. 

In a column from the same newspaper earlier this month, Paul Krugman expresses "sympathy for the Luddites," a broad term encompassing, "a member of any of various bands of workers in England (1811–16) organized to destroy manufacturing machinery, under the belief that its use diminished employment" (Source).

As quoted by Mr. Krugman, many petitioners at the time asked, "'How are those men, thus thrown out of employ, to provide for their families?...And what are they to put their children apprentice to?'"

While Mr. Krugman admits the mechanization of British industry in the late 18th century eventually raised living standards for citizens in general, he argues that current trends are different from those affecting the early Luddites. According to Krugman, "conventional wisdom" today holds that increasingly higher levels of education shield one from job losses associated with automation and global competition. Yet citing research from the International Labor Organization and The McKinsey Global Institute, Krugman suggests the notion that education protects employment and income is flawed: that not only is labor's share of profits falling, but also that technology is advancing so quickly that many skilled professions may soon be replaced by machines and computers. So while we can "educate" ourselves and learn an in-demand skill, the window during which that skill is remunerative may prove very small indeed.

These points all bring us to a column published today by George Will in the Washington Post, entitled "America's Broken Bootstraps." Much like Messrs Friedman and Krugman, Mr. Will admits to an "increasingly demanding world," from which he argues that in such circumstances, inequality of wealth, income, and education all become exacerbated. Citing Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute, Mr. Will claims this is due to the increasing complexity of society, which "...intensifies the demands on mental abilities," and lead, "People [to] invest increasingly in human capital — especially education — because status and achievement increasingly depend on possession of the right knowledge."


At the root of his argument, Mr. Will points to what seems to be a very important (and often torn) thread of America's bootstraps: the family. From the start, Will brings out Friedrich Hayek's argument from "The Constitution of Liberty" (1960) that "...families are the primary transmitters of human capital — habits, mores, education," and that, "...families, much more than other social institutions or programs, are determinative of academic and vocational success." Later Mr. Will cites Lindsey again, who relates research suggesting, "'...by the time they reach age 3, children of professional parents have heard some 45 million words addressed to them — as opposed to only 26 million words for working-class kids, and a mere 13 million words in the case of kids on welfare.'" Explicitly then, Will argues that family matters; implicitly, that the institution is broken, and plays a part in the inequality we see in society today.


Will raises some interesting points. Chief among them is the notion that context - particularly one's immediate and local context - can have a large influence on one's future trajectory. Where a family lives, how it engages with its children, and what sorts of habits it inculcates in the young, all play a role in development and attitudes toward life. On 18 June, ScienceDaily summarized a paper in the International Journal of Obesity which found that, "Kids whose moms encourage them to exercise and eat well, and model those healthy behaviors themselves, are more likely to be active and healthy eaters." Engaged role-models do seem to provide an advantage for children, one that often grows enormously over time. If average is really over, as Mr. Friedman suggests, then these are the children who should thrive in a future of increasingly limited opportunities for anyone but the brightest and/or best placed. 


Yet I also find Mr. Will's argument problematic, as I do most "bootstrap" arguments. Context is important, but little is made in them of individual potential. Mr. Will begins his column with a couplet from an old colonial almanac reading, "All men are by nature equal, but differ greatly by the sequel." Yet in terms of nature and nurture, it seems this cannot be true. And yes, nature-nurture does not play out as a dualism in reality, but as an interaction where each affects the other. Be that as it may, everyone is born with different genetic predispositions and potentials; and as Mr. Will's column makes clear, different environments. There is also the biological effect of past generations on their off-spring. Consider for instance the off-spring of survivors of the Dutch famine of 1944, who were born smaller than average, and proved "...more susceptible to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, mircroalbuminuria, and other health problems" (Source). As it turns out, the grandchildren of those survivors also experienced such problems. Mr. Will makes clear "the sequel" is different (and decisive) for everyone, but can we really say then that "all men are by nature equal," even from a biological perspective? 


Whatever the potential one has, however, a stimulating, engaging context is where it is likely to emerge and be met. I actually suspect, for better and worse, that almost no one reaches these levels. But I also think Will's argument, while acknowledging an increasingly demanding world, does not address how the United States (or any country) and its citizens will continue to grow and prosper in a world with so few remunerative opportunities. 
So what are we to do, faced as we are with these potentially-looming problems? In his column discussed above, Paul Krugman almost gives up on the issue, advocating for, "...a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income."


On the other hand, Thomas Friedman argues that:
"... the world does not care what you know. Everything is on Google. The world only cares, and will only pay for, what you can do with what you know...We’re moving to a more competency-based world where there will be less interest in how you acquired the competency — in an online course, at a four-year-college or in a company-administered class — and more demand to prove that you mastered the competency."

In this vein, Mr. Friedman supports new avenues through which valued skills can be acquired, assessed, and credential; that while the current university model has value, the grades and diplomas these institutions award may no longer be sufficient signals for employers to judge employee competence. If someone learns how to code by watching online lectures and practicing on their own, let's offer them a way to get credentialed that doesn't require university attendance and tuition.

From George Will's column we get not so much a proposal as a prognosis. A complex world, he believes, leaves many behind, and those it does can't catch up because America's boot-straps are broken. Kids from working-class and welfare-recipient families are developmentally behind their professional-led family peers as soon as age 3, and the gap only rises as "assortative mating" (like marrying like) concentrates class advantages and exacerbates inequality. Clearly a college education has earning-power advantages, but college students today study only half as long as their peers in 1961, and universities go easy on them anyway, in that half of students today take classes where less than 20 pages of writing is required of them. Those who succeed are those who master today's complexity, and those who have the right family more often than not fall into this category. 


Mr. Will makes a good point regarding socioeconomic status, but his point is nothing new. I think Mr. Krugman gives up too easily, settling for an enhanced safety-net and a minimum income for all while discounting the possibility that revolutions in automation and innovation might one day spur revolutions in labor, and the means by which individuals and families sustain themselves. Who knows, perhaps automation will compel people to take greater care of the money they have, investing more of it in assets that accrue value over time rather than lose it. I'm personally sympathetic to the early-retirement/financial independence movement espoused by Mr. Money Mustache and others, who advocate saving and investing large percentages of one's yearly income until such time as one's passive income equals or exceeds one's expenses. It's not an easy path, but seems to build real wealth for those who manage it. A job becomes a luxury rather than necessity, which could be an advantage in a jobs-poor, automation-rich future world. 

Which is changing, and fast. Average is seemingly over. Education is becoming essential, and increasingly expensive. What you can do matters more than what you know, and perhaps who you know and who your parents were matter even more. It is a complicated issue, touching subjects as diverse as immigration, healthcare, and education. I don't know where the world is going, but I like to think we'll find a way to make it work. We'll need to be creative probably, and optimistic too. I expect many people in school today will work jobs someday that don't yet exist. We shall see where this goes.

Useful Websites: Salman Khan's "Khan Academy"

About 9 months ago, I stumbled upon a list of websites a blogger found useful for homeschooling his children. I was curious and checked them out one by one. Most were tacky, or cutesy and made for younger folks (makes sense). I suspect most would actually fit well into a home-school curriculum for an elementary to middle-school aged child, with games, quizzes, and instant feed-back. One website, however, caught my attention, and has held it ever since. 

It's called Khan Academy, a non-profit educational web-service founded by Salman Khan in 2006. Originally an analyst at a hedge-fund, Mr. Khan began his education career tutoring cousins over long distance using Yahoo! doodle pad. He then put these tutorials on Youtube, which grew so popular that he eventually quit his hedge-fund job and started making video tutorials full-time. Ranging from basic arithmetic to differential calculus, geometry, algebra, statistics, chemistry, biology, physics, finance, healthcare, programming, astronomy, history, test-prep, and more, the website has over 4,200 video tutorials and exercises, all available for free. 

I have personally reviewed videos relating to statistics and chemistry while taking those classes, and found them exceedingly helpful. The format allows for self-paced learning, such that one can repeat videos as many times as needed, and go back and review older concepts that did not stick the first time. I remember taking physics several years ago, and finding how costly forgetting certain algebra and trig rules could be when the subjects became complex. Being able to go back and review those concepts might have made a huge difference. Now that I know about the resource and use it frequently, I feel more confident taking on challenging classes in the fields of science and mathematics. 

Now some may argue that video lectures are a form of dehumanizing education, but Mr. Khan makes a convincing argument to the contrary. If anything, he says, video tutorials actually humanize education, because they "flip the classroom," making more time available in class for individualized attention. When he says "flip the classroom," he means having most of the lecturing done at home, while having what is traditionally considered "homework" done in class, with peers and teachers close at hand to advise, direct, and answer questions. Within this model, the "one-size-fits-all" lecture is done through a video tutorial that can be repeated as many times as need be, and linked to other tutorials on related or important concepts (such as algebra and trig functions from my example with physics). By taking most of the lecturing out of the school day, more time is then available for interaction and applied problem-solving. 

It's an interesting concept, and I'll be curious to see how it pans out in time (check on this youtube video for a 2011 talk by Mr. Khan on the subject). But the main reason I'm writing about this eminently useful website is just that...it's useful! Given time, an internet connection, and some patience, one can teach themselves all the mathematics most of us will ever want to know (or if current labor-market trends continue, need to know), or gain  an enlarged understanding of some of the major fields of human inquiry today. As a tool for school-aged kids, it's like having a first-rate tutor available on demand...for free. For adults who want or need to go back to school, it can serve a similar function. So if you're struggling with a math, science, finance, or economics (or humanities, though I haven't examined those videos closely as yet), or just feel like learning something new, Khan Academy is a fun, free, and effective tool for meeting those needs. 

A reflection on laziness

In an interesting book of the mid 19th century, Scottish author and editor Samuel Smiles describes and expounds upon what some have labelled the gospel of hard work. Entitled Self-Help (1855), the book begins with an elucidation of principles (excerpt here), followed by numerous stories of how industry and labor made the reputations and fortunes of artists, scientists, industrialists, and many others of the preceding century. I often find the book invigorating, useful for summoning motivation and energy to do a difficult task. Yet for all the value one derives from hard work, I find at times the need to arrest this tendency to labor, and for a time become lazy and content with everything as it is. One may argue the contrary,of course, but my experience suggests there is value both in laziness and labor, each in their season - and that a person who knows how to work but not relax is as disadvantaged as one who knows how to relax but not to work. 

Consider the utility of sleep, an activity which all animals appear to need. While outwardly a person may look idle, a great many things of value are going on inside. For example, one research study found extended sleep correlated with increased alertness and reduced pain sensitivity. Both traits proved useful for individuals suffering from chronic pain conditions, or those preparing to enter surgery.  Another study from the University of Tübingen suggests sleep helps children "transform sub-consciously learned material into active knowledge;" that in other words, the development of explicit knowledge is supported by processes at work during sleep. Finally,  University of Lancaster researchers Ut Na Sio, Padraic Monaghan and Tom Ormerod found in a study last year that a group of sleepers solved more complex problems than those who tried solving them while awake. Both groups solved simpler problems in comparable numbers, but the trends diverged as the complexity of the problems increased. Attempting to explain these results, Padraic Monaghan states:

"We've known for years that sleep has a profound effect on our ability to be creative and find new solutions to problems. Our study shows that this sleep effect is greatest when the problems facing us are difficult. Sleep appears to help us solve problems by accessing information that is remote to the initial problem, that may not be initially brought to mind. Sleep has been proposed to 'spread activation' to the solution that is initially distant from our first attempts at the problem. The advice stemming from this and related research is to leave a problem aside if you're stuck, and get some sleep if it's a really difficult problem."

The benefits of sleep seem numerous and understood increasingly by the day, yet that does not prevent it from acquiring shades of a lazy reputation. For example, Proverbs 19:15 reads, "Slothfulness casts into a deep sleep, and an idle person will suffer hunger." In English, we have the idiom "burning the candle at both ends," which roughly means working late into the night, and again early the next morning - in other words, crowding out sleep to work more. Based on the stories he tells in Self-Help, I have no doubt Samuel Smiles would have approved of this use of candles. As we have seen, however, time spent asleep is not time wasted, and does seem to have a vital function. Yet for those who have difficulty winding down, sleep does not come easy. Anxiety, stress, and an insufficient capacity to relax all appear to reduce the amount and quality of this wholesome activity, and in time makes us less productive rather than more. 

But judging a thing by its capacity to improve productivity seems a narrow perspective from which to render value. At different times, hard work and easy-goingness both seem to contribute to our sense of well-being. For example, if I have a task that needs to get done (a paper to write, a room to clean, or an application to finish), hard work more than laziness serves to put my mind at ease. Even if I leave the task only half-completed, the start provides positive feed-back that often makes finishing the task easier. On the other hand, taking an idle approach to these sorts of problems only makes them  grow, at least in my own mind, and may lend credence to Samwise Gamgee's line in The Fellowship of the Ring, "It's the job that's never started as takes longest to finish."

Again, one would probably find Smiles nodding with agreement; in a go-go society like our own, we hear arguments like this all the time. But sometimes it may be better to do too little rather than too much. According to Kenny Moore in Bowerman and the Men of Oregon (2006), this idea served as the "credo" of Bowerman's coaching philosophy, that it was "...better to underdo than overdo," and that a coach should train "individuals, not teams" (p. 91).   

A little laziness can keep us from overdoing. It can provide a respite from the unforgiving schedule of ceaseless labor. Too often we hear laziness derided as a pure vice, a thing to be avoided at all costs; as the saying goes, "the devil finds work for idle hands." But a tendency to idle can become a moment to think, to reflect, or to recover. It can be a way to save ourselves from our own and others' abstract notions of what is good. And yes, it can be to our detriment too. But so can a tendency to always be at work. Perhaps to work one must rest, and to rest one must work - a two sided coin whose sides are not given equal shrift. Perhaps each has its place, in its own season and time.

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven."

-Ecclesiastes 3:1

"Fill your bowl to the brim and it will spill.
Keep sharpening your knife
and it will blunt.
Chase after money and security
and your heart will never unclench.
Care about people's approval
and you will be their prisoner."

-Tao-Te-Ching

Of the potential in small things

An oft-quoted line from the Tao-Te-Ching  reads:

"The giant pine tree grows from a tiny sprout.
 A journey of a thousand miles starts from beneath your feet." 

From this line we derive a simple and similarly common logic: that all large things begin small; all complex things, simple; and all long things with a single unit of measure. From small things come big results, if allowed to accumulate. This is a simple, intuitive idea, yet often forgotten or ignored.

Why do we so often neglect what, on the surface, would seem an eminently useful idea? Do we feel the weariness of each step despite only keeping the next step, rather than the full distance, in mind? I could understand this position, having experienced it during my first marathon. Step no. 1 felt much easier than, say, step no. 28,709. Muscles get tired, and the brain does too at some point, so that the next step feels irrelevant compared to finishing the bloody distance. On the other hand, breaking down the remaining distance into smaller pieces did seem to help. Let's get to the next mile marker I imagined (or perhaps said aloud, I can hardly remember). Then when I got there, I made for the next one. I didn't feel much more energized by the exercise, but it kept me going long enough to reach a point where the finish line was at first figuratively and later literally in sight. So in this case, the idea helped me make modest goals, which once achieved put me in a position to achieve the big goal of "finishing the bloody distance." A marathon can be many things, but the most helpful for me at the time was as a collection of miles and kilometers that one covers a unit at a time.

As another example, two summers ago I wanted to get some regular practice writing, so I started writing approximately one page a day in a notebook on any topic, idea, or feeling which came to mind. Almost two years later, I'm nearly at the end of a third notebook, and look forward to spending a little time each day turning thoughts into words. By keeping each day's entry at approximately a page, I found the habit an easy one to keep, and in time, an enjoyable one too.

Finally, there is my habit of picking up coins from the ground, as the toshers of old used to do in the sewers beneath 19th century London. The idea here is that finding a few cents a day means one has a few dollars by year's end; from small things come bigger results. Average a modest $0.10 per day, and in a year one has $36.50. Over a decade that's $365.00. Invest each year's findings, and now each dollar found generates interest, dividend payments, or some other return. The values here are small, but the point is that every dollar you'll ever earn is composed of 100 cents, and cents piled on cents make dollars, which in turn are resources you can use to live however you like. For me then, picking up coins makes a lot of sense (and cents).

From these examples, I think some notable ideas emerge on whether we appreciate or ignore the power of small things in particular instances. In the marathon example, telling myself each step meant I was closer to finishing proved largely academic. Sure a marathon begins with a single step, but deep into the race, when all I want to do is stop and sit down, this idea has little value. Change the idea slightly, however, and the result may differ. In my case, a mile as well as marathon begin with a single step, so if I could finish one mile, I'd be in a good position to finish the next. Imagining things in this way got me to a point where the finishing the marathon finally seemed like something I could do. As an old man remarked on the post-race train-ride home, "I don't run 26 miles; I run 1 mile 26 times."

In the example on writing, I decided that a little writing is better than none at all, so that if I only wrote a page a day, I'd still get practice. This easily achieved daily mark, rather than some force of will on my part, is perhaps the chief reason I kept with the habit long enough to enjoy it. Set the bar low enough, and one can hardly make an excuse to leave the task undone.

And finally from the coin example, simple accumulation--even of very small parts--eventually grows into something larger. It's easy to ignore such small things when they're small, but as with an acorn each contains all the requisite properties to make a giant of creation, be it an oak tree or an abundant stash of cash.

The passage from the Tao Te Ching which began this post reminds us of both the power and potential  within small things. It's neither a secret nor piece of abstruse philosophy, just an observation that we all see but do not always remember. Yet as the above examples are meant to suggest, using it requires a certain amount of thought to make them more than fine-sounding words. There is potential in small things, but knowing the fact does not make that potential so.

I must...

I've been wondering lately how often people think in terms of "I must [insert something here]." You probably have an idea what I mean. Consider some examples:

"I must date this girl or that guy." 
"I must attend this or that school." 
"I must travel to this or that exotic place."
"I must make more money than my parents."
"I must change the world."

It seems a strange figure of speech when framed that way. "Must" is such a strong word after all, denoting a rigid requirement, obligation, or imperative need. For example, to live I must eat - perhaps not now, but at some point. It's true of other things less fundamental, too; for example, to read, I must know how. It's a requirement, something you need to have or know how to do in order to fulfill the preceding condition.

Yet in daily thought and speech, we seem to use this word "must" in relation to things that may not always be requirements. Furthermore, they come to mind without a clearly defined preceding condition which requires something to alter it.

Consider again the first example above - "I must date this girl or that guy." Why must you date them? Nothing in that statement gives a reason you "must" do anything of the sort. It's like saying " I must eat" without including reasons; "because I am hungry" for instance, or "so I will continue to live." Hunger suggests a need for food, and eating is a requirement of life. So if one would continue living, one will sometimes eat.

But what is the rigid requirement in dating this girl or that guy?  Perhaps one wishes to marry? For some people, dating must precede marriage, so strictly speaking if one wishes to marry a specific guy or girl, he or she must date them first.

But why must it be this or that specific guy or girl? How does one know this Leanna or Harold might be a good marriage partner if one has never dated them? One doesn't - one must date them first to find out. But why date them if from the start their suitability for marriage is unknown? Ultimately one might conclude "I must date this girl or that guy, to see whether they might be someone I'd like to marry," but it doesn't provide insight into which specific person one should date in the first place. It only suggests that dating is a tool for determining suitable marriage partners.

I think the main point in this whole discussion is that when we use the phrase "I must...," critical thinking is aided if reasons for the requirement we make for ourselves are kept in mind, and mindfully examined. Why must I attend this specific school, if not for a specific reason? If we say, " I must attend Harvard because Harvard is a famous school," does that have the makings of an imperative need? "I must earn more money than my parents, because that is progress. We're better off than the previous generation." Yet is it, and are we really?

There do seem to be things in life we must do, if only because by doing them we initiate a favorable outcome. Without an outcome in mind, however, "I must" statements lack a critical dimension of meaning - they don't tell us why this particular task is so imperative Filling in those gaps may help one discern what must be done, and perhaps what is less essential. That's a good thing, right?