DailyDirt: What Will The Robot Economy Look Like?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Algorithms have already quietly crept into nearly every part of our lives, helping us to search the internet and connect with friends and to find matching personalities for dates. Soon, we'll have cars that drive us -- and some old Yakov Smirnoff jokes won't make any sense. But how will people adapt to a 'robot economy' where everything is done by robots -- and we can't even play games without knowing that the computers are just letting us win?

• Robots are taking over, and we still haven't quite figured out how to tame them if they do decide to turn on us when they cross the uncanny valley. They're supposed to make our lives easier, but we might want to decide what that really means before we're trapped in feeding pens. [url]
• Is China embracing robots by planning for millions of low-skill workers to be replaced by machines? China wants to retain its manufacturing dominance through 2025 with automation efforts that could keep manufacturing costs low and improve productivity. But if future robots are capable of doing more dexterous tasks, presumably they should be able to do them anywhere (and closer to the market where manufactured goods are actually bought). [url]
• Will automation create jobs or just destroy them? Tech optimists seem to think that we're headed for a life of leisure as robots take over menial tasks and open up more careers that require compassion, creativity and leadership skills. Maybe we'll have more philosophers and physicists -- and basic income guarantees in a Star Trek-like future. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: algorithms, basic income guarantee, labor, manufacturing, productivity, robot economy, robots

DailyDirt: Ingredients For Creative Environments

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are many, many studies on creativity and possible ways to improve the creative output of a group. Monetary incentives are often presented as a way to get people to produce more ideas, but some studies show that money isn't actually a great motivator. Obviously, there are a lot of factors that can influence how creative people are, but it would be nice to isolate a few and see if we can eliminate some practices that are downright detrimental to creativity. It would be great if we found out what really could inspire people, but maybe we shouldn't put too much pressure on the researchers... because that might dampen their productivity.

• Do "politically correct" rules in a workplace stifle creativity? An experiment asked people to brainstorm in groups, with some groups doing a politically correct exercise (and control groups that did not), and mixed gender groups with politically correct training seemed to be more creative. [url]
• If you think alcohol gives you a little creative boost, there's some research that says a blood alcohol level of 0.075% is the sweet spot. You could self-medicate with any alcoholic beverage, but there's a beer brand that has figured out some of the math already -- so you can just drink its "Problem Solver" beer and get to your creative peak with less hassle. [url]
• Will a culture that is more individualistic produce more creative people than a society that favors collectivism? Another brainstorming experiment showed that individualists might come up with more ideas, but collectivists came up with higher quality ideas. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: alcohol, beer, brainstorm, creativity, culture, ideas, incentives, insights, inspiration, politically correct, problem solver, productivity, workplace

DailyDirt: Getting Ahead Is Getting Harder

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

More and more stories about economic inequality appear to be written more frequently. There are all sorts of statistics about the 1% versus the other 99% and how much wealth the top 1% controls compared to the rest of the population. The numbers vary all over the world. Russia apparently has 110 individuals who control 35% of the country's wealth, while worldwide, the top 1% controls 39% of the world's wealth. If you're not feeling rich now, check out a few of these links if you have the spare time.

• Is overtime pay really that important for middle class prosperity? Decades ago, American workers earned more time-and-a-half pay than they do today, and there's a billionaire who points out that raising the overtime threshold income to $69,000 (from $23,660) would bring back overtime pay rules to over 10 million workers. [url]
• A few retailers like Costco, Trader Joe's and QuikTrip pay their workers more than other low-cost retail firms. But can productivity gains from hiring and treating employees better actually work across the retail sector? [url]
• Between 1997 and 2013, childcare providers' wages hardly grew at all, according to the National Child Care Staffing Study. It may not be too surprising to see that childcare workers earn near poverty-level wages, but it's a bit disconcerting to see that adults who take care of animals earn more. [url]
• It costs money to save money, so it's not so easy to bootstrap your way out of poverty. Getting sick, having a car break down, getting a parking ticket... are all unlucky events that could ruin your life if you have no savings and a low-paying job. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: childcare providers, income gap, inequality, middle class, overtime pay, poor, poverty, productivity, rich, savings, wages, wealth
Companies: costco, quiktrip, trader joe's

DailyDirt: Improving Productivity

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are only so many hours in a day. It'd be great to be able to get more done in less time, and people are always looking for easy (or any!) solutions that might boost their productivity. Some folks try polyphasic sleep schedules to try to get more waking hours, but that's cheating. (Sleeping less is probably not healthy, either.) Here are just a few other stories about changes that you can try to get more things done.

• Coffitivity claims that ambient noise (like the kind from a local coffee shop) can increase creativity with "enough noise to work." Rooms that are too quiet can be distracting, and obviously, rooms that are too loud can impair mental focus and concentration -- and there's some research to back it up. [url]
• Pixar's headquarters is designed with all the bathrooms in the atrium -- so that employees from different departments might have more opportunities to mingle. Hopefully, though, people aren't discussing their work projects while taking care of other business.... [url]
• The Hawthorne Effect was named after a set of studies at the Hawthorne plant in the 1920s -- where increased productivity was observed when the factory lights were brightened OR darkened. Basically, the workers were more productive, not because of the lighting changes, but because they realized their bosses were checking on them. (The dramatic effect of changing the lighting was apparently fictional, but the Hawthorne Effect is still a phenomenon that researchers try to account for when designing psychological studies.) [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: creativity, design, distractions, employees, hawthorne effect, management, noise, productivity, work
Companies: coffitivity, pixar

Study: Viewing Cat Videos At Work Can Make You More Productive

from the who-comes-up-with-these? dept

For many, many years, we've pointed out just how silly all those studies are that claim that any time not directly spent working -- such as on "personal surfing" -- was somehow lost productivity. Companies who sold filters to businesses often would put out these exaggerated "studies" that extrapolated the amount of time that people spend doing "non-work" things at work, multiply it by an average employee's hourly salary, and claim that much money was "lost productivity." That number is obviously bogus. First of all, it doesn't take into account the amount of time people spend "working" when they're not at the office either (many of us check our emails, for example, while at home). It also ignores the much more important point that productivity is not an exact relationship to time worked in many jobs. In fact, being non-stop focused on work every minute of the day can certainly be a drag on productivity, because it doesn't give your brain time off to process stuff, and doesn't give you a good way to focus in on what you need to do.

Finally, there's a study to help point this out... and it does so in the most internet-awesome way imaginable. The study has found that staring at cute images can actually help productivity:

Performance indexed by the number of successful trials increased after viewing cute images (puppies and kittens; M ± SE = 43.9±10.3% improvement) more than after viewing images that were less cute (dogs and cats; 11.9±5.5% improvement). In the second experiment, this finding was replicated by using a non-motor visual search task. Performance improved more after viewing cute images (15.7±2.2% improvement) than after viewing less cute images (1.4±2.1% improvement). Viewing images of pleasant foods was ineffective in improving performance (1.2±2.1%).... Results show that participants performed tasks requiring focused attention more carefully after viewing cute images. This is interpreted as the result of a narrowed attentional focus induced by the cuteness-triggered positive emotion that is associated with approach motivation and the tendency toward systematic processing.

I love academic speak trying to basically say "seeing cute animals makes you happy, and helps you focus" and turning it into: "a narrowed attentional focus induced by the cuteness-triggered positive emotion that is associated with approach motivation and the tendency toward systematic processing." Either way, while the study really only focused on "cute" images, it didn't take long for people to (perhaps reasonably) extrapolate the findings to cat videos as well.

So, in the interest of helping your productivity, we offer the following:


Your boss can thank me later.

Filed Under: cat pictures, cat videos, cuteness, productivity, studies

Microsoft 'Anti-Piracy' Campaign Explains Why It's Bad For Businesses To Pay For Microsoft Software

from the i-don't-get-it dept

In the distant past, Microsoft used to be willing to admit that -- especially in developing countries -- the company was significantly better off due to infringement. Bill Gates famously said: "As long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." More recently, of course, Microsoft has been increasingly aggressive when it comes to its anti-piracy campaigns. The company recently did a PR stunt around Global Play Fair Day, in which it released a study, done by Keystone Strategy, which I think is supposed to explain the importance of not infringing. However, the message that it actually seems to be sending is: "paying for Microsoft software is bad for business."

I'm not joking.

The key point that we learn is that companies in Brazil, Russia, India and China "ultimately have a $1.6 billion (U.S.) competitive advantage over companies that play fair by using genuine software." In other words, if you pay for our software, you're at a competitive disadvantage. Some of the other points from the press release, which only seem to drive this point home further:

• Piracy creates more than $2.9 billion of competitive disadvantage per year across manufacturers in Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe and Asia-Pacific regions.
• In specific countries, Keystone determined how much pirated software harms manufacturers playing by the rules as follows: Brazil ($186 million), Russia ($115 million), India ($505 million), and China ($837 million).
• Over a five-year software life cycle, manufacturing companies in BRIC countries will lose more than $8.2 billion to their cheating competitors.
• There are more than 4.1 million PCs legally licensed by manufacturing firms that play by the rules in China. The competitive disadvantage to these firms amounts to about $837 million annually, or $4.18 billion over the typical five-year software life cycle.
• Indian manufacturers experience $505 million per year in competitive harm. Their pirating competitors could use this money to hire more than 215,000 new employees.

That last one seems to be saying: "pirating software creates jobs!" Again, the overall takeaway from this appears to be that paying for Microsoft software is bad for business, puts you at a competitive disadvantage and is going to cost you millions. I guess kudos for the honesty, but I'm sorta confused as to why Microsoft is sending out this kind of message. Well, chances are that it's part of a push to influence not companies, but policymakers to "crack down." But, even so, it's an odd campaign. If not paying for software gives you such a huge advantage, couldn't this also be interpreted as a massive promotional campaign for free and open source software?

Filed Under: bric, competitive advantage, infringement, piracy, productivity
Companies: microsoft

No, Angry Birds Is Not Costing $1.5 Billion In Lost Productivity

from the can-we-get-the-mighty-eagle-to-smash-this-ridiculousness? dept

Every so often we hear various stories about how this or that online "thing" is "costing $x billions in lost productivity." For years it was "personal surfing" at work was costing billions. Then things like March Madness. Or even just "keeping up with the data stream." The latest killer of productivity? You guessed it. It's Angry Birds. Prisoner 201 sent in the news that people are now calculating the lost productivity from Angry Birds. Of course, in the past, most of these stories tended to come from companies (conveniently) selling filtering software. This time it just seems like some reporters looking for a story.

But, of course, this is ridiculous. While I have no doubt that there are some people who get sucked into playing Angry Birds and don't get their work done, that's an issue for that employer and that employee. It's not Angry Birds causing the lack of productivity. It's the employee. The bigger issue, of course, is the basic assumption here that hours equals productivity. If so, you could equally argue that commuting and sleeping are massive killers of productivity, because that's also time that is spent not working. While it does depend on the type of job, many jobs do not involve a constant level of productivity. In fact, many jobs have ebbs and flows of productivity, and that's a good thing. Letting someone play Angry Birds to clear their mind for a bit could, conceivably be good for productivity. What if they're struggling with a hard problem and working on it just isn't getting anything done... but taking a break and starting again clears things up?

Considering that other studies have shown that trusting your employees to do their jobs creates happier, more loyal and more productive workforces, perhaps we shouldn't be so worried about people playing Angry Birds, rather than going out for a smoke or hanging out at the water cooler. If they get their job done, they're productive.

Filed Under: angry birds, productivity

Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation

from the disruption-and-broken-windows dept

There's been a ton of talk from politicians lately about the importance of "creating jobs." This comes from both major political parties, of course. We've seen the Democrats jump heavily on the jobs agenda and the Republicans have been hyping up their ability to create jobs as well. A few months ago, This American Life produced a fantastic episode on the hilariousness of politicians claiming that they're going to "create" jobs, with a focus on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (one of the few stories about him that has nothing to do with unions).

All of this talk about "job creation" from politicians has really been bugging me... with the only really "honest" politician I've seen being the totally ignored Presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor, Gary Johnson. After the National Review praised him for being "the best job creator of them all," (based on jobs numbers associated with all the GOP Presidential candidates), rather than accepting the cheap political accolade, Johnson responded by rejecting the crown:

"The fact is, I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor."

Instead, he noted that it was "entrepreneurs and businesses" that created the jobs, and all he tried to do was keep obstacles out of the way.

Still, it is true that governments can create jobs. It's just that they're almost never the jobs that actually help the economy. The government can hire 20 million people to move piles of dirt around or to just sit around if it wants. That will "create jobs." But it won't be good for the economy, because those people are not productive for the economy. They won't be adding value or producing something of value that expands the economy.

This, of course, was famously explained a century and a half ago by Frederic Bastiat, who explained the fallacy of the broken window as an economic or "jobs" stimulator. And, yet, it's still oh so tempting for politicians to jump on this train. But the problem for those who buy into the "broken windows fallacy," is that they make really bad decisions on "jobs," because they create the easiest jobs to create, which will almost always add the least value to the economy (and most likely take away value from the economy).

It's why you get amazing statements from President Obama (who really must know better) in which he talks about ATMs meaning fewer jobs for tellers and auto check-in kiosks at airports that mean fewer jobs for airline employees. But this turns out to be wrong in oh-so-many ways. First, it's just wrong on the facts:

At the dawn of the self-service banking age in 1985, for example, the United States had 60,000 automated teller machines and 485,000 bank tellers. In 2002, the United States had 352,000 ATMs--and 527,000 bank tellers. ATMs notwithstanding, banks do a lot more than they used to and have a lot more branches than they used to.

It's "easy" to claim that technology "destroys" jobs, but it's never the case in practice. It may change jobs, but increased efficiency creates jobs through economic growth. There are all sorts of complex economic proofs of this in action, but the simplest way to understand it (and there's lots of both empirical and formulaic proof to back this up) is that when you increase efficiency, you can produce more for less, and thus, by the very definition, you have increased the size of the overall pie. Now plenty of people can (and do!) quibble about how that pie is divided and allocated, but arguing that jobs are destroyed by technology is a red herring.

It's for that reason that I'm a bit surprised to see Jeff Jarvis more or less jumping on this bandwagon by claiming that "we're going to have a jobless future":

Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth. That is the notion I want to explore now.

Pick an industry: newspapers, say. Untold thousands of jobs have been destroyed and they will not come back. Yes, new jobs will be created by entrepreneurs -- that is precisely why I teach entrepreneurial journalism. But in the net, the news industry -- make that the news ecosystem -- will employ fewer people in companies. There will still be news but it will be far more efficient, thanks to the internet.

Take retail. Borders. Circuit City. Sharper Image. KB Toys. CompUSA. Dead. Every main street and every mall has empty stores that are not going to be filled. Buying things locally for immediate gratification will be a premium service because it is far more efficient -- in terms of inventory cost, real estate, staffing -- to consolidate and fulfill merchandise at a distance. Wal-Mart isn't killing retailing. Amazon is. Transparent pricing online will reduce prices and profitability yet more. Retail will be more efficient.

While I agree with Jarvis on many, many things, he's missing half of the equation here, and doing a sort of reverse "broken window fallacy." He's looking at jobs that are changing, but not looking at the massive new opportunities it creates. Eric Reasons points me to my own post which touches on this.

It's easy to look at how jobs appear to "disappear" in a dynamic market. Whether it's the tellers President Obama is talking about, or the "journalists" that Jarvis talks about. But that ignores all of the new jobs created around the new efficiencies. Take, for example, the fears that a telephone switching network would wreak havoc on our economy, decades ago. After all, telephone companies employed thousands of operators whose job it was to "connect calls." Automate that, and all of those women (and they were predominantly women) were "out of work." Devastating, right? Well, no, actually. Not at all.

A switched telephone network not only made the phone system more valuable and useful (increasing its usage), but opened up all sorts of new opportunities for businesses and jobs. At a basic level, you could just note that call centers were suddenly possible, as was the ability to do customer service (and, annoyingly, telemarketing) on a large scale. But, it also did much more. A switched telephone network also paved the way to an eventual internet system, which has led to a huge revolution, millions upon millions of jobs, and the fact that you are reading this today.

The idea that technology leads to efficiency over growth is preposterous. Efficiency is growth. But it's not always obvious how or where that growth occurs.

And that's why I think there's something of a paradox of job creation. The job creation we really want for the economy is the job creation that initially looks bad. It's the job creation that worries Obama and Jarvis, in that they believe it's somehow "taking away jobs." And yet, it's not. It's actively creating more jobs -- it's just not as obvious how or where, but they are being created, without question. Instead, the focus is put on the exact wrong kinds of jobs. You hear things about stimulus projects that grant money or protectionism to certain industries. On the face, that appears to create jobs, because those companies that are recipients of that support "hire" more people. But it's at the expense of productive and economic growth that would create real long term jobs and real long term opportunity.

So the best way to create jobs is the politically impossible plan of increasing efficiency, which may appear to replace jobs, even as it's creating many more. It means allowing real competition to take place, rather than propping up a few big legacy players. It means supporting true innovation, through encouraging startups and entrepreneurship, rather than rewarding the legacy players who seek to hold back the innovators. Job creation is a paradox. Anything politicians do to try to force it almost always does the opposite.

Filed Under: broken windows, economics, efficiency, job creation, jobs, politicians, politics, productivity

Is Fun No Longer Fun When It's Corporate Fun?

from the can-work-be-fun? dept

I remember, years ago, when I was taking an organizational behavior class in college, being surprised to learn of a series of studies that suggested that happy workers were not more productive workers. The whole area of study seemed a bit questionable to me, as there were so many other variables that could play into such things, such as the type of work and what kind of "happiness" we were talking about. Also, I could see where, perhaps, in certain jobs, "happy" workers might not be any more productive than unhappy workers, but that the happy workers might be more loyal and have less turnover, which could be quite valuable as well.

Either way, I still tend to think that a happy workforce is something worth striving for -- but not everyone thinks so. The Economist recently had an article mocking companies (mainly tech companies) for trying to keep their workers happy, suggesting that once happiness became "corporate," it no longer really functions to make workers happy:

This cult of fun is driven by three of the most popular management fads of the moment: empowerment, engagement and creativity. Many companies pride themselves on devolving power to front-line workers. But surveys show that only 20% of workers are "fully engaged with their job". Even fewer are creative. Managers hope that "fun" will magically make workers more engaged and creative. But the problem is that as soon as fun becomes part of a corporate strategy it ceases to be fun and becomes its opposite--at best an empty shell and at worst a tiresome imposition.

While I think it's true that in many cases, corporate policies designed to make sure employees "have fun," can be an "empty shell" or "a tiresome imposition," I don't think it's necessarily true in all cases. I think it really does depend on the company, the culture, the people and the "fun." The writer of the Economist piece mocks some of Zappos' ideas for fun as being to coercive:

The most unpleasant thing about the fashion for fun is that it is mixed with a large dose of coercion. Companies such as Zappos don't merely celebrate wackiness. They more or less require it. Compulsory fun is nearly always cringe-making.

But is that true? Again, plenty of weak attempts at forcing fun on people can backfire, but if you look at what Zappos and some other companies do it's not about "coercive" fun, so much as it's about setting up the overall environment such that people just have fun. This is a key difference, which the Economist piece ignores. Yes, I think mandated moments of fun can be lame and do the reverse of the desired impact, but setting up an overall culture that embraces fun can absolutely work. I think it's one of the reasons why Zappos has had success in paying new employees to quit early on, as it gets rid of those who don't fit with the culture. And, those who stick around appear to be having legitimate fun as a part of their job, not because they suddenly had to go "do fun now," as the article implies.

It appears the real confusion by the author is in thinking that fun and work cannot mix -- and it appears that's because whoever it is (which, of course is hidden thanks to the Economists' no bylines policy) seems to think of "fun" solely in a rather antiquated manner. Fun, according to the author, is smoking, drinking and sex at work -- and if you can't do those things, it's just not fun at all:

While imposing ersatz fun on their employees, companies are battling against the real thing. Many force smokers to huddle outside like furtive criminals. Few allow their employees to drink at lunch time, let alone earlier in the day. A regiment of busybodies--from lawyers to human-resources functionaries--is waging war on office romance, particularly between people of different ranks.

Of course, some of us have no interest in doing any of those things at work, and actually prefer an environment where we get along with our coworkers in ways that actually do seem like modern fun, rather than some stereotypical fun from the 1950s. Oh, and as for the research about happy employees being good for companies? It seems those old studies I looked at in college are now being refuted by new studies.

Filed Under: corporate fun, fun, productivity
Companies: twitter, zappos

Should Managers Care That Employees Are On Facebook And YouTube While At Work?

from the results-based-management dept

A recent study reported that 6.8 percent of URLs accessed by businesses lead to Facebook and 10 percent of bandwidth goes to YouTube. Of course, as to be expected, along with such a study come the fears that security and worker productivity is harmed by allowing access to such "non-work" sites:

The figures show that IT managers are right to be concerned about the amount of social network use at work. There are two real concerns here: firstly that employees will be downloading applications from social networks and putting security at risk; and secondly the amount of corporate bandwidth that appears to be being used for non-corporate activity.

These fears seem to resurface every once in awhile, especially when some new technology starts to become ubiquitous in the workplace. First, it's silly to think that social networks would somehow have more security-risking applications to download than the rest of the internet. As for the productivity concern, if you're worrying about how much time your employees are spending doing "non-work" things, then you're worrying about the wrong thing. From online shopping to social networking, allowing employees to do "non-work" web surfing while they are at the office keeps them happier and more productive. In fact, multiple studies have shown that social media sites like Twitter and Facebook actually make workers more productive by sparking creative ideas.

Of course, in order to manage this properly, managers must monitor productivity based on concrete, measurable goals -- rather than focus on the time spent doing the work. After all, if you're delivering results, why should your manager care if you spend a few minutes a day catching up with friends on Facebook?

Filed Under: facebook, productivity, twitter, youtube