Blog

Richard 'Murph' Murphy - Post 1: The knowledge economy is not made up of hyphens and PhDs

Posted By: Richard 'Murph' Murphy, 12/17/2008
I see a lot of dichotomous thinking these days when it comes to economic development and job growth. My most recent issue of "Michigan Planner" provides a handy example, asking, "Can Michigan reinvent itself and transition from a 20th century industrial economy to a 21st century knowledge economy?"

On the one hand, we look back at the Fordist model of building a middle class on the auto plant floor, and think we can do all right if we just lure in a new industrial base for our local economy. We scrabble for The Next Pfizer, for The Next Hydra-matic, for The Next Motor Wheel, for The Next Exemplar, imagining that the Next Big Thing will stick around the community longer than did the Last Big Thing. (Of those, I believe that at least Pfizer, Exemplar, and Hydra-matic all closed up shop or downsized locally before even using up all the tax credits we'd given them.)

No, that era's over, we claim on the other side. We need to look to the Neweconomycreativeclassmillennialknowledgeworkers instead! It's the high-tech, bio-med, alt-energy, dot-coms that are going to turn our economy around.

But this side overlooks the fact that all these fields tend to require not only a hyphen but a post-graduate degree. And, sure, the Census Bureau's latest ACS data shows that 26% of Washtenaw County's population has a post-graduate degree, far higher than the national average of 10%, which definitely gives us something to leverage. But we have to recognize that this number means 75% of our adult population lacks a post-grad degree (and a significant share of those who have one are tied up either teaching or getting yet another degree, not starting businesses).

Just how many of the workers taking buy-outs from Ford or GM are really positioned to go into bio-medical research, anyway?

On the upside, there's an middle ground that's profoundly under-recognized in our mad search for development. "Knowledge workers" are hardly a 21st century invention. Before becoming an "industrialist" and having an entire economic system named after him, Henry Ford was an inventor and entrepreneur - a knowledge worker of the 19th century - working off an apprenticeship model of education and tinkering on his automobile projects on the side while working for Edison and Westinghouse.

Edison, in turn, got his start as a telegraph operator with a lot of free time.  (Westinghouse, too, was "merely" the son of a machinist - but we'll stick to the local boys for purpose of illustration.)

Ypsilanti's Elijah "The Real" McCoy worked from home to invent the self-lubricating fixture he saw a need for while employed as a fireman for Michigan Central Railway.

I admit that I'm skimming the cream of the lone genius inventor mythos for these examples, but my point is that the "Creative Class" wasn't invented in the 1990s, and the "new economy" isn't really so new. It's just that we forgot about it during the manufacturing boom of the last century - a boom that Michigan had so big a part in specifically because our 19th-century "knowledge workers" were so successful.

Jane Jacobs, writing The Economy of Cities in 1970 (while Richard Florida was probably in high school), stated the idea of the knowledge worker as "adding new work to old" - Elijah McCoy oiling locomotives by hand and realizing that he could make a gadget to do it for him.

This doesn't have to take place in a "high education attainment industry", though that's where we put all of our attention. It does have to take place in a certain culture (of education, governance, media), though, and that's where our dichotomous assembly-lines-or-atom-splitting thinking on economic development comes up short.

While we certainly shouldn't turn up our nose at either a new assembly line or the latest startup of atom-splitting eggheads, we can't depend on either for economic Salvation. Alongside these, we need to ensure that we're supporting the daily innovation that is the foundation of economic development.
Comments:
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 5:58 PM by Murph.
For the record, Amanda is the superior mastermind. I think she got me in five moves; it took me eight when we switched sides.
Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:43 AM by Dug Song
Murph, I have to disagree with the notion that high-tech / dot-com startups are one of the sectors requiring formal education, or really anything in the way of credentials at all. The software industry is decidedly NOT full of PhDs, and some would argue, much better for it:

http://www.paulgraham.com/credentials.html

Add to this the explosion of open-source software, higher-level programming languages, application frameworks and cheap infrastructure that enable almost anybody with basic programming literacy to build and host a web application in a matter of days, and the barrier to entry for many folks into the industry is mostly a matter of motivation and interest (which BTW, doesn't necessarily also equate to more outsourcing - http://blog.awarelabs.com/?p=80 ). I don't know of any startup opportunities more capital-efficient than in software, where teams of programmers armed with laptops and an Internet connection can run circles around huge, corporate incumbents both in ideas and execution.

More generally, though, I strongly agree that hands-on, applied innovation and experimentation need to happen broadly here, and that our focus shouldn't be limited to academia (and I say this having been involved in two UM spinoffs). Why did it take Elon Musk, one of the Paypal Mafia, to start a Tesla Motors in Silicon Valley? The hard science is in battery technology (which does require research - yay Sakti3! - but can be licensed), but the rest? We certainly know a little something about automotive design and engineering here in Michigan. :-)

IMO, what we're missing is a broad familiarity with startup culture (and all that entails, including raising money). It's the only reason I can think of to account for so many of our top graduates at UM's engineering and business schools tracking directly into the biggest corporations and consulting firms, while Stanford's go on to build the high-growth startups that fuel the tech industry.

I'm curious to see what happens to the ecology of suppliers if/when the Big 3 fail completely. Those suppliers are already quite nimble, and I hope their ambition grows to fill the void. By all rights, there should be an explosion of car companies here in Michigan, not in Silicon Valley, Israel, etc. If we're to do it here, IMO, we need to embrace startup culture - rapid innovation, fast failures on the road to success, and a meritocratic lack of hierarchy.

What I hope to see develop here is a well-knit, efficient network of innovators with ample opportunity for collaboration (often on lots of small, fun, throwaway projects and investigations). And this comes down to matters of physical space, proximity, and culture. We need to foster a community of startup folks and geeks meeting and learning from each other, building professional networks and personal relationships that cross company and university departmental boundaries, and explicitly organizing to perpetuate success with each successive generation of entrepreneurs (like Dave McClure's Startup2Startup events in the Valley).

Anyhow, potentially a topic for discussion at ArbCamp 08 tonight - 6 PM at Cottage Inn. Join us if you can!

http://a2geeks.org/display/geek/ArbCamp+08



Thursday, December 18, 2008 9:08 PM by Murph
Dug - certainly creating a software product doesn't per se require an advanced degree. I'd agree it's one of the more easily self-taught of the "high-tech" industries, and, as you note, less capital-intensive than, for example, any of the building trades: hauling all the gear for your work around in a laptop is a lot cheaper than hauling it all around in a truck.

Though I also think this is one of those conversations that pre-supposes a certain access to opportunity and background education. Part of this can be advanced publicly by contributing to the (very low) infrastructure barriers to entry - think Wireless Ypsi (http://wireless.ypsi.com/) or similar projects. Another part is the fostering and valuing of curiosity and exploration from a young age that I noted in post #2 - the traits that are going to bring someone to the point of not just doing something new, but noticing this and finding it significant enough to follow up on.

Meanwhile, sorry about ArbCamp - I'd heard mention of it some months ago, but didn't know it was tonight until half an hour ago. Next time...
Leave a comment
Name
Url
Comment

Submit