Rise of the Creative Class

[lizzie]

It doesn't need to have bells and whistles to matter.

Every advancment is important ... but it the en-masse cultural and social shift currently underway that we are discussing rather than specific inventions or progressions.

The shift is a "way" of thinking and living - rather than invention itself.

Did you read the attached material above?

 

[Aaron Sice]

speaking of "under the radar" inventions - barbed wire.

the reign of the cowboy started, flourished and died in a little over 10 years.

 

[Peter Parker]

speaking of "under the radar" inventions - barbed wire.

the reign of the cowboy started, flourished and died in a little over 10 years.

And inventions can be 90% ideas and 10% objects.

Eg the postage stamp (especially the penny post - before that the recipient paid)

Also money and banking

 

[Belbo]

And let us not forget 'limited liability incorporation', according to my 1st yr economic history lecturer THE most important turning point in mankind's brief economic sojourn on the earth (nb: he was certifiably barking mad of course, but always a curiously thought-provoking old codger).

 

[our obsession]

Lizzie:
Quote:
"the have nots are falling further behind"

Cupcakes:
Quote:
"I think the reason the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing"


Our Obsession:

But is the inequality gap widening?

Lizzie:

Yes - I do believe we are slowly losing the middle class. It's not instantly obvious, or quick in happening, but if you compare the social structure of 50 years ago - a large middle class, very few rich or poor - to today, then the changes are noticable. And I believe it will accelerate, as all changes does.

Okay.

The Economist

Inequality is rising. Does it matter—and if so why?
Jan 20th 2011


Unbottled Gini

Excerpt Only:

FOR the head of the IMF to quote Adam Smith may seem unremarkable. But here is Dominique Strauss-Kahn citing the great man in November 2010: “The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful and…neglect persons of poor and mean condition…is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”

Mr Strauss-Kahn then bemoaned “a large and growing chasm between rich and poor—especially within countries”. He argued that inequitable distribution of wealth could “wear down the social fabric”. He added: “More unequal countries have worse social indicators, a poorer human-development record, and higher degrees of economic insecurity and anxiety.”

...and:

The most obvious reason for the renewed attention is inequality’s apparent increase. A common yardstick is the Gini coefficient, which runs from 0 (everyone has the same income) to 1 (one person has all the income). Most countries range between 0.25 and 0.6.

The Gini coefficient has gone up a lot in some rich countries since the 1980s. For American households it climbed from 0.34 in the mid-1980s to 0.38 in the 2000s. In China it went up even more, from under 0.3 to over 0.4. But this was not universal. For decades, Latin America had the world’s worst income inequality. But Brazil’s Gini coefficient has fallen more than five points since 2000, to 0.55. And as poor countries are on average growing faster than rich ones, inequality in the world as a whole is falling.

Greater inequality can happen either because the wealthier are getting wealthier, or the poor are falling behind, or both. In America it has had more to do with the rich. The income of the wealthiest 20% of Americans rose 14% during the 1970s, when the income of the poorest fifth rose 9%. In the 1990s the income of the richest fifth rose 27% while that of the poorest fifth went up only 10%. That is a widening income spread, but not a drastic one. Robert Gordon, an economist at Northwestern University in Illinois, reckons that for the bottom 99% of the population, inequality has not risen since 1993.

This may reflect the 'core' issue, the real issue:

...recent research does suggest two other reasons why the rise in inequality is a problem. One is that rich economies seem to provide disproportionate and growing returns to the already wealthy. The other is that inequality may literally be making people miserable by increasing stress and the hormones it releases.

 

[our obsession]

Inequality

The rich and the rest
What to do (and not do) about inequality

Jan 20th 2011

Inequality..

Excerpt only:

APART from being famous and influential, Hu Jintao, David Cameron, Warren Buffett and Dominique Strauss-Kahn do not obviously have a lot in common. So it tells you something about the breadth of global concerns about inequality that China’s president, Britain’s prime minister, America’s second-richest man and the head of the International Monetary Fund have all worried, loudly and publicly, about the dangers of a rising gap between the rich and the rest...

The debate about inequality is an old one. But in the wake of a financial crisis that is widely blamed on Wall Street fat cats, from which the richest have rebounded fastest, and ahead of public-spending cuts that will hit the poor hardest, its tone has changed........

Now the focus is on inequality itself, and its supposedly pernicious consequences. One strand of argument, epitomised by “The Spirit Level”, a book that caused a stir in Britain, suggests that countries with greater disparities of income fare worse on all manner of social indicators, from higher murder rates to lower life expectancy...

Begin with the facts about inequality. Globally, the gap between the rich and the poor has actually been narrowing, as poorer countries are growing faster. Nor is there a monolithic trend within countries (see article).

In Latin America, long home to the world’s most unequal societies, many countries—including the biggest, Brazil—have become a bit more equal, as governments have boosted the incomes of the poor with fast growth and an overhaul of public spending to improve the social safety-net (but not by raising tax rates for the rich).

The gap between rich and poor has risen in other emerging economies (notably China and India) as well as in many rich countries (especially America, but also in places with a reputation for being more egalitarian, such as Germany). But the reasons for this differ.....read all rest of Economist 'other' article---->

 

[Sunfish]

Did you read the attached material above?

Sorry Liz, not much of it. It reeked of elitism so I switched off. I'm just an ordinary bloke with great admiration for extraordinary people. Is Keith Payne VC creative? Dunno but he was a one in a million soldier. (Just the first example which popped into my head.)

ps I detest "pretenders". Our GG springs to mind. She had the gall to wear her Girl Guide Medal and university millennium medallion as she presented the Unit Citation to the 6th Bn on the 40th anniversary of Long Tan today. (I'm not fixated with Vietnam. One brought the other to mind, is all)

 

[redwing]

...Follow the Surfies and the Mungbeans rather than Bunnings

 

[lizzie]

Sorry Liz, not much of it. It reeked of elitism so I switched off.

Which means you are being defensive, close minded and totally "not" getting the concept. It appears you are coming to this discussion with your preconcieved ideas of what it will be - rather than what it is.

The creative way of thinking has nothing to do with elitism ... it is a dramatic shift in the way an increasing portion of society interacts, thinks, learns and works.

As with any social change (only have to look at the death of the way of life of the elite in England and Europe between 1900-1930 to realise) - those that don't lead, or at least embrace, will be left behind struggling and wondering what the hell happened.

 

[Sunfish]

Don't hold back Lizzie, tell us what you really think. LOL

"Lizzie Borden took an axe and gave her parents fourty one whacks" Forget the rest of it.

But you are right. I am unworthy of your time. Please forgive me and allow me to sit in the corner and just listen to the grown-ups.

 

[evand]

People often get excited about new books they read that open new concepts to them, and want to share their discovery enthusiastically with the world. I do it sometimes. Until they read another one next month.

I live in the creative hub of Sydney (possibly Australia) and i cant see what the book is saying. It is really just one persons opinion, right?

I suppose it depends on the definition of 'creative'. Working for yourself and/or small business isnt really that creative, neither is buying investment properties, most of it is actually just a formula to follow.

Oh...and great post OO. Again.

 

[lizzie]

It is really just one persons opinion, right?

No - it's not just one person ... it is a person that has research thousands upon thousands of workers over many years. It is the opinion of many.

Okay - give you and example closer to home of a company that is creative thinking.

I buy firewood. I have a choice of buying firewood from a number of people. I can buy firewood from Joe Bloggs who's only contact is a mobile phone and generally get messagebank. He wants cash on delivery, only supplies firewood, is a grumpy bugger and he charges $100/m2.

Or, I can buy firewood from the people that I do buy it from. They have a comprehensive website that details all the services they offer - firewood, kindling, a stacking service, tree removal/lopping, mulch etc. I can order and pay for my firewood online, type them a message about preferred dropoff time and location (ie, in the driveway) and then they call me that same day to confirm time. The employees are all chirpy and friendly and enjoy their work. Cost is $100/m2.

Who do you think is being creative and who I would use?

Now, I don't know the culture inside the company that the workers enjoy - but if their outward appearance and employee friendliness is anything to go by, I would suspect that this company is creative in both their marketing and their employment.

Sunfish - surely you are old enough to recall what employment was like 50 years ago. How has it changed in comparison to now?

I am not being elitist, I am being a realist. One only has to look back in time to observe change, those who embraced the change and those who were left behind.

The industrial revolution is a great example. Those who embraced, were forward thinking and grasped opportunities often became successes in their own right. Those who refused to move from "old ways" and instead lamented were often left behind.

Same with colonisation ... same with the agrarian age ... same with the rise of company structures ...

One only has to look at company loyalty nowadays ... it doesn't exist whereas 50 years ago a workers identity was very much wrapped up on the company they worked for. Who do you think abandoned company loyalty first? It was the companies back in the early 1980's, laying off staff regardless of tenure - which made employees think "if the company doesn't care for me, why should I care for it."

And so - comes the rise of the thinkers.

 

[lizzie]

Oh...and great post OO. Again.

I know OO has a bit of a soap box thing happening ... regardless of how one may lament and despair and rail - regardless of whether you think it is okay or not - the change is happening.

You either work with it or fall behind.

Not different from lamenting and railing about the government changing tax laws in regards of investments. You rail and rant to start with, but if the changes are here to stay then you either work with them or fall behind.

 

[evand]

Of course you'd use the second one. But im not sure if its called creative.

Call it good business or smart owners or long time business experience or copying another companies strategies or great marketing or a good USP or a good business coach...... whatever. there is very little new in business....or anything for that matter.

My point was to label it 'creative' is one mans opinion. And i dont think its the paradigm shift you think its Lizzie, business is inherently conservative and always has been.

Maybe you could read some Jay Abraham. Genius marketer. Ive read most his stuff and used his concepts with success previously.


Mostly this one:

http://abraham.com/jay-abraham-getting-everything-you-can-out-of-all-youve-got/

No - it's not just one person ... it is a person that has research thousands upon thousands of workers over many years. It is the opinion of many.

Okay - give you and example closer to home of a company that is creative thinking.

I buy firewood. I have a choice of buying firewood from a number of people. I can buy firewood from Joe Bloggs who's only contact is a mobile phone and generally get messagebank. He wants cash on delivery, only supplies firewood, is a grumpy bugger and he charges $100/m2.

Or, I can buy firewood from the people that I do buy it from. They have a comprehensive website that details all the services they offer - firewood, kindling, a stacking service, tree removal/lopping, mulch etc. I can order and pay for my firewood online, type them a message about preferred dropoff time and location (ie, in the driveway) and then they call me that same day to confirm time. The employees are all chirpy and friendly and enjoy their work. Cost is $100/m2.

Who do you think is being creative and who I would use?

 

[lizzie]

Of course you'd use the second one. But im not sure if its called creative.

But it is an advancement on how things were done ... it was one business operator thinking differently and doing differently.

Which is a growing occurance. Sure, there have always been advancements (by engaging creativity and doing things differently) - but not previously to the degree and extend now occurring and gathering momentum.

And now employees are demanding this in their workplaces. Just think about how a secretary worked in 1950 as opposed to what they expect from their employment today?

Was talking to a friend the other day who's husbands job is to go into the staid manufacturing workplaces and try to encourage those on the front line to speak up if they can see anything that could be done better or improved. Apparently the biggest opposition is from the older workers who "have always done it like that" so cannot see any reason to change. The younger workers embrace and are excited about the autonomy and ability to suggest change for the better. To improve both the company and their working conditions.

But the improvement needs to come from the front line - no point in the bosses sitting in their office dictating.

Suggest you read the book.

donk donk (the sound of me banging my head trying to get the concept thru)

 

[evand]

No, you're doing well.

What you're talking about is level management (cant remember the correct term) rather than top down, hierarchical management. Where the employees can come up with suggestions to improve ways of doing things and their own employment as much as the management.

I think Jack Welch was a big one for this with GEC.

 

[lizzie]

Yes-ish

I'll put it a simple way. Do you think that people have more autonomy, flexibility and freedom in they "way" they do their work than they would have 50 years ago?

And, do you think that people "want" more autonomy, flexibility and freedom in how they do their work than they did 50 years ago?

And, do you think people coming thru the ranks now are "willing" to forgo higher monetary reward for that autonomy, flexibility and freedom in their employment? (the remote mines and by-the-rote trades are case in point)

 

[our obsession]

...oops, OO soapbox, soap powder, hang on a minnie.

Read this book years ago Lizzie, it's almost a decade old now, no problems with the message, it is actually reminiscent to me of the James Burke doco, and if you enjoyed the 'concepts' of ROTCC, you may enjoy this old series, (realising you may have seen it also, no biggy):

James Burke: The Day the Universe Changed

I posted the actual points on 'Inequality' because I thought you may find it interesting, from a '2011 perspective'. Intention was to lead on from Richard Florida's book, ROTCC, ->further to your thread, and a (what I considered) reasonable question I had posted.

Also it is a kind of reference point to the thread, and interesting how things/perspective, (in a global kind of way) change from over the decade of the book being first published.

Apologies if it has offended you Lizzie, it was motivated from 'sharing more up to date information' only. Just thought you maybe interested.

 

[lizzie]

That's okay OO - haven't offended me (I'm a tough nut) ... but the way it was posed was leaping on the immorality of the rising gap between haves and have nots and derailing the thread, rather than the intended thrust which was to explore "the rise of the creative way of thinking in regards to employment".

 

[our obsession]

That's okay OO - haven't offended me (I'm a tough nut) ... but the way it was posed was leaping on the immorality of the rising gap between haves and have nots and derailing the thread, rather than the intended thrust which was to explore "the rise of the creative way of thinking in regards to employment".

Ah, gotchya, and thanks for clarifying how it came across to you.