Sorry to everyone for the delay. Though it’s not unusual for this blog to have long pauses between articles— it’s definitely never been the intention to have this sort of gap for what should be a follow-up/sequel. The trade wars that have played out so intensely over the past few months have had quite a bit of relevance on this topic, and so it was put on hold until now. Without further ado…
Without reaching into the bucket for motivations like civic duty, I’d like to simply companies as basic widget work units. Some sort of simple black box that takes costs, resources, and opportunity to churn out an output (perhaps represented by stock price or some other form of validation).
Costs would be external imposed necessities: taxes, regulation, tariffs(cough)
Resources would be materials for production: physical and intellectual
Opportunity is well… opportunity: Market, timing, trends and user behavior
So far, governments have by an almost absolute margin only thought of incentives in terms of monetary costs. The country-wide deal hunting spree set off by Amazon was an example of it in play— come and we’ll increase your bottomline. The current threat of tariffs to move companies back to the US is the reverse— come back or we’ll destroy it.
Ever since Amazon’s country-wide fishing expedition, the question has drawn incredible vigor and debate. Even after the selection and their withdrawal from New York City however, the discussions seem to have died down but the answers are no closer. Those in favor argue for the long-term benefits, and worship it almost as a surefire way for economic growth. Those against are not much better— regarding any offer as a deal with the devil hellbent on gentrification and socioeconomic inequity.
To step away from the extremes of both ends, I want to restart the argument from ground-up. Or as the now turned-corporate-buzzword would be “from first principles.”
To start off, we need to make some basic assumptions on what the goals of the deal are. Though not exhaustive, I will think of them as:
Introduce a new stream of future tax revenue
Encourage the local/regional entrepreneurial and technological economy by employing locals to the new high paying tech jobs
Help transform the existing infrastructure towards a forward looking culture and system to make it more resilient and strong against future economic and technological/social shocks
The company investing in the area has such positive effects on points 2 and 3 that it brings in more companies that themselves have positive feedback effects for all points
Though it’s easy to quantify point 1 (as it is often the number thrown around within the arguments for the deals), it’s much harder to define or even make concrete goals for the others. I think it fair to say however, that the point of the latter three are to create an almost second Silicon Valley— as defined as a central tech hub associated with job and quality of life growth.
With the goals in place, let’s have a brief examination on possible outcomes. For simplicity’s sake, I have but two outcomes in mind: success and failure. Success means that the company takes the deal offered. Failure means they don’t.
The scene may be familiar to many of you. A chat in your family’s app of choice— LINE, WeChat, etc— is created to get everyone in one centralized communication channel. It was meant for logistics and updates. Was.
Now it’s full of clickbait links and the “um”s and “ah”s of audio messages. A 1254 notifications badge scares away any hope for a visit.
Why does it seem like there’s such a wide disparity in how chat apps are used? It seems like on one hand there are the young— with curt and succinct responses, punctuated by heavily contextual content like memes— and on the other, are the older— superfluous and verbose, preferring audio, and seeming to replicate real life conversation directly onto chat.
We know different users use services differently, but for something like communication— which is so basic and foundational to our species— how is it so reliably different? Is it just an issue of age?
It’s no secret that the giant minds of the world are thinking themselves silly over what to do about the future of employment. Will AI replace all humans in their jobs? Will new industries and services rise up to create new jobs uniquely manageable by humans only?
In recent news, Taylor Swift partnered with TicketMaster to introduce a new ticket-buying system that would help fans “beat the bots.” Instead of a standard queue as instituted for some events such as New York’s infamous Comic-Con however, the fan’s position in line could be advanced and authenticated through shows of “real fandom.”
Because the factors that would change the fan’s position in queue include things like posting about the event in social media, buying other Swift merchandise, and just about anything that would either give them more money or help them market. If it does help beat the bots, it’ll make people go back to the good old fashioned “beating other people.”