In the US if you want to fix that you have to outlaw MBA programs. Because business schools are behind a lot of the decline in US Industry.
But even I'm going to say you're making a rather absurd statement that's filled with delusional correlation.
MBA programs aren't the "cause" of US Industry decline. I don't even know where to begin with unpacking that they are the cause, because of the absurdity. MBA like programs (specialized business teachings to an advance level) have existed since the days of enterprise. The only difference between now and antiquity is the fact we've standardized the model and the naming conventions.
Don't forget too it's the consumer's dollar that ultimately has the "real vote" in where production happens. That's why the past two decades, small farms are more and more... viable is a strong word. But they're more popular and there are plenty that do well. Because certain consumers do vote "Yes, I think that a heritage chicken that's cage free and free range is worth the extra money compared to the commercial broiler breeds."
But it's a real difficult sell on someone to tell them, "Hey, you can go into an industry where there's money being thrown around or you can try raising a dying industry from scratch and hope it works out for you before the end of your lifetime." It's the same reason we tell kids you should go into STEM classes and not basket weaving. If consumers already have a history in paying for something, why should someone go into something where there's a history of consumers NOT paying for something?
The gospel of MBA programs changed to include financialization and outsourcing as two principal techniques that can be applied to every company and industry (they’re all the same, right?). This probably began in the early 80’s when the MBA began to gain currency as a respected degree.
Furthermore there is a hostility between management and labor In the US that does not exist in other advanced manufacturing nations such as Germany and Japan. Blame can be placed on both sides for this situation, but nevertheless the MBA worldview is one that above all treats labor and human capital as a commodity to be managed like any other.
Hell, you get that here in HN. While being smart in programming or IT infrastructure is a feat, that doesn't mean you instantly/magically understand dick all in infrastructure, geopolitics, transportation logistics and so on. I really picked up on that a year or two ago when an article talking about why there aren't that many women in the trucking industry because "it's such a great job".
Everyone was "Yea, trucking sounds great. We need to increase women in it, blah blah".
I did OTR trucking (over the road, meaning you do the long distance truck driving). It's a terrible, low paying job, low respect, zero life fulfillment job. You are only home 3-4 days every MONTH. You don't go home everyday. You live in that truck and it's not fun. I went from a relatively healthy and active person to gaining 25 pounds and I have chronic back problems after 7 months of doing it. It's been 8 years now. Still have those back problems. And I'm a lucky one. There are many other people who got it worse. There's a good reason why you won't be seeing a shirtless trucker calendar.
But holy shit, lots of silicon valley folks tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Even though I actually did the job. One idiot who never did the job either writes an article and is suddenly an expert because they interviewed one person who "tried" to get a job as a truck driver... New York Times is an accurate and reliable news source... sure.
Why are you lot making me defend MBAs? It's pissing me off. The problems y'all are describing are not just "this one group is the cause of all our problems. We need to blame them and them alone instead of looking in a mirror and figuring out if I, myself, can improve myself and my situation." It's like with the bankers... which... fucking hell... I'm about to defend them... if people knew how to actually save and capitalize on money and that shit was taught properly in this country, there wouldn't have been fertile soil for all those financial instruments and shitty lending standards that crashed the market. Same goes with Apple. Can't blame them for making over priced, anti-consumer products. People buy it. It's their fault because there are options that people don't buy. They buy the overpriced trash and pay an arm and a leg for bs repair work. If I was in Apple's position, I'd crank that practice up to 11, all day long... damn it, I just defended Apple too... I need a drink.
Or infamously, anti trust law. There isn’t a week that goes by that someone doesn’t post “they are running afoul of anti trust law” where it doesn’t apply.
So I agree you don't need to tell people to do things other than the safe bets, for many reasons.
At the same time, don't beat and blame people who do the conventional wisdom and succeed. That's the part that pisses me off. Generally, people don't want to be "poor". Then one wisdom goes, shoot for the stars thus even if you miss, you still reach the moon. Alright, business or banking. Lots of money in both. The hedge their risk by getting degrees and an MBA, etc. And do well. People, even though they hate said field, still throw money at them. That person just shrugs and moves on with doing it, because why not? The only difference is, they got a finance degree instead of an engineering or art degree. Can't blame their choices if they have the mental fortitude to deal with that shit. They made the best decision within their life goals.
You don't take a degree with the mentality of "I want to spend money to make my life worse." If you have that outlook, better off on buying heroin.
The largest wage classes tend to be management now. The heroically competent worker does not get rewarded relative to others in the org like he used to, unless you specialise massively and have a reputation to boot.
I don't think you can measure mental fortitude like that, but I haven't taken those jobs to compare.
Some people are scared of money or behave irrationally with money. I've been to a few therapists that have high powered husbands or clients that illustrate just how irrational they can be. I can see the evidence for the spirit of malcontent with management but I would agree it's not something that can be half-heartedly expressed through a what is basically a meme. It needs to be articulated accurately if it is to improve.
That last comment: "Some people are scared of money or behave irrationally with money. I've been to a few therapists that have high powered husbands or clients that illustrate just how irrational they can be. I can see the evidence for the spirit of malcontent with management but I would agree it's not something that can be half-heartedly expressed through a what is basically a meme. It needs to be articulated accurately if it is to improve."
I find it difficult to take anyone seriously when they say people with lots of money make irrational decisions. Especially when making said money is generally viewed as an achievement in our society. None of us know that situation unless we're in it. That really goes for any situation. Just like in sports a spectator yells at a player for "making a stupid decision". Think about someone who just got an ego boost making a bunch of money. They can give/lend money to friends and family when they're down, being the hero. When before the money, they were kind of a nobody. They're going to protect that ability at all costs. Even at the cost of outside people to that circle of friends and family. Why care about people who don't care about your own family? Thus, you get someone who might be harder on their employees, making sure that certain numbers are met, so they get to stay at the high income position. Is it really irrational to maintain a level of heroism among your close friends and family at any cost? Livelihood, in modern society is pretty much the difference between life or death. No real income can lead to homelessness and a great chance of never getting out of it. Essentially "death". Obviously, it's no excuse for breaking the law or detriment to the health of "strangers" (employees). But if you realize that they're not just out to "destroy the world" and have the same basic drive as everyone else, do well for their family, you approach the "problem" differently. Which, comes to where you said, it needs to be articulated accurately to improve it. I just don't like the idea of "well, they're irrational even though I've never been in their same situation".
You're going to have to define your level of richness for me to answer that. But some people hoard dumb stuff even if they're rich. Some people leave close connections out in the cold that causes untold amounts of social damage that comes to bite them later on. Some people sink large amounts of money on vanity projects and dumb investments that put them back to square one.
I can understand attempting to do good an incurring a "dumb cost" as a stupid criticism of the rich. Some rich people don't even do good things, they just waste money and opportunities. Even some people on the pathway to being rich waste the opportunity. There is a story about a guy starting a scooter company. The scooter has two footholds in a V formation that lead to the central pillar you hold onto like a normal scooter. The inventor hooks up with Richard Branson and is set to hit probably tens of millions if not hundreds from all the way it was playing out. At the last hour before committing to launch he decides it's too much for him and sits it out. He goes home to a shitty job where he knows how everything works and has a middle class life.
Why?
Moving into any particular position in life takes a huge mental and social change, I can see rich people burning out and throwing their money away back down a few notches as they relax into a more common path in life. It can't only be measured in character or personality though. There is something else going on.
I've known people scared of accruing a lot of money. We outsource our money management to tax accounts, banks, brokers, dealers, financiers all the time. There is a deep principle in money or large quantities that is taken for granted. Emphasized even in the US. What is it that grants some the ability to manage a flood of cash, and others drown?
Homelessness in the US is not death, unless you choose it to be. It is exile at it's deepest. People come back from exile, not from the finality of death.
The world needs more of this style of thinking. Pure logic, or more accurately what people commonly think they're engaging is, even at its best falls short when trying to figure out what's really going on in a system as multi-dimensionally (and often counter-intuitively) complex as multicultural but globally integrated humanity.
Gosh,it's taken me hours to get this post through, I'd love to see HN open source their "you're posting too fast" algorithm, I suspect speed isn't the only thing involved.
Most CEOs and high-level executives in Japan and Germany (and many other countries) typically have:
- an educational background in the area they manage (say, mechanical engineering for car production)
- long careers/experience in that area
- passion for it (CEOs who race cars, etc)
Unlike executive in the US, who:
- have a 4-year business degree followed with an MBA
- jump from industry to industry (Carly Fiorina, etc),
- have no passion for the stuff they produce (they are typically finance or marketing guys)
The end result is that US companies turn into marketing/branding shells who outsource everything except for branding/sales or some kind of financial engineering schemes (GE)
Whether the dump on the company was justified or not. I literally don't know, I hate all wireless earbuds to begin with, I'm no expert. That, by itself, is a terrifying prospect. One slight misstep can be blown to crazy proportions. So, why not just "fuck it, just repackage something else we know works and move on. I want no emotional attachment to any of this, in case it blows up in my face." Before someone hits back, yes, the system can still do good, like the LockpickLawyer on youtube, showcasing shit, overpriced bike locks.
The downside of this is sometimes management attempts to optimise out the company's comparative advantages. Sometimes on purposes.
Most of my career has been in government, and the finance cadre that ends up running most agencies are similar to MBAs as they have financial and budgeting expertise and minimal area expertise.
They produce a certain type of leadership style. That said, the folks who have expertise in the program side usually have awful financial expertise. You end up with an imbalance where finance dominates.
In short, the problems with MBAs would mostly go away if engineers had 15 credits in accounting.