Dean Barber

No Other Sure Foundation

In Corporate Site Selection and Economic Development on May 2, 2018 at 5:09 pm

The most consequential words in American history is a simple if not astounding phrase that “all men are created equal.” In our Declaration of Independence, it strikes to the very heart of our nation’s identity.

Ratified the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence immediately set America apart from the rest of the world. It further held that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And while it was a beacon of hope, there is no mention of a right to education. This may have troubled Thomas Jefferson, the document’s principal author. Three years later, in 1779, Jefferson introduced Bill 79 to Virginia General Assembly, proposing a system of public education to be tax-funded for “all the free children, male and female.”

Jefferson’s “Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge” was far-reaching and radical for its time, but was restrictive.  Jefferson was a slave owner, and slaves were not treated as people but as property. Women were not given the same rights as men.

Still, Jefferson was a proponent of public education, at least for some. In a letter to fellow Virginian George Wythe in 1786, he wrote, “No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness.”

A Foundation Eroded

Fast forward to today. Reading and watching the news, one could easily construe that this foundation for freedom and happiness has been eroded.

Jefferson believed that the purpose of education is to make a better us. Not only should our schools teach the fundamentals reading, writing, science and mathematics, but prepare our children for a life beyond the classroom.

And yet we learn of public school districts that have not given school teachers, the very people whom we place the responsibility of educating our youth and transforming them into future citizens, a raise in 10 years.

We read of classrooms where children must wear coats in the winter for the lack of heating, where they page through aged textbooks that fall apart in their hands, and where teachers, many of whom have to resort to second jobs to make ends meet, buy classroom supplies for their pupils.

Wages Have Fallen

We know that teacher’s wages and compensation continue to fall relative to comparable workers. When adjusted for education, experience, and demographic factors, teachers earned 4.3 percent less than other workers in 1996, while in 2015 the teacher wage gap had grown to 17 percent, according to a 2016 study by the Economic Policy Institute.

The Great Recession was particularly punishing to public schools. Most states cut funding, yet in 2015, the latest year for which comprehensive spending data are available from the U.S. Census Bureau, 29 states were still providing less total school funding per student than they were in 2008, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

As of the current 2017-18 school year, at least 12 states have cut “general” or “formula” funding for elementary and secondary schools by 7 percent or more per student over the last decade, according to the CBPP.

What Would I Tell a Company?

The question begs itself. When we see teachers (and parents) demonstrating for better pay and better school funding in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Colorado and Arizona, what should we take from that?

I was recently asked a variation of that question by a newspaper reporter from Tulsa, Oklahoma. He wanted to know how I viewed the issue of school funding as a site selection consultant. Was Oklahoma getting a black eye because of the teacher demonstrations?

And what would I tell a company that had engaged my consultancy, Barber Business Advisors, for purposes of location advisory about this issue of funding for public education? Well, I would probably say something like this:

“Well, money matters. Poor kids who go to better-funded schools are more likely to graduate from high school and gain skills and make better wages, whether they learn a trade at a community college or go on to a four-year university. Common sense tells you that, but the research also shows it.

“So if you truly believe that people are your greatest assets, then let’s look to those places that support public education. Mind you, they don’t have to be “rich” communities, but places that have a tradition of providing good education to kids. We know that grades k-12 are the integral ‘learning years,’ which will prove vital in developing your future workforce, your future pipeline of talent. Let’s never forget that.”

Unfortunately, I’m not so great with sound bites. I didn’t tell the reporter anything like this. I think what I said was that if we were looking at a state during a site search project where teachers were demonstrating for better pay and increased school funding, “we would take note of that. It may very well be of primary concern.”

An Honorable Profession

I should have also told that reporter that school teachers don’t become school teachers to make a lot of money. They want to change lives for the better. They want to help young people grow and become improved versions of themsevles.

Now some teachers are quite effective at this. They’re really good at imparting knowledge and prompting us to want to learn. We tend to remember those teachers well into our adulthood as they made a difference, even if a small one.

And invariably there are those teachers who are not cut out for the work. They probably should have chosen other professions even if their intentions were good and honorable. They usually figure this out for themselves and leave the profession.

(I’m quite certain that I could never control a classroom of second graders, unless I had a sufficient supply rope. And that ultimately wouldn’t work so well.)

A Loss of Trust and Respect

It’s also apparent to me that some legislators and policymakers must hold teachers to a degree of contempt. How else can we explain such an erosion of funding and respect? I have to believe that in some places, public education truly is under assault.

The Center for Michigan reports that enrollment in schools of education in that state have dropped by more than 50 percent in the last few years. The upshot, fewer people want to be teachers. It’s not the vaunted profession that it once was.

This follows a general trend, shown in polls, that Americans have lost trust in their institutions, which have served as the pillars of government and capitalism. We now have a jaundiced view of our public schools, courts, banks, businesses, political parties and the media. The exception is the military. From an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll in January, 87 percent say they have a great deal of confidence in our military.

Parting Thoughts

In the last few weeks, I have met with economic developers from Kentucky and Oklahoma. Some have told me privately that they very much sympathize with the teachers’ plight over pay and school funding.

These same economic developers understand the connection between education and workforce preparedness. Many companies, particularly manufacturers, complain that they cannot find enough people with the job skills needed to fill certain openings.

This should concern us all. It is our duty as a society to prepare future generations for what may come.  Jefferson understood then what apparently too many elected officials do not comprehend now — that public education is the answer.

No other sure foundation can be devised.

Dean Barber is the principal of Barber Business Advisors, LLC, an economic development and corporate location consulting firm based in Dallas. Dean is available as a keynotes speaker and can be reached at dbarber@barberadvisors.com. Visit us at www.barberadvisors.com to learn more.

Advertisements

A Story to Remember

In Corporate Site Selection and Economic Development on April 9, 2018 at 8:50 am

The founding fathers of this country were of the belief that history, above all other subjects, was the most important for people to study. History gives us insight as to who we are, where we have been and where we are going.

I love to read history and believe that it can be a gauge to the future. That said, I realize that even those who know historical facts are still liable to repeat the mistakes of that past.

Indeed, we often view history much as we do current events, through a very subjective lens. Those things that support our beliefs, we latch onto. Those things that don’t, we conveniently ignore. In short, we tend to cherry pick.

In telling this story, I’ll do my best to be objective and keep to the facts. Now is an especially good time to remember what actually happened.

A Wealthy Businessman

Our story begins with a wealthy businessman, a man with no elected office experience, running for president. Despite that, he easily won the Republican Party nomination. During his campaign for the presidency, he was known to frequently insult African-Americans and scapegoat Mexican-Americans.

But Herbert Hoover, the former mining engineer once quoted as saying, “If a man has not made a million dollars by the time he is forty, he is not worth much,” won the presidency in 1928. Hoover defeated Democrat Al Smith, with the Republicans maintaining comfortable majorities in both the House and Senate.

Less than a year later, the Wall Street Crash of 1929, also known as Black Tuesday (October 29), happened, signaling the beginning of the Great Depression.

The Farm Crisis of the 1920s

In some respects, the Great Depression came a decade earlier for American farmers. While most people were enjoying relative prosperity in the 1920s, farmers were finding it a tough going.

Horses and mules had been replaced by expensive trucks and tractors. With up to one-quarter of farmland previously devoted to feeding horses and mules freed up for production, supply soon outstripped demand, and commodity prices dropped by as much as 60 percent.

In his bid for the presidency, Hoover promised to help farmers by increasing tariffs of agricultural products. At that time, about one-third of American families were living on farms.

True to his word, soon after taking office in March 1929, Hoover called a special session of Congress to ask for an increase of tariff rates for agricultural goods and a decrease of tariff rates for industrial goods.He said he wanted to keep the overall tariff burden even.

Lobbyists immediately got to work, and it soon turned into a special interest feeding frenzy with every industry seeking protection. The result was increased tariffs on both agricultural and industrial goods. Even tombstone makers got an increase in tariff protection with the bill that passed the House in May 1929. The Senate refused to act on the issue of tariffs before adjourning in November.

A Congressman from Oregon, A Senator from Utah

1930 was a pivotal year. The worm had started to turn with the economy worsening. On a lighter note, 3M began selling Scotch Tape in January, and Mickey Mouse was born in a comic strip. In February, Elm Farm Ollie became the first cow to fly in an airplane. (She also became the first cow milked in flight.) And in April, Hostess Twinkies were invented.

Also in April, the Senate, feeling pressure because of the deteriorating economy, passed a bill that increased tariffs, albeit less than the House version. A conference committee then reconciled the two bills, mostly favoring the House version.

The result was the Hawley-Smoot Tariff – named after its sponsors, Willis Hawley, a congressman from Oregon, and Reed Smoot, a senator from Utah. The legislation, calling for the highest set of tariffs in American history, became a testament to economic isolationism of that era.

Vicious, Extortionate, and Obnoxious

To be sure, many people were opposed to the bill. No fewer than 1,028 prominent economists signed a petition in May 1930 asking Hoover to veto the bill. Henry Ford spent an evening in the White House trying to convince Hoover to veto Smoot-Hawley, which Ford called “an economic stupidity.”

Wall Street banker Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, said he came very close to groveling. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”

Hoover actually didn’t like the bill, calling it “vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious,” noting that it would undermine his commitment to international cooperation. Despite that, he yielded to the pressure from his own party and signed the bill into law on June 17. The Tariff Act of 1930 as it was formally known raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods.

Hoover’s reservations were well founded. Countries that began warning of retaliation in 1929 followed through with their threats in 1930. In May, Canada, the U.S.’s most loyal trading partner, imposed new tariffs on 16 products that accounted for about 30 percent of U.S. exports to Canada.

(When Hoover was elected president, Canadian Prime Minister, Mackenzie King wrote in his diary that it might lead to “border warfare.”)

Disastrous Effects

While most economists don’t believe Smoot-Hawley caused the Great Depression, it certainly did not alleviate it and may have made it worse. Certainly, Smoot-Hawley failed to lower unemployment. In 1930, the unemployment rate was 8 percent. It would jump to 16 percent in 1931 and peak at 25 percent in 1932-33.

The Tariff Act also poisoned the well in terms of international relations with other countries. The League of Nations, of which America was not a member, had talked of a “tariff truce,” but Smoot-Hawley killed that idea.

In the aftermath, world trade collapsed. American exports, which had been $5.24 billion in 1929, were worth $1.16 billion three years later, a 78 percent decline.

And Hoover, Smoot, and Hawley paid the price. They were taken to the woodshed by the voters, all three being decisively defeated for re-election in 1932.

Today there is a broad consensus among historians and economists that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff only made a bad situation worse. As a result, most economists today view protectionism as a blunting force to economic growth and that it often harms the very people it was meant to help.

It Could Get Very, Very Bad

In the fall of 2016, I was saw the Trump signs posted in farm fields throughout rural America. They were the size of school buses in western Nebraska and eastern Colorado.

And now farmers are waking up to the realization that a president who they helped put in office is instigating a trade war with China, the second largest economy in the world, and that it is they, the farmers, who will pay the price.

Trump last week instructed the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office to consider tariffs on an additional $100 billion in Chinese imports, bringing to $150 billion the range of Chinese goods under consideration.

China, which had proposed duties on $50 billion in American goods including aircraft, soybeans, corn and other row crops after the first U.S. move, has said it will respond proportionately.

“This could get very, very bad,” an economic developer from Iowa told me last week. Iowa is the No. 2 U.S. agriculture state in terms of farm cash receipts.

A wide swath of the U.S. farm economy could be impacted if China goes ahead with tariffs on soybeans, cotton, corn, wheat and beef. China buys roughly half of the U.S. soybean exports, or about $14 billion annually, and is the second-largest buyer of American cotton. In all, U.S. agricultural exports to China represent almost $20 billion annually for American farmers.

History can be a great teacher, but only if we allow it so. History tells us that no one wins in a trade war, and that working people on the ground get hurt. Like Hoover, President Trump is ignoring the warnings from the experts. He is certainly ignoring the warnings from the past.

I’ll see you down the road.

Dean Barber is the principal of Barber Business Advisors, LLC, an economic development and corporate location consulting firm based in Dallas. Dean is available as a keynotes speaker and can be reached at dbarber@barberadvisors.com. Visit us at www.barberadvisors.com to learn more.

In an AI Future, Watch the Machines … Carefully

In Corporate Site Selection and Economic Development on April 3, 2018 at 9:13 am

We will always be curious about the future. People wonder, which is generally a good thing, until they go and ruin it by making predictions.

I could provide you with a litany of quotes from people viewed as thought leaders who said things that are laughably wrong.

One of my favorites: “Two years from now, spam will be solved.” — Bill Gates, World Economic Forum, 2004

That alone should have me resist pontificating about the future, at least in public. And yet, when I have an audience, I cannot resist.

No doubt, when the Southern Economic Development Council meets in Dallas in about two weeks, and I will be on a consultants’ panel discussing manufacturing, I will point my index finger skyward and say, “I believe …”

Which reminds me of an old Steve Martin standup routine (abbreviated):

“I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales.
“And I believe 8 of the 10 Commandments.
“And I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there’s a game on.
“And I believe in equality, equality for everyone … no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.
“And … I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.”

It’s that last point where I think he might be onto something.

AI Will Change Us

My “I believe” statement, which I may make at the upcoming SEDC conference, is that artificial intelligence (AI) will not only transform manufacturing, but it will change all of lives for the better or for the worse, depending on we how control it. And we best control it.

AI is the ability of machines to be “smart,” to learn, imitate, and dramatically accelerate or replace human decision making and behavior. Machine learning refers to teaching computers how to analyze data for solving particular tasks through algorithms.

Data is the lifeblood of AI. Almost every enterprise generates data in one way or another: think market research, social media, school surveys, automated systems. Machine learning applications find hidden patterns and correlations in the chaos of large data sets to develop models that can predict behavior.

But the machines in themselves cannot distinguish between good and evil, and there are bound to be some people who are feeding them with data and instructing them with tasks that have unsavory motives.

It’s precisely for that reason that more than 100 leaders of AI companies, including Elon Musk, have signed an open letter to the United Nations, voicing concerns that companies building AI systems could convert the technology into, I am not making this up, autonomous killer robots.

This goes well beyond stealing your luggage.

Is There a God?

The fact that there could be malicious use of AI, probably would be, was the warning from the late Stephen Hawking. In a 2014 interview with comedian John Oliver, the world-renowned theoretical physicist displayed a wonderful sense of humor.

“There’s a story that scientists built an intelligent computer. The first question they asked it was: “Is there a God?” The computer replies: “There is now.” And a bolt of lightning struck the plug so it couldn’t be turned off.”

Still, there are “experts” (people who point their fingers in the air and say, “I believe ….”) who contend that the threat of AI is not real and that an AI Terminator is perhaps hundreds of years away, if at all.

We know that AI is not a matter of just installing software. It requires certain levels of expertise, vision, and information that few of us possess.

And certainly, very good things can come from AI, from self-driving vehicles, drones overhead, traffic management, preparing tax returns, identifying and treating rare cancers, setting up meetings. The list goes on and on and will invariably grow.

But bad things, mischievous things can also result. We know of videos generated by machines that have President Barack Obama saying things that he never said. We know that machines can learn from news, social feeds and just from listening to us around the house, (Alexa, I am unplugging you) and thereby deliver targeted ads aimed directly at us, based on our likes and dislikes.

Determining what is true and what is not may become only become more difficult as “fake news” will proliferate beyond the realm of our traditional news media gatekeepers.

Industry 4.0

Some “experts” (finger pointers all) say we are currently in our fourth industrial revolution. The first, beginning in the 1760s, was characterized by mechanization, water power and steam power; the second, started in the 1870s was characterized by mass production, assembly lines and electricity.

The third industrial revolution got its start in the 1950s with computers and automation; and now we’re in the fourth, aka Industry 4.0, characterized by artificial intelligence and deep machine learning.

In every one of these industrial revolutions we have had the loss of jobs and the creation of new ones. In that regard, disruption is not new. Somehow, we have always been able to figure it out, to adapt.

But this latest industry revolution may be different in that the technology we unleash may be somewhat mysterious even to its creators. And there is a chance, and I know this sounds outlandish, that we could lose control of the machines. More on that in a moment.

Dramatic Improvement

Will AI change your job? Yes, probably so. Will it be slow and gradual? Well, I’m not so sure. Most AI experts agree that they would never have thought any of the major achievements in AI would have happened so quickly.

“The rate of improvement is really dramatic, but we have to figure out some way to ensure that the advent of digital super intelligence is one which is symbiotic with humanity. I think that’s the single biggest existential crisis that we face, and the most pressing one,” warns Musk.

Which begs the question, should we not be imparting to the machines a certain level of human ethics? Algorithms may not be free of the biases of their programmers, but should we teach, guide, and provide socially acceptable boundaries for the AI systems that we use? In short, can we, should we, input some basic goodness into the machines so that they will not, well, turn on us?

Those might sound like ridiculous questions on their face, except for the fact that no one really knows how the most advanced algorithms work. Now here is where it gets spooky.

Alien Behavior

Will Knight, a senior editor for AI at MIT Technology Review, tells the story of a self-driving car developed by the chip maker Nvidia that didn’t follow a single instruction provided by an engineer or programmer.

Instead, the car relied entirely on an algorithm that it taught itself by watching a human drive. The researchers working on the project found that a bit, well, unsettling.

The CEO of DeepMind Technologies Limited, a British AI company owned by Google, reported in December that his company had developed an algorithm, called AlphaZero, that achieved within 24 hours a superhuman level of play in the games of chess and shogi (Japanese chess) as well as Go, and convincingly defeated a world-champion program in each case.

AlphaZero made moves unthinkable to a human chess player, said Demis Hassabis, the founder and CEO of DeepMind and an expert chess player himself.

“It doesn’t play like a human, and it doesn’t play like a program,” Hassabis said at an AI conference in Long Beach, Calif. “It plays in a third, almost alien, way.”

Last year, Facebook shut down an experiment after two AI programs appeared to be chatting to each other in a strange language that only they understood. The two chatbots created their own changes to English that made it easier for them to work – but which remained mysterious to the humans who were there to oversee them.

This raises the spectrum and poses a question: Could we actually lose control? Could something akin to Hawking’s lightning bolt happen in which we could not unplug?

As AI becomes more commonplace, “I believe” (I am pointing my index finger skyward) that machines will learn to talk to each other, drive cars, beat, dream, filter applicants for a job, paint pictures, tell stories and help make scientific discoveries. They may also do corporate site selection, an area of focus for me. These are all things the machines have already started to do.

And in the process, they may also confound us, their human creators, with mysterious “alien” behavior. We should watch for that very carefully. I know I do not want to lose my luggage to some larcenous robot.

Dean Barber is the principal of Barber Business Advisors, LLC, an economic development and corporate location consulting firm based in Dallas. Dean is available as a keynotes speaker and can be reached at dbarber@barberadvisors.com. Visit us at www.barberadvisors.com to learn more.