I’m a big fan of maxims and technology. It should be no surprise, then, that Melvin Kranzbergs six laws of technology really speak to me. Perhaps my favorite is, “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.” There have always been – and will always be – winners and losers. Lately I have been wondering if there have been too many of the latter and not enough of the former.

Sponsor

Guest author Phil Simon is an independent technology consultant and a dynamic public speaker for hire. He focuses on the intersection of business and technology. Phil is the author of two books: Why New Systems Fail and The Next Wave of Technologies. He maintains a blog, writes for a number of technology media outlets, and hosts the podcast Technology Today.

What specifically am I talking about? I’m talking about how there are only a few companies and industries actually creating jobs these days – and how they’re certainly in the driver’s seat. In this post, I’ll take a realistic (as opposed to moralistic) look at the power that technology companies are wielding these days vis-à-vis job creation.

Supply and Demand at Work

Consider the recent announcement by Facebook to create 200 jobs in Austin, Texas. However, there’s a hitch. The company’s U.S. expansion is contingent upon Austin officials approving considerable tax breaks.

Some might question why local governments would essentially bid for jobs. It’s really quite simple: supply and demand. In this case, the demand for jobs is quite high while the supply is not. What’s more, from Austin’s perspective, the costs of lost tax revenues need to be viewed against the self-explanatory benefits of newly created jobs.

Google in North Carolina

With that in mind, it’s hard to blame Facebook or Austin city officials for trying to make a deal. In fact, they are hardly the first parties to work out a sweetheart deal. I can cite a number of recent examples of organizations that have played would-be suitors against each other for the purposes of procuring the lowest corporate taxes.

Perhaps the most publicized recent case involved Google and Research Park, North Carolina. In that very piece, Rick Smith writes about the complicated negotiations that Google executives held with public officials about job creation – and the subsequent public backlash. Smith rightly asks two questions: Should North Carolina government officials accede to Google’s demands? And what’s the alternative?

Technology’s Role in Unemployment

So there’s a fundamental imbalance between the supply and demand of jobs. Let’s not pretend that this has never happened before. However, let’s compare The Great Recession with previous economic crises. What’s different this time? Two things.

First, technology has made jobs more portable, less tied to an individual community. It’s not as if Procter & Gamble in 1932 could make contemporary arguments in an attempt to bargain for tax concessions from local government. Employees had to work near other employees; they weren’t virtual.

Now, my plumber still needs to be local but he is increasingly the exception to the rule. High-tech companies such as Facebook and Google can take their operations virtually anywhere around the globe. What’s more, without getting all political, U.S. tax laws are hardly as employer-friendly as that of other countries that are equally if not more desperate for job creation. Don’t think that tech companies are not acutely aware of these facts when they make local U.S. communities in essence bid for job, a trend that will continue.

Second, technology seems to be destroying jobs much faster than it is creating others. German economist Joseph Schumpeter coined a term for this phenomenon in 1942: creative destruction. No doubt that has endured for both its relevance and its wonderful dichotomy.

Technology has always been a disruptive force, but has it become a net negative with respect to job creation? Journalists certainly come to mind. Also, what about the downward pressure that technology exerts on wages? What about the emergence of “The Disposable Worker“. As Peter Coy, Michelle Conlin and Moira Herbst argue in a recent BusinessWeek article, more and more people are forced to work as independent contractors, absent the benefits of W-2 – e.g., health benefits, sick time, etc.

Business Realities and the Swinging Pendulum

Let’s not kid ourselves here. No economic system is perfect. With capitalism, you have to take the fleas with the dog. Publicly traded corporations such as Google have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders to maximize profits. As for privately held companies such as Facebook, VCs investing millions of dollars surely want to see a ROI sooner rather than later.

Bottom line: We can’t blame any organization for minimizing expenses and seeking the lowest taxes, the biggest loopholes. Current economic conditions allow companies to be extremely picky with regard to hiring and establishing new offices. The pendulum has swung squarely to their side.

The Downside of the Internet and Globalization

The question becomes: Is the pendulum permanently stuck on the side of employers? In other words, have globalization, the widespread adoption of broadband, and collaborative tools collectively put too much power in the hands of employers? If so, then are employers unjustly wielding their power to extort onerous terms from communities desperate for job creation?

I know enough about economics and history to rarely use the term “permanently.” To me, it’s the acme of foolishness. I’d also argue, however, that it’s equally foolish to take a Pollyannaish view of technology. Returning to Kranzberg for a moment, technology always creates winners and losers. For the foreseeable future at least, it appears as if employers will fall into the former group.</P

Photo by dreamguy.
Discuss

If there is any doubt about the social Web moving into the enterprise, then the news today from Jive Software has to make even the hardest skeptics start to wonder.

The Portland, Oregon company that has built its success on providing a social layer to the enterprise is pursuing a path that may lead it to a public offering.

Fueled by venture capital, the company said today that it is looking for a new CEO.

Sponsor

Current CEO Dave Hersh is stepping aside from his role to become chairman of the Jive board. The interim CEO will be Tony Zingale, a Jive board member.

Hersh has lead the company since 2001. He will lead the search effort for a new CEO. Zingale is an experienced CEO. He most recently lead Mercury Interactive, a company acquired for $5 billion. He was also CEO of Clarify, a CRM company.

In a phone interview today, company executives said an IPO is a possibility. It’s a move that makes sense. Jive is now competing with the largest technology companies in the market. For instance, Jive has a Sharepoint integration with Microsoft. But the reality is the two companies are vying for the same accounts.

The issue is size. Companies like Microsoft have huge sales channels. Jive does not have that kind of reach. An IPO would give Jive the resources to compete more effectively with the giants of the tech world.

It’s also a clear sign that the market is there for social software in the enterprise. Hersh said to us in an interview recently that there is a mad chase for all applications to be social.

That’s quite true. And Jive’s dreams of an IPO are representative of that reality.

Discuss

The Obama Administration came out on Wednesday to let us know about all the jobs saved since the U.S. Congress passed the stimulus package one year ago.

Which gets us to start thinking about how the technology world is faring in these hard times. Stories more relevant to us than what we hear in the current political discussions.

Unfortunately, some of the largest technology companies in the world don’t want their story to be told. It’s the story about the racial and gender makeup of technology giants in the Silicon Valley and how diversity has changed over the past several years.

Sponsor

Recently, federal regulators ruled in favor of five technology companies that waged an 18-month battle to block a San Jose Mercury News Freedom of Information request for employment information. The federal regulator ruled that collecting the data would cause “commercial harm” by potentially revealing the companies’ business strategy to competitors.

According to the San Jose Mercury News, Google, Yahoo!, Apple, Oracle and Applied Materials argued that the race and gender of its work force is a trade secret that cannot be released.

It’s a decision that borders on the absurd. It’s unbelievable that the racial makeup and gender of a company would reveal its strategy to competitors.

We highlight this news to point out how the lack of diversity in the tech sector prevents minorities from enjoying the high salaries and benefits that come when working for large technology companies.

Plus, as the Mercury News reports, it prevents us from understanding what the civil rights legislation should be in this day and age. Technology companies like Apple did not exist back in the 1960s when civil rights legislation first passed.

The issue about diversity in the tech economy is especially relevant when you look at what communities are suffering the most during this current recession. Joblessness among blacks is twice that of whites.

The Mercury News eventually did get access to Department of Labor data and the results show how great the gap is in the Silicon Valley:

“The Labor Department data ultimately obtained by the Mercury News shows that while the collective work force of 10 of the valley’s largest companies grew by 16 percent from 1999 to 2005, an already small population of black workers dropped by 16 percent, while the number of Hispanic workers declined by 11 percent. By 2005, only about 2,200 of the 30,000 Silicon Valley-based workers at those 10 companies were black or Hispanic.

In addition, among the roughly 5,900 managers at those companies in 2005, about 300 were either black or Hispanic — a 20 percent dip from five years earlier. Women slipped to 26 percent of managers in 2005, from 28 percent in 2000.”

We look at Google, Apple and Oracle as leaders in technology development. How they fare in terms of diversity is a matter that unfortunately will be kept in the shadows under the cloak of trade secrecy.

Discuss

When we think of Google’s competitors, Yahoo and Microsoft often come immediately to mind. We think of other search engines. There’s no question that Google is (by far) dominating this space. What do you think Google’s greatest source of competition is? Share your thoughts.

We all know that Google has its hands in many other projects beyond search, but even in search itself, it is not impossible that another could come along and win people over. Microsoft’s trying with Bing, and it could succeed. I’m not saying it will or that it is probable, but it is not impossible.

The rise of social media has put an interesting spin on the whole web dominance game, and has given Google even more to worry about. The company’s co-founder Larry Page has acknowledged publicly that Google has to get on board with real-time search, because Twitter search came along and highlighted a need that most people never saw coming, even just a couple years ago.

Facebook is much bigger than Twitter (so far), and it is getting more Twitter-like as time goes on. People can now make their Facebook status updates public (like Twitter). This means that real-time search is a need here too. Real-time search is only a piece of the puzzle though. Twitter search or Facebook search won’t replace the need for what Google search offers, but it’s part of the big picture.

Another part of the big picture is the government. The New York Times ran a piece, over the weekend looking at this, noting that some analysts say that government opposition could pose the biggest threat to Google.

"The Justice Department is examining the hiring practices at Google and other technology companies, and it is investigating a class-action settlement between Google and groups representing authors and publishers," explains the NYT’s’ Miguel Helft. "The Federal Trade Commission is looking into ties between the boards of Google and Apple."

You probably also remember the infamous Google-Yahoo deal that never was. You might say that Google’s greatest competition comes from Washington. Helft also brings up the negative impact such issues could have on the company’s reputation among users who have otherwise viewed Google in a positive light.

According to Helft, Google also says it’s competing with sites like Amazon, WebMD and Wikipedia, and in terms of ad dollars, Google is competing with "television, radio, print publications, bus stop benches and milk cartons." If you want to break down every aspect of Google’s offerings, you will be able to name a lot more competitors.

Google’s Senior Competition Counsel, Dana Wagner tells the NYT that Google could be dethroned if it stops innovating. I would agree with that to an extent, but you would have to throw some other elements into the mix, such as acquisitions and marketing.

Microsoft is throwing tons of money into the marketing of Bing, and so far it has managed to generate quite a bit of interest – perhaps more than the company has ever managed to do in the search industry. The consumer response has been mixed, but much of it has been positive. And Bing isn’t the only thing Google has to worry about.

The point to all of this is, Google has a lot of competition from all sides. So far, Google is doing a good job of staying on top of its game, but that doesn’t mean it is not vulnerable. It could take a perfect storm of occurrences, offerings, and marketing from other companies, the government, and consumer response to put a significant dent in Google’s dominance on the web, but to think of it as impossible, is naive. Google knows this, and has acknowledged it.

Do you agree that Google is vulnerable to competition? Tell WebProNews readers what you think.