« The incredible shrinking competitiveness agenda | Main | An innovation-led energy strategy »
January 24, 2007
Dynamics and insecurity
Yesterday's Washington Post has an unintentional juxtaposition of stories that illustrated one of the themes from last night's State of the Union ritual: the competing views of economic dynamism and economic insecurity
On the op-ed page was a defense of dynamism, specifically job churn by Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt. In the heath section was a special report on work and stress.
Secretary Kimmitt's piece is well argued discussion of why job turnover is not necessarily bad. I agree that economic dynamism is good (if fact I have argued that our understanding of economic growth should be based more on disequilibrium not equilibrium theory). However, he fails to differentiate between voluntary job separation (economic opportunity) and involuntary job separation (economic insecurity). Both play their role in economic dynamism. But Kimmitt downplays the involuntary part and completely ignores its consequences.
One of those consequences is increased stress. Here too there are goods and bads. Some stress is helpful. It is good to go beyond one's comfort zone. That is also good for the economy - especially an I-Cubed Economy based on creativity and innovation. But too much stress is depilating - again especially in an I-Cubed Economy where so much of the process requires mental acuity. Andy Grove may have entitled his book Only the Paranoid Survive. But that is not a generally recommended approach to economic success. And an economic system that creates insecurity in the name of dynamism does little in the end to promote that dynamism if it raises stress levels to problematic levels.
Like so many other thing, key is getting the balance right. So Secretary Kimmitt, I understand your call for policies that preserve the dynamism that fosters our economic opportunity. But where are the policies that address our economic insecurity.
And don't just tell me that we can't have one without the other. That is soooooo 20th Century. To use the cliché - maybe we need to think outside the box.
Posted by Ken Jarboe at January 24, 2007 7:02 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.athenaalliance.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1097