The Future of Jobs & Human Capital
In February 2016, I had the opportunity to meet an early investor of a truly remarkable African company named Andela.
Andela has a very refreshing take on outsourcing, one that is predicated not on low cost, but on how selective its intake was. In fact,its acceptance rate of 0.7% makes it more selective than the most elite schools in the world.
By that time in February last year, it had already won contracts from Google & Microsoft, contracts that were earlier served by one of India’s largest IT services firms.
I remember remarking:
“Andela might well be the Infosys of the future”
A few short months later, Andela became the first ever investment made by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
Fast forward to the present, and things look, lets say, a tiny bit grim for India’s top IT firms.
There are two popular explanations for this turn of events.
The first is Trump (who I shall not attempt to analyze).
The second is Artificial Intelligence (AI), Robotics, and automation and what that means for the human workforce.
However, for all the attention that the IT industry has been receiving, automation has profound implications for nearly every profession.
In August last year, I had speculated of a future where the raison d’être for the vast majority of venture capital (VC) funds might disappear with individuals (or ‘Angels, if you prefer that term) being able to instantly invest in any early stage company.
While I hadn’t foreseen their rise, it would appear that Initial Coin Offerings (ICO) are an early sign that the profession of Venture Capital,at least the way it exists today, might be reduced to a more vestigial existence.
How comforting.
Image source : Dilbert.com
But is the future for human workers really as dire as it is made out to be ?
The argument : “X is stealing jobs ” or “X has created more jobs for the human workforce” has been around for centuries.
Depending on the year and piece of technology being referred to, X might have been, weaving machines, industrial factories, cars, telephone, computers, internet and, in the present: Automation (Lets assume that includes AI & Robotics)
In an analysis presented for a similar argument, I came across a statistic comparing how jobs have shifted from ‘Muscle power’ professions to ‘Caring professions’.
While the definitions of ‘Muscle power’ workers (Cleaners, domestic servants, laborers and miners) and ‘Caring professions’ (Health and teaching professionals, and care home workers) used in the study leaves little room for debate, what if these definitions and their implications could be superimposed on other professions ?
Professionals employed in the IT sector are,unquestionably, knowledge professionals (After all, IT has “Technology” in its name).
Or are they ?
For a vast majority of the millions of women and men employed by the Indian IT industry, especially those serving their clients’ outsourcing needs, a typical day consists of a routine adherence to processes, timelines and protocols defined either by the client or the powers that be in the organization. There is very little, if any, room for expression or originality, or for a change in this script.
Had I not known anything else about the profession, I might be inclined to include it in the category of ‘muscle workers’ (Albeit the only muscles being strained while working are those supporting the fingers, hands, and eyeballs).
But if that were the case, how can we find the defining hallmark of a ‘caring’ job or professional, the one whose job is not only protected during technological change, but perhaps even strengthened by it ?
Not too long ago, I had come across an article which described a very interesting proposition made by Warren Buffet to a class of Columbia MBA students.
“Right now, I would pay a hundred-thousand dollars for 10 percent of the future earnings of any of you. So, if anyone wants to see me after this is over … (laughter and applause). If that’s true, you’re a million dollar asset right now, right?”
An alternate version of this proposal is presented in the video below:
Interestingly, Buffet highlights the oft-ignored fact that whether we choose to invest for a 10% stake or “short” our holding in a classmate/colleague of ours,the decision has very little to do with “harder” metrics such as IQ or GPA.
As fantastic as it is to imagine the possibility of directly investing in individuals as an asset class, surely this is too outlandish an idea for the future?
Or is it ?
Last year, Chinese internet star Papi Jiang had secured 12 Million Yuan ($1.85 Million) from a group of investors. Papi Jiang, one of the most popular internet celebrities in China, uploads short and humorous videos on everyday life and popular culture.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this investment was that it was in exchange for a 12% “share” in Papi Jiang.
In other words, Papi Jiang and her future earnings had become an asset class deemed worthy of a venture investment.
Is there any evidence to show that Papi Jiang’s earnings might yield a good return on the investment ?
Soon after the fund-raise was announced, it was also revealed that the first advertisement appearing in her videos was sold for $3.4 Million, a price that is comparable to the $5 Million that a 30-second Super Bowl ad cost in 2016.
In fact, a report prepared by iResearch Consulting Group and Sina Weibo estimated that China’s internet celebrities (also referred to as the “Cyberstar Economy”) had created a 58 Billion Yuan ($8.7 Billion) market in 2016, a market larger than the 44 Billion Yuan in box office sales.
The report also mentions that agents and investors are flooding this segment.
The agents’ interest is particularly noteworthy as their business model primarily tends to be one that charges a commission on future earnings, thereby endorsing Cyberstars as an investable asset.
Come to think of it, it wasn’t all that long ago when even movie and sports celebrities made their monies through straightforward salary contracts.
In cricket, perhaps the most recent of major global sports to see the influence of a franchise-based auction mechanism (as is the case with the IPL), international cricketers have already been choosing more lucrative league competitions over the fixed-salary compensation offered for their international duties.
The world of cinema also offers interesting examples that highlight this transition.
Here’s a pop quiz for you : Of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s many blockbuster movies, which one generated his largest paycheck ?
You might guess that its one of the Terminator movies, or True Lies, or Batman & Robin.
Nope, it was a 1988 comedy titled “Twins”.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of Twins was the compensation for its stars : No upfront salaries for Arnold, his co-star Danny Devito, and director Ivan Reitman, but a 45% cut of the movie’s collections between the three of them.
While the leading members of the movie cast asking for “points”, as they are referred to, is common practice today, the concept was revolutionary and seemed highly risky in the 1980s.
Arnold’s justification was simply :
“I felt, why would someone have to pay when they didn’t know for sure if the movie was gonna work out. I take the risk, you take the risk. Let’s all take the risk and let’s all go to work.”
And how did that play out ?
“The movie went through the roof internationally and domestically. I think we all made more money on that movie than on anything we’ve ever done, even though I had salaries of $30 million dollars on some movies… This was the biggest payday because we owned a percentage of EVERYTHING. TV rights, cable rights, merchandising… We owned that money and made a fortune.”
Startup enthusiasts will look at Arnold’s deal for Twins and probably remark that it is very similar to, if not identical to, ESOP-based compensation used in most early stage companies today.
And while that wouldn’t be an incorrect judgement, it might be an oversimplification that overlooks a “softer” point.
As Arnold noted,
“It was one of those typical examples, that when you’re not that money hungry — just doing something for the money — then things workout really well. Sometimes much better, because it’s your passion for the project, it’s your interest in the project… It creates a whole different relationship with the studio and your workers around you. Everyone who worked on the movie got more money than we got! Everyone was in a good mood, the movie turned out fantastic.”
It is a beautiful irony that for a person as defined by “muscle power” as Arnold Schwarzenegger, his biggest payday would be the result of a “caring” choice on how he is compensated.
In the very thoughtful design of its grueling selection process , which, in addition to the usual academic rigor, includes things like how candidates interact with their classmates and contribute to the community, and even things as small as picking up trash, Andela might have stumbled upon the blueprint of a ‘Caring professional’.
The Caring Professional might be much closer to becoming an investable asset class than we realize.
Will automation take away jobs ?
Yes, but only the ‘Muscle power’ jobs that are devoid of the possibility of yielding outsized returns in the future. In doing so, pieces of automation become the new ‘Muscle power’ worker.
For those who are prepared for the challenge, the opportunity of capitalizing on the limitless capabilities of this new ‘Muscle power’ worker to deliver enormous investment returns is very real.
I visualize a future where :
- The best of the human workforce think of themselves not as individuals seeking employment but as assets that can outperform other asset classes.
- In doing so, they can “employ” units of automation (or, as we have established, the new ‘Muscle power worker’) and/or other human ‘muscle power workers’
- They transact with other individuals in real-time contracts facilitated by Bitcoin & Ether (or other frameworks that become global standards)and use the same framework to raise funds/investments and access computing power.
Should such a future come to pass, we may have to revisit the definitions of words such as “Company”, “Employment” and “Human resources”, forever changing how we look at our jobs today.
…or maybe the greatest innovation to affect our working lives will simply be the ‘flying car that folds into a suitcase’ that the Jetsons have been promising us for six decades.
- For more of such posts, head to Shubhankar.co
- Have you read my debut book “VCs are from Venus, Entrepreneurs are from Mars” yet ?
Independent Consultant | HR Development, Team Building
7 年Astonishing but very interesting and thought provoking article !
Advocate at High Court
7 年Hi