We're Living Through a Rare Economic Transformation

In 1993, management guru Peter Drucker published a short book entitled Post-Capitalist Society.  Despite the fact that the Internet was still in its pre-browser infancy, Drucker identified that developed-world economies were entering a new knowledge-based eraas opposed to the preceding industrial-based era, which represented just as big a leap from the agrarian-based one it had superseded.

Drucker used the term post-capitalist not to suggest the emergence of a new “ism” beyond the free market, but to describe a new economic order that was no longer defined by the adversarial classes of labor and the owners of capital. Now that knowledge has trumped financial capital and labor alike, the new classes are knowledge workers and service workers.

As for the role of capital, Drucker wryly points out that by Marx’s definition of socialist paradise that the workers owned the means of production (in the 19th century, that meant mines, factories and tools) America is a workers’ paradise, because a significant percentage of stocks and bonds were owned by pension funds indirectly owned by the workers.

In the two decades since 1993, privately owned and managed 401K retirement funds have added to the pool of worker-owned financial capital.

Drucker’s main point is that the role of finance and capital is not the same in a knowledge economy as it was in a capital-intensive industrial economy that needed massive sums of bank credit to expand production.

How much bank financing did Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, or Google require to expand?  Investment banks reaped huge profits in taking these fast-growing knowledge companies public, but these tech companies’ need for financial capital was met with relatively modest venture-capital investments raised from pools of individuals.

That the dominant knowledge-based corporations had little need for bank capital illustrates the diminished role for finance capital in a knowledge economy.  (This also explains the explosive rise in the 1990s and 2000s of financialization; i.e., excessive debt, risk, leverage, and moral hazard.  Commercial and investment banks needed new profit sources to exploit, as traditional commercial lending was no longer profitable enough.)

In a knowledge economy, the primary asset knowledgeis “owned” by the worker and cannot be taken from him/her.  Knowledge is a form of mobile human capital.

In Drucker’s view, knowledge, not industry or finance, is now the dominant basis of wealth creation, and this transformation requires new social structures.  The old industrial-era worldview of “labor versus capital” no longer describes the key social relations or realities of the knowledge economy.

The transition from the industrial economy to the knowledge economy is the modern-day equivalent of the Industrial Revolution, which transformed an agrarian social order to an industrial one of factories, workers, and large-scale concentrations of capital and wealth.  These major transitions are disruptive and unpredictable, as the existing social and financial orders are replaced by new, rapidly evolving arrangements.  As Drucker put it, the person coming of age at the end of the transitional period cannot imagine the life led by his/her grandparents the dominant social organizations that everyone previously took for granted have changed.

Following in the footsteps of historian Fernand Braudel, Drucker identifies four key transitions in the global economy:  in the 1300s, from a feudal, agrarian economy to modern capitalism and the nation-state; in the late 1700s and 1800s, the Industrial Revolution of steam power and factories; in the 20th century, a Productivity Revolution as management of work and processes boosted the productivity of labor, transforming the proletariat class into the middle class; and since the 1990s, the emergence of the Knowledge Economy.

In Drucker’s analysis, these fast-spreading economic revolutions trigger equally profound political and social dynamics. The dominant social structures that we take for granted labor and capital, and the nation-state are not immutable; rather, they are the modern-day equivalent of the late-1200s feudal society that seemed permanent to those who had known nothing else but that was already being dismantled and replaced by the Renaissance-era development of modern capitalism.

From this perspective, the nation-state is no longer indispensable to the knowledge economy, and as a result, Drucker foresaw the emergence of new social structures would arise and co-exist with the nation-state.

Drucker summed up the difference between what many term a post-industrial economy and what he calls a knowledge economy this way: “That knowledge has become the resource rather than a resource is what makes our society 'post-capitalist.’  This fact changes fundamentally the structure of society.  The means of production is and will be knowledge.”

Knowledge and Management

As we might expect from an author who spent his career studying management, Drucker sees the Management Revolution that began around 1950 as a key dynamic in the knowledge economy.  The lessons in management learned from the unprecedented expansion of U.S. production in World War II were codified and applied to post-war industry, most famously in Japan.

This is the third phase of knowledge being applied to production.  In the Industrial Revolution, knowledge was applied to tools and products.  In the second phase, knowledge was applied to work flow and processes, enabling the Productivity Revolution that greatly boosted workers’ productivity and wages.  The third phase is the application of knowledge to knowledge itself, or what Drucker terms the Management Revolution, which has seen the emergence and dominance of a professional managerial class, not just in the private sector but in the non-profit and government sectors.

The nature of knowledge has changed, in Drucker’s analysis, from a luxury that afforded the Elite opportunities for self-development, to applied knowledge.  In the present era, the conventional liberal-arts university education produces generalists; i.e., a class of educated people.  In terms of generating results in the world outside the person, knowledge must be effectively organized into specialized disciplines that incorporate methodologies that can be taught and applied across a spectrum of people and tasks.

Drucker characterizes this as the movement from knowledge (generalized) to knowledges (applied, specialized).  Organizations can then focus this methodical knowledge on accomplishing a specific, defined task or mission.

Though it may seem incredulous to us, Drucker observes that the current meaning of “organization” was not listed in the authoritative Oxford dictionary of 1950. While social groups and organizations have existed for as long as humanity itself, Drucker distinguishes between the traditional “conserving institutions” of family, community, and society, and the destabilizing post-capitalist “society of organizations” that is adapted for constant change.

Organizations require management, and in the knowledge economy, that means managing change and helping the organization learn how to innovate.  Innovation can no longer be left to chance; it must be organized as a systematic process.

Without a systematic process of constant innovation, organizations will become obsolete.

Drucker takes this process of innovation one step further and concludes that this requires decentralization, as this is the only means to reach decisions quickly based on performance, and proximity to markets, technology, and the environment.

Though he doesn’t state it directly, this means that the highly centralized sectors of the economy, from finance to government, will be disrupted by a rapidly evolving, decentralized “society of organizations.”

What Work Will Be In Demand (and What Won't) in the Future?

So if this is the nature of the new economy, what type of worker will be most in demand?

Will your current industry, job, or skill set be as relevant? Are there steps you can start taking now to defend or increase your future market value?

In Part II: Positioning Yourself to Prosper in the Post-Capitalist Economy, we examine what impact these transformational forces will have on us as individuals, households, and communities, and how we can best prepare for the fast-evolving knowledge economy.

The global economy has only experienced three major transformations in the past 1,000 years, and arguably, we are living through the fourth. Those who understand the nature of this transition and position themselves intelligently will be disproportionately better off a topic covered fully in my earlier report on The Future of Work.

Click here to read Part II of this report (free executive summary; enrollment required for full access).

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://peakprosperity.com/were-living-through-a-rare-economic-transformation/

Drucker seems totally unaware of ENERGY, which, regardless of the level of complexity of a given society is THE resource. The apparent prominence of knowledge is a marker of our energy-subsidised complexity; it's an artefact not a driver.
As is said: "Without energy, technology is just wierd-looking scultpure." Without energy, what is knowledge? I'd hazard 'arcane and unactionable' as a starting point. It doesn't matter what you know if you lack the energy to make it happen.

 

 

An aside: Equating 401ks to 'workers owning the means of production' is just fatuous - holding a flimsy title is far removed from the original concept of ownership enabling control. Your 401k doesn't give you any influence over the board of Exxon - Drucker may be fooled, Marx wouldn't.

Hi Macs: Good points. One dynamic is that technical and social knowledge could (if properly applied) greatly reduce energy consumption.
Agreed, Druckers' faith in 401Ks is looking naive in a world where financial assets are being grabbed as "wealth taxes" or bail-ins. However, we shouldn't overlook the qualitative difference between the old industrial model where the company provided a pension and the worker was powerless over the whole thing (so when the company raided the pension fund or went bankrupt, the worker was out of luck) and today, where the savvy worker at least has the option of opening self-directed retirement plans that enable direct ownership of precious metals, real estate etc.

We arent turning into a knowledge based economy. Weve always been a knowledge based economy, which has always been parasitized by wealthy capatilists. Tesla and Westinghouse/JPMorgan is an ancient example.
Knowledge has always been preyed upon by "capitalists" simply because the people that want to improve the world dont expend all their energy trying to profit from it. Likewise those who spend all their time trying to profit rarely improve the world. Usually its a game of exploited knowledge and always has been.

The simple truth that no one wants to hear is that the reason why they say that "service" and "financial" sectors are the main economy is because its completely gutted and theyve moved on and left it for dead. All financial products are basically legal fraud manipulations, and service sectors rely on old money that was built up when manufacturing existed.

the poster was right about something though, there is a change coming, and as one of the posters above mentioned it has everything to do with energy, which is the true backbone of our society.

The only thing holding back this world is money and if people think there done with farming, ive got news for you. Without cheap oil, well all be farmers. You can "knowledge based" all you want, and while knowledge is power, that power isnt measured in Watts or KVA and cant heat your home.

 

 

 

One of my favorite episodes of Star Trek was about how the Enterprise came across a planet that had beautiful cities, architecture, art, culture but no people.  Of course Enterprise had to investigate.  What they found was "Drones".  These drones were programmed to kill the enemy and they were smart, could adapt and learn and become more effective as they learned.  Unfortunately, the drones learned, adapted and ultimately killed not just the "enemy" but absolutely everyone.
Perhaps it's irrelevant how knowledgable we become if we don't have wisdom.

AK Granny

 

 

i believe we killed off wisdom a very long time ago and replaced it with greed. The last time wisdom was used it was before the white man arrived to North America. They shared and respected the land, they only took what they needed, and look what happened to them.
Theyll beam down to detroit in that dark future but there wont be any drones. It will still be such a shithole that not even killer drones will inhabit it.

[quote=FreeNL]The last time wisdom was used it was before the white man arrived to North America. They shared and respected the land, they only took what they needed, and look what happened to them.
[/quote]
No, wisdom wasn't used much then either.  This Disney Pocahontas version of a Native American utopia pre-white man needs to die.  No such society existed.  Native American tribes killed, tortured, kidnapped, and enslaved one another on a regular basis and certain tribes even practiced cannibalism.  There were territorial and other disputes galore.  As far as respecting the land, they were easy on the land but only because they didn't have the technology to do much more.

Oh gosh… don't remind me of the scalping I have taken recently on my mining stocks… ouch!

I agree that the silly and romantic Hollywood version of North American Native Peoples never existed. And of course they we not Saints. And they lived what we would consider to be a barbaric existance. But the fact is if the Europeans never came to North America, they would almost certainly still be living here much the same way that thay had been for thousands of years.But since our arrival such a short time ago (in the blink of an eye), we have used our technology to alter and plunder the natural environment to the point that we are causing our own near extinction. So whether the Native Peoples were cruel and violent, or whether they would have done the same thing given the opportunity is beside the point.
The fact remains that they did live in harmony with the natural world. And their way of life was sustainable. Our modern way of life is dissconnected from the Natural World. And it is not sustainable.
But I don't believe that Native Peoples are superior. But it seems to me that we have lost our wisdom. And certainly our connection to and appreciation for the Natural World.
But I don't for a moment believe that can return to some kind of primative way of life. And as always Mother Nature will ultimately correct the problem of environmental overshoot.

Charles Hugh Smith is talking about something near and dear to my heart: Peter Drucker and his theories on a knowledge-based economy. We are in the middle of a paradigm shift to knowledge workers. Those that can get trained in something the new economy actually needs will do well; otheres will be stuck in service jobs and low wages. I really wonder how much of the split between the haves and the have-nots is caused by the (a) dislocation of people in buggy-whip industries and (b) the disparity in pay between knowledge workers and service workers.
Drucker's analysis that we went from an agrarian-based economy to an industrial one to a knowledge-based one is one of the insights that formed my mid-life career, when I had to reenter the workplace after being abandoned with small children. What career path would not become obsolete within 10, 20, or 30 years? The conclusion I came to was that I needed to find work that was not going to be taken over by a mechanical or software robot, or become technologically obsolete. And it would require training. I got a license in my field before I got a degree. Licenses are the new degrees: they require CEC (continuing education credits) to prove that you know what is happening in the rapidly changing NOW, as opposed to knowing your field when you got your degree, however many years ago.

Why people go for overpriced degrees in overstocked vocations is beyond me. And is no one looking at the industries they are entering with an eye to the future? The misappropriation of training funds to get people into overstaffed fields is a terrible use of resources. Just how many lawyers does the world need?

Technologically, jobs that have recently fallen by the wayside would be anything related to non-digital film, pay phones,  and middle management jobs (largely taken over by admin positons with software like Exel or SAP). Traditional publishing is falling, the same way record companies fell. I wonder of Lasik will kill optometry (sorry, Robbie). And I worry about too many teachers and college professors in an age of online learning and soon-to-be reduced education funding and loans - whether student loans or local school taxes.

Everyone in my family looked for a field that had a shortage. My husband chose fire alarm and suppression system repairs; he has a very rare NICET certification and can get a job anywhere in the US and some other parts of the world with it. My brother has all sorts of Microsoft certifications and makes more than many degreed people as a Solutions Architect. My son is going into diesel technology, a field where there are HUGE shortages. At the time I reentered the workplace (1990) I chose construction safety since a reduction in that industry's hefty worker's comp premiums makes the job a money-saver for construction firms. (I'd not chose it now, but my career made sense at the time, and I still consult in semi-retirement, making good money.)  My degree in safety management and my NYC Site Safety license, my husband's NICET certification, my brother's Microsoft certifications, my son's ASE certifications and things like that are all portable. They are attached to a skilled person. They are indications of marketable knowledge.

They also provide a small measure of security in changing times.  We do not depend on an employer or the state for our livelihood; we depend on our skills and experience.

you ruined it for those waiting for fireworks. I was sure someone would break out a Darwinian based value on creeds,cultures and ethnicities.
"God made man in His image, man has been returning the favor ever since" Pascal

All the obvious opinions of white men being expressed are finally interrupted by the wise woman. Thanks Wendy, you are proof wisdom is alive and well. smiley
 

Life is short, art long, opportunity fleeting, experience deceptive, judgment difficult.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62kxPyNZF3Q

Having spent the last 20 years working in the IT industry (as a programmer, application developer, project manager, database administrator, and enterprise architect), I’m of the opinion that the field, in terms of employment, has reached its peak and has begun its downslide. Software companies (Microsoft, Oracle, etc) have evolved their development tools to the point where many of the tasks that used to be the domain of highly trained and highly paid IT workers can now be done by your average Joe. Application programming, for example, is moving from a code based endeavor to a graphic interface, where the “programmer” simply connects boxes (representing objects such as a file or a database table) to diamonds (representing actions such as copy or move), and the software writes the underlying code for you. Last year I taught a number of non-IT folks how to write their own applications via the graphical interface (thereby reducing the need for my higher paid job, by the way).  Database administration these days is largely accomplished in exactly the same way, by much less skilled people than your tradition DBAs.
 

My crystal ball (which is just as murky as most everyone else’s) tells me that the future of employment in the knowledge-based industries will resemble the rest of the employment market. There will be a very high demand for a “small” number of very specific and highly skilled jobs; many typical jobs will be simplified so that lower paid people can do them or will be automated altogether; the field will generally be swamped with far too many college graduates of average talent trying to secure a shrinking number of jobs; and only the exceptionally talented individuals will land and keep top paying jobs.

 

As energy becomes scarcer, and more and more people struggle just to put food on their table – who will have money to waste on “shiny new toys/technology”? I think the traditional IT field is already saturated, employment-wise. Wendy made some really good points about doing your research before investing in a new career – look before you leap.  

Here are you fireworks.  I would not want you to do without them.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

I went to a meeting last night with some Native Americans on a local res where they are doing a number of projects to encourage people to grow their own food mostly with traditional crops of native species.  It's pretty cool idea and one I'm excited to have been asked to help with.  It turns out that despite the variety of social ills that plague modern reservations, there is beneath those ills a solid community the likes of which we hope to recreate in the towns and villages that the descendants of European settlers live in today.Some of the people who I have met are steeped in traditional foods and medicines and are trying to bring back many of those traditions, as well as the spiritual and hereditary aspects of their culture.  One lady who has been practicing those traditions for some time gave us an example of how their ancestors thought about such things.  She said that people have stopped asking her how to make white corn soup, a traditional and ceremonial food, because when they ask, she starts with how to prepare the soil for planting and then goes through all the steps necessary to make corn soup next spring.  Most say never mind long before she finishes.
There is still much to learn from them.
Carry on.
Doug

about a knowledge based economy have been around for a long time, unfortunately they get reduced to sound bites in the mass media so they become practically useless.  I have to admit not being familiar with Druckers work, so can not weigh in on his theories in much depth based on the short article above (but that certainly will not stop me!).
 

“That knowledge has become the resource rather than a resource is what makes our society 'post-capitalist.’  This fact changes – fundamentally – the structure of society.  The means of production is and will be knowledge.”

The forgoing statement is seems a bit obtuse and nonsensical, I can only presume he is trying to make some kind metaphorical point, though I am not entirely sure what it is.  Knowledge is not and cannot be a resource, you can only have knowledge of something, but the description in our heads is not the thing described, obviously enought.
 
I would presume that he implies that we have been blundering about this planet so semiconsciouly and ineffectively, that we have had to have been rescued to date by the generosity of abundant natural systems.  Now that our level of knowledge has reached such a point of refinement that the efficiencies reaped by the application of this "new?" knowledge will be so dramatic, that knowledge will appear to have become a resource?  If this is his point than this is straight line mechanistic thinking parading as innovation IMHO.
 
I would agree with his belief in decentralization but his idea of being "effectively organized into specialized disciplines" to me flies in the face of where we are headed.  It is our fragmented and specialized world view that has created both the much of progress we now enjoy, but it is also the shadow side of that kind of thinking that now threatens our survival as a species.  It is the transformation away form this kind of mind set that paves the way to a brighter future.
 
How can "Innovation can no longer be left to chance; it must be organized as a systematic process." Systemization and innovation are antithetical to each other. This is mechanistic thinking at its worst, the promise of the benefits of risk taking without any of the risk?  The known trying to get its dead cold calmy hands around the throat of the unknown.  Innovation comes from stepping into the unknown and can not be "systematized".  And we are certainly on the doorstep of the unkown and fear abounds.
 
Perhaps I am misunderstanding where he is coming from, I would agree we are in a knowledge revolution, but it is not the mining of it like gold or copper that will save us, it is the transformation of what we believe knowledge to be and most importantly its transformation of us where our hope lies. Embacing alternative perspectives of reality are what allow us to evolve into deeper beings and increases the probability of our ongoing evolution.
 
I would agree that native peoples perspective is valuable in this transformative time.  Whether they were better than us, worse than us, more violent than us is so completely irrelavant.  It that it drags us away from any salient discussion of the value of their world view which is so alien to the western world view.  And please lets not insult anybodies intellegnce by bringing up Hollywood!
 
When western ranchers moved into the southwest they went about killing off the prairie dogs because they were concerned about the cattle breaking their ankles in the burrow holes.  The local native peoples went to warn the ranchers when they saw what was going on saying, "if you kill the prairie dogs, who will cry for the rain?"  This was of course written off as primitive nonsense.  Well droughts did ensue.  As it turns out the extensive burrow systems did release enough moisture into the air to have an impact on rainfall, but the native americans through generations of experience expressed this fact poetically.
 
This world view is rich and alive in a way that our world is dead.  There are many limitation in this way of thinking as well but there are lessons to be learned here as well even if they were a horribly violent people, though I would disagree with that assessment.  It is our ability to learn, listen, debate with reason respect that will pull us through.
 
 

I think a critical assumption is missing. When you have unlimited energy and resources, yes, knowledge is then viable as the means of production.
I dont think were there yet, and i really think that we will struggle with the energy problem "post capatilist" before we will be able to move up another rung of the ladder.

We were put up the ladder to early with oil, and that will have its consequences.  

As far as careers go that will be useful, somehow i just cant past electrician.

 

 

[quote=Doug]I went to a meeting last night with some Native Americans on a local res where they are doing a number of projects to encourage people to grow their own food mostly with traditional crops of native species.  It's pretty cool idea and one I'm excited to have been asked to help with.  It turns out that despite the variety of social ills that plague modern reservations, there is beneath those ills a solid community the likes of which we hope to recreate in the towns and villages that the descendants of European settlers live in today.
Some of the people who I have met are steeped in traditional foods and medicines and are trying to bring back many of those traditions, as well as the spiritual and hereditary aspects of their culture.  One lady who has been practicing those traditions for some time gave us an example of how their ancestors thought about such things.  She said that people have stopped asking her how to make white corn soup, a traditional and ceremonial food, because when they ask, she starts with how to prepare the soil for planting and then goes through all the steps necessary to make corn soup next spring.  Most say never mind long before she finishes.
There is still much to learn from them.
Carry on.
Doug
[/quote]
Doug,
You'll find this interesting.  There's a Native American professor at Northern Michigan University who has been running a study on Native American people consuming indigenous traditional Native American foods.  As one might expect, they become progressively healthier, the longer they are on the diet and the stricter they are about maintaining it.  Hooda thunk one could resolve many degenerative diseases simply through diet <sarcasm>.
And for the vegans here, it wasn't a vegan diet.  With their metabolic type and in a cold northern climate, trying to survive and thrive on a vegan diet would be challenging, to say the least.
This is knowledge that has practical application.  One of the problems I see with a knowledge based economy is that it has leaned more towards knowledge and less on the day-to-day practical application of such knowledge.   
 
 

It's interesting how folks have projected what they think was said onto what was actually said.  I for one, never said that Native Americans were superior or inferior to any other group.  In fact, my post pretty much said the opposite of that.  The purpose of the post, to reiterate, was to dispel a persistent myth.  Furthermore, no statement was made that they were more or less violent than anyone else.  They were violent just as almost every other group of humans have demonstrated violence, often horrific violence, at one time or another.  And at other times they were peaceful … just like every other group.  All men are the same red … on the inside.  And all men have something to offer and something to teach, both by what they do right and what they do wrong.  But no one group has a monopoly on native wisdom, violence, or any other characteristic discussed here.  To try and take the high ground when there is no high ground to take is disingenuous, especially when making statements like "This world view is rich and alive in a way that our world is dead."  This very statement returns to the very same viewpoint that becomes divisive and that I think all of us here are trying to eschew.