The Wages of Sustainability

Sustainable Development?

Speaking generally, Sustainable Development can be defined this way:

Sustainable development is the organizing principle for meeting human development goals while at the same time sustaining the ability of natural systems to provide the natural resources and ecosystem services upon with the economy and society depend. [1]

Clearly, this implies an on-going win – win situation for humanity and for Mother Nature. But “speaking generally” isn’t always good enough. Pursuing human development goals (be those goals global, local or anywhere in between) implies economic expansion, with its attendant costs and/or trade-offs.

The Hopi

Hopi Land

Hopi Land Near Oraibi
BG Jaume – Public Domain via Wikipedia

Traditionally, the Hopi regard themselves as the original human occupants of the western hemisphere. Their tradition indicates that the Hopi emerged into this hemisphere from the sea, most likely in Central America. From there, the Hopi spent centuries in migration: to ice and snow in the north, to the end of the world in the south, east and west to both coasts. Their permanent place of residence, as stipulated by the Creator, was to be at the crossing of the north – south and east – west meridians of the hemisphere. They settled at their reckoning of that crossing about 1,000 years ago and built what archaeologists regard as the oldest continuously occupied human habitation on this continent. The Hopi are still there. [2]

That unlikely promised land is in the northeastern corner of Arizona. It lies in remote, high (generally 5,000 – 7,000 feet), dry (typically 6 – 7 inches of rain annually), barren country. Today’s Hopi reservation is entirely surrounded by a much larger Navajo reservation. There are about 19,000 Hopi today, of which perhaps half live on the 2,500+ square mile reservation. As individuals, Hopi who live on the reservation follow their traditional way of life more or less rigorously, resulting in “traditional” and “progressive” factions. [3]

Black Mesa

Black Mesa lies within the Navajo and Hopi lands. It is well named – it has large deposits of coal that can be rather readily strip mined. Some years ago, Peabody Western Coal Company obtained a concession from the Hopi and Navajo tribal councils to conduct mining operations, primarily to serve two very large coal-fired electric power generation stations. One of those power plants was closed in 2007 due to environmental (water and air) concerns. The second is scheduled for closure in 2019, due to stiffening environmental regulations in the face of competition from cheaper natural gas fired facilities. [4]

Asymmetry

The rub here is the asymmetry of benefit and cost. Closure of the remaining power plant and attendant coal mining operations will result in a reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere, providing an unquantified benefit to humanity generally.

The cost of discontinuing revenues from coal production, on the other hand, will impact the Hopi specifically and dramatically. In 2010, the Hopi tribal council had a budget of $21.8 million. Coal revenues provided $12.8 million, or about 59% of that budget. The problem in 2019 — losing almost 60% of revenue — would impact the ability of any governing entity to provide public services. Further, there are few viable options available to the Hopi to make up those revenues from other sources. [5]

This is but one of many issues of asymmetry of costs and benefits that will challenge those who pursue Sustainable Development in an age of globalization. Kermit is right: It isn’t easy being green.

Chuck - VancouverThoughtful comments and experience reports are always appreciated.

…  Chuck Harrington (Chuck@JeraSustainableDevelopment.com)

This blog and associated website (www.JeraSustainableDevelopment.com) are intended as a resource for smaller manufacturers in the pursuit of Sustainability. While editorial focus is on smaller manufacturers, all interested readers are welcome.


[1] From: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sustainable_development

[2] The Hopi, their traditional history, and their worldview are quite remarkable, as is Frank Waters’ Book of the Hopi, which was written in the early 1960s in collaboration with 32 Hopi elders. The book is still available on Amazon. It is a great read. Frank Waters, incidentally, was nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature – FIVE times.

“Hopi” means peaceful – the oldest existent culture on this continent actively espouses nonviolence. The Hopis’ history, traditions, religious views and way of life constitute an important part of humanity’s cultural heritage.

[3] The specific figures presented here are from www.en.wikipedia/wiki/Hopi

[4] The Black Mesa mining concession has been controversial since its inception. See www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mesa_Peabody_Coal_Controversy

[5] “When coal-fired power plant closes, this mine will die. So will a lifeline for one Native American tribe”, Ryan Randazzo’s article for The Republic, takes a close look at the consequences of closing the power plant and the mine that feeds it. The article is available on-line at: www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/energy/2017/o2/23/arizona-kayenta-coal-mine-hopi-navajo-tribes-power-plant-98144914

 

Post-Paris Pragmatism

The Paris Pact

In December 2015, an international agreement was reached whereby almost 200 nations, along with other political and commercial entities, agreed to significantly reduce annual greenhouse gases (principally carbon dioxide). Many also agreed to participate in a US$ 100 billion U.N. administered fund, intended to help less developed nations reduce emissions and abate damages due to climate change*. The sizes of each entity’s commitments vary widely.

President Obama’s commitment was for the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 25% – 28% below 2006 levels (the highest ever) by 2025, and to make substantial contributions to the U.N. administered fund. Neither the agreement nor President Obama’s commitments were submitted for ratification by the U.S. Senate; hence lack the obligatory nature of a formal international treaty.

Earlier this month (June 2017), President Trump announced that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris agreement, apparently after substantial discussions with many people. The President’s decision was greeted with both applause and cat-calls, as one might expect. International reaction was almost entirely negative, since withdraw of U.S. support greatly weakens the viability of the Paris agreement.

The properness of the President’s decision has been widely discussed in the media. No need to add to that here. Rather, this post attempts to assess the pragmatic realities going forward, especially as those realities affect smaller manufacturers.

Going Forward

Regarding Emissions Reduction:

>> I think that achieving President Obama’s commitment for the U.S. to reduce emissions by 25% by 2025 is going to happen, Paris or no Paris. The advent of “fracking”, advances in renewable energy technologies and improvements in energy utilization efficiency all have too much momentum. The economics of power generation are rapidly favoring replacing the old with the new.

As you can see from this graph labeled “Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions”, U.S. emissions peaked near 6 billion annual metric tons about 2006. A 25% reduction by would mean emissions near 4.5 billion tons by 2025. The graph projects emissions around 4.9 – 5.3 billion tons for 2025, considering eight different cases. However, these extrapolations specifically exclude technical advances not already in place (or required to be in place by regulation or legislation) at the end of 2016.

CO@ Emissions Projections

Global CO2 EmissionsNevertheless, even if the U.S. and everybody else achieve their emissions reductions commitments in full, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere will continue to increase, not decline. This occurs because increasing populations and increasing per-capita incomes in the developing world will generate additional emissions well in excess of emissions declines in the economically developed nations.

The graph labeled “Figure 9-1”, where “OECD” refers to economically developed countries, illustrates this.

Projected Global Emissions>> President Trump has reversed the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, meaning that some coal fired electric generation plants will stay on stream longer than they would have otherwise. However, “fracking” (cheap natural gas) and rapid advances in renewable energy are making coal fired plants increasingly less economically attractive here in the U.S. However, “fracking” and cheap natural gas are not generally available worldwide, so, in many places globally, coal will remain a low cost choice for years to come. The graph labeled “ES-8. World energy related carbon dioxide emissions by fuel” illustrates this. Coal is dying, and has been dying since around 1950. But coal isn’t dead just yet.

>> You may recall that, prior to the election last November, then-candidate Trump chastised Ford Motor Company about Ford’s plans to move small car production (and jobs) from the U.S. to Mexico. Ford reversed their decision. Then, early this year, Ford’s then-CEO Mark Fields asked President-elect Trump to reconsider the EPA’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (“CAFE”) program that mandates a series of increases in miles per gallon fuel economy for automobiles. Ford’s problem is that small cars are expensive to produce in the U.S. – and Ford needs to produce and sell a lot of them in order to sell a lot of large (and profitable) SUVs (the “corporate average” part of “CAFE”). To date, there has been no change in the CAFE requirements, nor do I, speaking personally, expect any.

>> It was the Obama administration’s policy to actively support research and development for emissions reduction technology. The Trump administration is expected to be less aggressive in doing so. Government supported R&D is, in my view, best applied to fundamental research and I expect that to be where most government R&D dollars will spent in the next several years. So, most practical, year over year advances in technology will continue to come from the private sector. 

The U.S. contribution to the U.N. climate change relief fund.

>> Take another look at the graph labeled “Figure 9-1”. Total global emissions are equal to the sum of the two lines. For 2012, for example, the sum of the two lines is about 13 + 19 = 32 billion metric tons. In order to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the sum of the two lines has to decrease year after year, not increase. Even if the U.S could somehow eliminate its entire 5 billion tons of emissions, that would not, by itself, be sufficient to stop the sum of those two lines from increasing.

>> Quite obviously, any viable solution lies requires substantial mitigation of expected future increases in emissions everywhere in the world. That is the purpose of the fund. However, there seems to be very little public discussion of how the fund will actually work: for example: what types of projects will be funded, on what basis the money will be dispersed, and how transparency of the disposition of the money will be assured.

The U.S. withdraw from the Paris agreements have likely confounded expectations as to who pays and how much. It is not clear how the less economically developed nations are actually going to reduce emissions, rather than continue to increase them. Perhaps the international private sector will take the lead in doing so.

So What?

The point here for pragmatists is that, Paris pact or no Paris pact, efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are going to continue, regardless of individual views on the reality of Climate Change. The Trump administration is expected to be considerably less aggressive than its predecessor in forcing emissions reductions. Still, there is substantial pressure from governments abroad, from the U.S. private sector and from other interested groups to continue to push for reductions.

As usual in business, dangers and opportunities – of which there will be many, in operations and in marketing — are two sides of the same coin. Operate your business.

Chuck & Joan in ParisThoughtful comments and experience reports are always appreciated.

…  Chuck Harrington (Chuck@JeraSustainableDevelopment.com)

This blog and associated website (www.JeraSustainableDevelopment.com) are intended as a resource for smaller manufacturers in the pursuit of Sustainability. While editorial focus is on smaller manufacturers, all interested readers are welcome.


* “Climate Change”, as that term is used in the Paris agreements and almost everywhere else, refers to a set of negative events (changes in the global climate) caused by increases in the mean temperature of the Earth’s surface (“Global Warming”). The Paris pacts are predicated on efforts to restrain temperature increase to two degrees Celsius (2o C) compared to temperatures before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, about 250 years ago. Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration are regarded as causing Global Warming.

Graphs are from the 2016 International Energy Outlook (IEO 2016) and the 2017 Annual Energy Outlook. Both are published by the U.S. Department of Energy and are available free on line at www.eia.gov

 

Producing the Tesla Model 3

Everybody knows that Elon Musk has a “problem” – how to ramp up production sufficiently to fill the nearly 400,000 orders for Tesla’s new Model 3 in a timely manner. The production rate increases required are comparable to Henry Ford’s “problem” –ramping up Ford Model T production a century ago.

One post from May 2016 compared Musk’s “problem” with Ford’s “problem”. A subsequent post elaborated on plans for Model 3 production. They are both reprised below, to provide some prospective when the hype builds up around the start of actual Model 3 production, expected in the third quarter of this year (2017).


Henry and Elon (From 1 May 2016)

I’m writing this post just one month after Tesla Motors’ Model 3 electric automobile was introduced and made available for advance orders. As you may have heard, in the first week following that introduction, Tesla received more than 325,000 orders, with $1,000 deposits – reportedly a record for any product, ever! Now, a full month from launch, the order book reportedly totals around 400,000.

The question now is “can Tesla produce enough cars to fill those orders before the folks in the queue get tired of waiting and demand their fully refundable deposit back?” Sounds like a fair question, especially considering: (a) that Tesla produced only about 52,000 cars in all of 2015, (b) that Tesla will want to continue to produce their existing Model S and Model X cars, presumably in increasing volumes, and (c) that lots of additional Model 3 orders will keep rolling in. As a practical guess, let’s rephrase the question this way: “can Tesla deliver a cumulative 400,000 Model 3 automobiles by the middle of 2019 without retarding growth of their other product offerings?”

Henry Ford’s Model T

Let’s start to answer the Model 3 production question by considering Henry’s Model T of a century ago. Ford introduced the Model T as a practical and affordable automobile for everyman in late 1908 and started deliveries in the 1909 – 1910 model year. Here are the production figures:

Ford Model T Production Figures

1910 Ford Model TStarting at zero, it took Ford about four and a half years to produce the first 400,000 Model T Fords. Unlike Tesla, Ford did not start with 400,000 orders in hand. Henry Ford had no idea, from the start, how many he would be able to sell: “everyman” had not even dreamed of owning an automobile in 1908. So, Ford didn’t know how much manufacturing capacity he would need, nor did he know how raw materials would be sourced in sufficient and timely quantities.

For Ford, it was necessary to vertically integrate from iron ore deposits to metals castings all the way through finished vehicles in order to assure adequate supplies of all of the components necessary to keep production going. Tesla has integrated vertically to build a “gigafactory” sufficient to mass produce batteries in the quantities that Model 3 production will require. The “gigafactory” is already in operation, although far from full capacity.

Compared to Ford and his Model T, Tesla has a century of manufacturing technology to draw on, along with the infrastructure that supports an industry that can produce about 15 million vehicles annually. With 400,000 orders in hand (and the $400,000,000 from the deposits), Musk and Tesla are certainly in a much better position to find financing for the facilities and capital goods necessary to produce the Model 3 than Ford was in 1908.

Building and operating a 21st century automobile factory that can produce 400,000 automobiles by the middle of 2019 is a big job. The manufacturing technology is impressive, but it’s not rocket science. By the way, Elon Musk is a rocket scientist – he is the Chief Technical Officer of SpaceX, maker of 21st century rockets.

Will the Tesla Model 3 deliver fast enough? Bet on it!


7 May 2016 – Additional Comments

On 4 May 2016, Elon Musk and Tesla’s management team held a conference call for business analysts and the financial community. Model 3 production planning was a primary area of discussion. Here are a few points that build on last week’s post:

Production Rate: Musk announced that Tesla intends to reach the 500,000 cars per year rate in 2018, instead of 2020 as previously indicated. I take that to mean total production of all three models, not Model 3 alone. The blue line on the graph labeled Model T Production indicates that Ford significantly exceeded the half million cars per year production rate in the 1914 – 1915 model year. The production rate in 1910 – 1911 was 53,192. So, within four years Ford increased production by more than ten times. Now, Tesla says they will do almost exactly the same thing – from about 52,000 in 2015 to about 500,000 in 2018 – in three years rather than four.

Operating Leverage: In a discussion on costs, Elon Musk mentioned that “our operating leverage means fixed cost relative to variable cost is going to improve dramatically”. How much is “dramatically”? The red line on the graph labeled “Model T Production” indicates the per vehicle selling price. For the 1910 – 1911 model year, Ford charged customers $780 for a Model T. The price was reduced to $550 for the 1914 – 1915 model year. That 29.5% price reduction was made possible through Ford’s increase in operating leverage.

Ford was selling the Model T into an entirely new market. Each time he reduced the price, he created an entirely new customer segment. Ford used price to keep his production rates increasing and the improvement in operating leverage funded the price reductions – with some left over for Ford and his Company.

 “Hell-bent on becoming the best manufacturer on earth”: Musk pointed out:

“Thus far, I think we’ve done a good job on design and technology of our products. The Model S and Model X are generally regarded by critical judges as technologically the most advanced cars in the world. We’ve done well in that respect. The key thing we need to achieve in the future is to also become the leader in manufacturing.”

Excellence in manufacturing operations results in high product quality levels and high throughput rates – hence strong operating leverage. It worked for Ford a century ago. It is working for Tesla today.


Everybody in manufacturing should read (or re-read) Henry Ford’s autobiography. The parallels between what Ford said and did with what Musk is saying and doing are truly remarkable. Of course, it goes without saying that a century does make a difference and a Tesla Model 3 isn’t a Ford Model T. Learn from Ford anyhow.

By the way, last week Elon Musk’s SpaceX recovered (landed) a rocket on a barge at sea, at night. SpaceX designed and manufactured that rocket. SpaceX will reuse the rocket, reduce the price for future satellite launches, and increase their throughput and their operating leverage. Musk and his crowd do know how to do things well.

Chuck & Joan in ParisThoughtful comments are always welcome.

…  Chuck Harrington

(Chuck@JeraSustainableDevelopment.com)

This blog and associated website (www.JeraSustainableDevelopment.com) are intended as a resource for smaller manufacturers in the pursuit of Sustainability. While editorial focus is on smaller manufacturers, all interested readers are welcome.

Model T Photo: Creative Commons via Wikipedia

 

The Globalization Gap

The Fly-over Zone

“The fly-over zone” is David Stockman’s term for the middle portion of the United States; the vast expanse roughly bounded by the Appalachian and the Sierra Nevada mountains. Stockman holds that people in the fly-over zone think differently from those on the coasts.[1] The election results from last November tend to agree.

In my view, Globalization, with its economic and social repercussions, provide insight as to why the fly-over folks think so differently from those on the coasts. In essence, Globalization has benefited Americans whose income relies on professional services and intangibles over the last several decades. Those who depend on tangibles, again speaking generally, have done considerably less than well.

 International trade, especially in consumer goods, and large-scale migration from less economically developed nations to more developed countries are two primary factors driving polarization of opinion about Globalization here in America, as well as in the European Union.

Free Trade

Global free trade is fundamental to increased and increasing global standards of living. Since the end of World War II, international economic history records a succession of moves to facilitate multinational trade by removing tariffs and other barriers to trade. One result is truly multinational companies, like GE or Nestle. Another is globalized value chains, even for small companies. Companies and consumers everywhere benefit from the lowest prices available anywhere in the world.

But it isn’t all good. Employees in some nations suffer as lower cost competitors abroad take business and jobs. Some nations import much more than they export, resulting in escalating debt. Some nations use access to resources as an economic means to political ends, like the recent Russian cuts in natural gas supplies to Europe or the OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s.

So, the benefits of free trade are widely spread, but difficult to recognize or quantify. The negatives, on the other hand, are localized and specific – those who have lost their livelihoods to free trade are not happy. And that unhappiness has resulted in political resistance to new trade pacts and movements in several countries to revise or rescind existing agreements.[2]

Migration

In 2013, author and investment banker Dan Alpert[3] wrote:

“The past twenty years have seen a transformation of the global economy unlike any ever witnessed. In the time it takes to raise a child and pack her off to college, the world order that existed in the early 1990s has disappeared. Some three billion people who once lived in sleepy or sclerotic statist economies are now part of the global economy. Many compete directly with workers in the United States, Europe and Japan in a world bound together by lightning – fast communications. Countries that were once poor now find themselves with huge large surpluses of wealth. And the rich countries of the world, while still rich, struggle with monumental levels of debt – both private and public – and unsettling questions about whether they can compete globally”

Alpert’s thesis is that the world suffers from gross over-supply of labor, capital and productive capacity. Capital moves readily across national borders seeking higher returns – meaning productive investment opportunities. When excess productive capacity exists, businesses don’t invest in more. Excess labor, looking for work and stimulated by numerous local wars and conflicts, continues to migrate from developing world countries toward developed countries.

The circumstances that Alpert describes do exist and significantly define world economies and the businesses that drive those economies. These conditions will continue until fundamental global imbalances change. That change may be gradual, spanning years, or quite rapidly, like the economic equivalent of an earthquake.

Chguck - Juneau AKThoughtful comments and experience reports are always appreciated.

…  Chuck Harrington (Chuck@JeraSustainableDevelopment.com)

This blog and associated website (www.JeraSustainableDevelopment.com) are intended as a resource for smaller manufacturers in the pursuit of Sustainability. While editorial focus is on smaller manufacturers, all interested readers are welcome.

Container ship graphic licensed via www.dreamstime.com


[1] David Stockman was former President Reagan’s budget director. He now writes extensively, especially on political / economic affairs.

[2] For more on this, see “Trade, at what price?” in The Economist, April 2nd – 8th 2016 edition, page 27

[3] Dan Alpert’s The Age of Oversupply, Penguin Group (USA) LLC (2014) is offers much more on this.

 

The UN Sustainable Development Goals

One year ago, “The Age of Sustainable Development”, a series of three posts to this blog, sought an operational definition of “Sustainable Development” as that term applies to smaller manufacturers. That is, a definition that answers the question: “what characteristics and actions can be expected to enable smaller manufacturing firms to grow and prosper indefinitely, within context of a sustainable world?” (A sustainable world does not self-destruct ecologically, socially or economically.)

UN FlagThe third of those posts explores the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The United Nations’ Goals serve to remind us of just how broad the scope of doing business is today. Finding a way to keep in meaningful contact with the multitude of changes occurring in globalized commerce is a major management challenge for smaller manufacturers. The following is extracted from that post:


U.N. Sustainable Development Goals

Earlier posts in this series of posts looked at two routes to an actionable definition of “Sustainable Development”. The first was the original (1987) Bruntland Commission single sentence definition: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The second approach was to take the entire contents of Dr. Jeffrey Sachs’ “The Age of Sustainable Development” – the on-line university level course (a “MOOC”), along with the 500+ page textbook – as an operational definition.

Clearly, a single sentence definition isn’t specific enough, while a book plus a MOOC is a bit much. A third route involves the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. By examining these global goals, smaller manufacturers can identify specific, actionable areas that fit with their business and those it serves. From those specifics, each firm can construct their own operational definition – a definition that reflects and contributes to global initiatives.

The U.N. adopted an Official Agenda for Sustainable Development in September of this year (2015). The Official Agenda includes 17 Sustainable Development Goals, to be achieved by 2030. The Goals are sweeping, general statements, each reinforced by a number of more specific Targets. Sustainable Development Goal #1, along with its associated Targets provides an example:

Goal #1: End poverty in all of its forms everywhere

Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day

Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions

Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable

Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance

Target 1.5: By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters

 Target 1a: Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions

Target 1b: Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions

Before you throw up your hands and blow this off, consider that Goal #1 and its targets affect about 2 billion people. Any real global effort toward achieving this will involve huge opportunities in agricultural products, distribution methods, irrigation and other water related products, along with a multitude of other areas. Somebody will supply each piece of all that is required. Some will participate directly, others as suppliers to other manufacturers. So, many firms will do some business and help make the world a better place by doing so.

The remaining 16 Goals and the 162 Targets associated with them are just as ambitious as Goal #1. Rather than list them here, you can visit original list on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development website:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sustainabledevelopmentgoals

For Smaller Manufacturers

>> Each of these Goals and Targets deserve careful thought as to how they fit with your firm’s business model and web of relationships. The 17 Goals, taken together, are so broad that there has to be opportunities for just about anybody who can make anything. Personally, I don’t believe that world poverty will be eliminated within the coming 15 years. But there may well be significant action toward that end. China’s progress over the last few decades demonstrates that major improvement is possible. Helping even a fraction of 2 billion people out of abject poverty is a very good thing.

>> The U.N. Goals signify that the U.N. has decided to combine its (human) economic development efforts with Sustainable Development. That means the U.N.’s current idea of Sustainable Development has a much different focus from the original Bruntland Commission definition. Bruntland emphasized the longer term (inter-generational) relationship between economic development (meaning industrial development) and environmental impact. The new U.N. focus is shorter term and emphasizes human and fairness matters. The U.N. hasn’t forgotten the environment – just much more emphasis on people issues.


Chuck - VancouverThoughtful comments and experience reports are always appreciated.

…  Chuck Harrington (Chuck@JeraSustainableDevelopment.com)

This blog and associated website (www.JeraSustainableDevelopment.com) are intended as a resource for smaller manufacturers in the pursuit of Sustainability. While editorial focus is on smaller manufacturers, all interested readers are welcome.

U.N. Flag image licensed via www.dreamstime.com


Links to the three posts comprising the “Age of Sustainable Development” series:

http://jerasustainabledevelopment.com/2015/12/05/the-age-of-sustainable-development-part-1/

http://jerasustainabledevelopment.com/2015/12/12/the-age-of-sustainable-development-part-2/

http://jerasustainabledevelopment.com/2015/12/19/the-age-of-sustainable-development-part-3/

 

The Triple Bottom Line in Context

The Triple Bottom Line

Sustainability guru John Elkington’s concept of a Triple Bottom Line provides the most used framework for discussing Sustainability. Elkington proposed that businesses should measure and report Return on Assets Deployed information for natural (ecological) assets deployed and for social assets deployed, as well as the usual financial assets (capital) deployed figures. The three “bottom lines” represent the business’s net effects on planet, people and profit. This is obviously a more comprehensive view. Perhaps more significant is the implication that the business should show positive results which indicate enhancement to the environment and society, beyond doing no harm.

Triple Bottom LineAndrew Savitz and Karl Weber’s book, The Triple Bottom Line, extends Elkington’s idea by representing the three “bottom lines” as intersecting circles. The areas of intersection are termed “sweet spots”, meaning synergistic opportunities. For example, when power utilization efficiency is improved, profits are improved due to lower power cost, while the environment and humanity benefit through reduced carbon dioxide emissions. So, improvements in the planet and people “bottom lines” are not necessarily at the expense of the profit “bottom line”. [1]

A Systematic Approach

Approaching the Triple Bottom Line through systematic business planning appears to me to be a clearer, more pragmatic approach. By “systematic business planning” I mean integrating all three aspects of the Triple Bottom Line: in definition of the business (mission statement, vision statement, values statement), in formulating goals and objectives, and in establishing and executing the business processes necessary to successfully pursue those goals and objectives. The sequence is clear enough:

Values to Results

In this sense, Triple Bottom Line involves an increased scope of management awareness that includes attention to the natural world and humanity, in lock step with attention to financial realities.

The rub lies in setting (and achieving) sufficiently aggressive goals and objectives that express timely progress toward achievement of the mission, vision and values that define your business. Those goals and objectives are unique to each organization, in context of the organization and the business climate that exists as they are set and pursued. Accordingly, there is no ready package of goals and objectives – you have to figure them out for yourself. However, you can look at the efforts of others to help you find your own way.

Here are a few starting places:

Fetzer Winery – Fetzer is a medium sized California winery that has Triple Bottom Line Sustainability in its DNA. Start with Fetzer’s website.[2]

Ben & Jerry’s – Yep. The Vermont – based premium ice cream company founded by two hippies. Try Ben & Jerry’s website [3], especially the tabs on values.  Also, Ben & Jerry’s – A Case Study in Sustainability [4],an earlier post to this blog, may be useful.

Hershey Company – The maker of Hershey Bars began as a fair example of an early 20th century mill town, and then morphed into an extraordinary example of what a successful business can do for its employees and their neighbors. Today, more than 70 years after the death of Hershey’s extraordinary founder, Hershey’s continues as a successful multi-billion dollar company that still focuses on its roots. Start with the Wikipedia wiki on The Hershey Company.

Interface Corporation – Interface makes carpets, primarily for commercial buildings. Interface provides an example of what can happen when a manufacturing company thoroughly embraces Sustainability, from its expressed mission and vision all the way through business results. Start with Whither Sustainability? [5], a recent post to this blog.

Waste Management – Waste Management changed its business model from a business based on collecting refuse and carrying it to landfill, to one based on profiting from the refuse it collects. Both Waste Management and Interface are examples of firms that fundamentally changed the basis of their business to embrace Sustainability. See Waste Management Corporation – A Case Study in Sustainability,[6] this blog.

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals – The UN recently established a set of 17 goals for the world to achieve by 2030. The UN’s set of goals provides insight as to just how broad Sustainability is. Aligning your Triple Bottom Line goals and objectives with the UN goals may be a good idea. Start with The Age of Sustainable Development – Part 3 [7] this blog . Alternatively, just google “UN Sustainable Development Goals”.


Again, your goals and objectives are unique to your business and the business context within which it exists. The examples cited above are extreme cases which may be useful to stimulate your thinking.

Chuck in FranceThoughtful comments and experience reports are always appreciated.

…  Chuck Harrington (Chuck@JeraSustainableDevelopment.com)

This blog and associated website (www.JeraSustainableDevelopment.com) are intended as a resource for smaller manufacturers in the pursuit of Sustainability. While editorial focus is on smaller manufacturers, all interested readers are welcome.

Triple Bottom Line graphic credit – creative commons via Wikipedia


[1] The preceding two paragraphs are borrowed from Double Take on the Triple Bottom Line, an earlier post to this blog. http://jerasustainabledevelopment.com/2012/10/04/double-take-on-the-triple-bottom-line/

[2] www.fetzer.com

[3] www.benjerry.com

[4] http://jerasustainabledevelopment.com/2014/11/01/ben-jerrys-a-case-study-in-sustainability/

[5] http://jerasustainabledevelopment.com/2016/06/20/whither-sustainability/

[6] http://jerasustainabledevelopment.com/2015/01/30/waste-management-corp-a-case-study-in-sustainability/

[7] http://jerasustainabledevelopment.com/2015/12/19/the-age-of-sustainable-development-part-3/

 

On Globalization Immigration and Pragmatism

Globalization and its effects are simply facts of 21st century life. The pragmatist looks first at those effects that most urgently affect the pragmatist’s life and business, then seeks a pragmatic solution – a solution that can actually work for all involved.

Viewed from here in the southwestern United States, illegal immigration is one such issue needing resolution. The following, reprised from two earlier post to this blog, proposes an approach that offers a real chance for a lasting solution. The pragmatist also knows that band-aids and stop-gap measures may be necessary as a lasting solution is implemented. But the pragmatist does not confuse the temporary with the lasting.    — C.H.


A Tale of Two Borders

Benito Juarez, a five term president of Mexico in the mid-19th century, famously lamented “Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States”. Today, many in the U.S., especially here in the southwest, complain about illegal immigration from Mexico.

Finger pointing didn’t work in the 19th century, and it will not work now – in either direction. Canada is just as close to the United States as Mexico is. There are no significant immigration issues between the U.S. and Canada. The difference is the approximate economic parity between the U.S. and Canada. The solution to the illegal immigration issue lies in addressing the cause of that issue — the economic disparity between the U.S. and our neighbor to the south.

Those demographics and trends suggest that reducing the economic gap between Mexico and the U.S. / Canada is possible over the coming two or three decades. With the active support of its neighbors to the north, Mexico could build a large, globally competitive economy that exports worldwide and builds big new markets within Mexico. With a cooperative arrangement that catches the demographic tide, Mexico’s economic growth need not be at its northern neighbors’ expense.

The prize is a U.S. – Mexican border that works like the U.S. – Canadian border.

Lose the Sombrero

serape and cactusLose the sombrero, the serape and the siesta. Those old stereotypes hardly fit the modern country that Mexico is rapidly becoming. Two recent news items put this into focus:

(1) The World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Vision 2050 report [i] projects that, in 2050 — 37 years from now — Mexico will have the fifth largest economy in the world, as measured by GDP. That’s right, #5 — behind China, the U.S., India and Brazil; but ahead of Germany, Japan and everybody else. That may shock the stereotype. However, Mexico is already #12 and growing at about 4% annually, while most of the larger economies are currently growing at considerably slower rates.[ii]

(2) Fifty years ago, the fertility rate — the number of children per woman — here in the U.S. was about 3.2, while the rate in Mexico was a whopping 6.8. That’s right, on the average, each Mexican woman had about 6.8 children. Today, the rate in the U.S. is about 2.0, while the rate for Mexican women is about 2.2. And, the projection for 2020 for the U.S. is closer to 2.1, while the Mexican rate is projected to drop below 2.0. [iii] As Mexico’s population growth rate drops, conditions exist for economic growth per person to increase sharply.

The Giant Sucking Sound

Ross Perot received 18.9% of the vote as an Independent candidate in the 1992 U.S. presidential election, a huge percentage for an Independent candidate. Perot was strongly opposed to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He famously warned of a “giant sucking sound” as manufacturing jobs in the U.S. went south, into Mexico. [iv] Perot lost the election and the manufacturing jobs went. But they went to China, not to Mexico. Why? Labor costs in Mexico were lower than those in the U.S., but labor costs in China were much lower yet:

capture-mexico-avg-mfg-costs

But that Was Then

As you can see, the difference between labor rates is shrinking because rates in China are increasing much faster than those in Mexico. Add to that the costs of transporting goods from China to the U.S., the logistic costs associated with long lead times from China, currency fluctuations, and the hassles involved with doing business in China. Mexico is becoming more competitive every day.

But wait… there’s more: [v]

>> Mexico graduates more engineers every year than Germany.

>> Mexico has free trade deals with 44 countries, more than any other nation.

>> Minimum wage in Shanghai and Qingdao is now higher than in Mexico City and Monterrey.

>> Mexico produces substantially more petroleum than it consumes, and Mexico’s petroleum reserves are sufficient to allow Mexico to remain energy independent for a long time. 

As a consequence of all this, five years from now, Mexico is projected to have passed China as a supplier of manufactured goods to the U.S.:

Mexico exports to the US

 

Certainly, Mexico has problems, big internal problems, that must be resolved if Mexico is to take advantage of these opportunities for economic development. The Economist referred to Mexico as “Latin American’s perennial underachiever” — if the political will to manage those problems comes to pass, as appears increasingly possible, Mexico may well lose the “perennial underachiever” tag, along with the sombrero.

What This Means for Smaller Manufacturers

Mexico is a big country, 11th largest in the world by population, with an average age 27.4 years (as compared to 37.1 years in the U.S. and 41.2 years in Canada). [vi] And, Mexico is right next door to the U.S. American manufacturers should remain aware of Mexico and its potential across their entire Value Chain:

>> As a Competitor: As discussed above, Mexico enjoys several competitive advantages over many other nations. Expect Mexican manufacturers to become increasingly strong competitors.

>> As a Market: Economic development requires capital goods and infrastructure – related products and services. As Mexico’s per capita GDP grows, demand for consumer products will also grow. U.S. manufacturers are just as close to Mexican markets as Mexican suppliers are to U.S. markets.

>> As a Supplier: The competitive advantages that Mexico enjoys as a competitor also apply to Mexico as a supplier, especially in comparison to Asian suppliers.

Chuck - SedonaThoughtful comments and experience reports are always appreciated.

…  Chuck Harrington (Chuck@JeraSustainableDevelopment.com)

This blog and associated website (www.JeraSustainableDevelopment.com) are intended as a resource for smaller manufacturers in the pursuit of Sustainability. While editorial focus is on smaller manufacturers, all interested readers are welcome

Photo credit: Man with Sombrero and Serape licensed through www.dreamstime.com.


[i] Here, the Vision 2050 report cites data from Goldman Sachs. Learn about Vision 2050 at the WBCSD website, www.wbcsd.org. The entire Vision 2050 document and/or a summary are available for free download in about 10 languages. There are also PowerPoint presentations and visual aids available.

[ii] Statistics from the World Fact Book, www.cia.gov

[iii] These figures, and many others in this post, are from The Economist, 24 November 2012 issue, Special Report on Mexico. Reprints of the Special Report are available at www.economist.com. In instances where figures are not footnoted in this post, refer to the Special Report.

[iv] Information on Ross Perot are from Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.com

[v] Information from The Economist, ibid

[vi] Statistics from the World Fact Book, www.cia.gov

 

 

The Triple Bottom Line – Up Close and Personal

3P GraphicThe Triple Bottom Line model for Sustainability emphasizes the interdependence of the natural world, productive industry (which includes manufacturing, mining and agriculture) and human society. “Triple Bottom Line” sounds almost trite when read or said. However, when I look out my bedroom window, I have a vivid example of that interdependence literally right in front of me — the Verde River Green Zone.

The Edge of the Wild, a post to this blog from nearly two years ago, takes an up close and personal look at the Triple Bottom Line. – C.H.


The Edge of the Wild (from 9 December 2014)

The Verde River and Its Green Zone

My house is on a bluff, above and overlooking the upper reaches of the Verde River in the high desert of central Arizona. The Verde isn’t very big. However, its source is on the Mogollon Rim (a long stretch of stark cliffs marking the edge of the Colorado Plateau), fed from the 12,600’+ heights of the San Francisco Peaks. So, unlike many rivers and streams in Arizona, it rather reliably has water in it. (About 90% of all streams in Arizona are “ephemeral”, meaning they are dry except after heavy rains – which are rare.) Not surprisingly, the Verde is Arizona’s only federally designated Wild and Scenic River.

Sycamore Canyon RailwayThe Verde supports a narrow riparian green zone, typically spanning a hundred yards or so. The green zone, with its trees and foliage, stands in sharp contrast to the rocks and scrub of the adjacent desert. Riparian zones are quite rare in Arizona, constituting only about 0.4% of the land. Development within the riparian zone is hindered, since almost all of the land within the zone is subject to flash floods. Also, much of the land adjoining the river is within national forests, or is otherwise public property.

In Arizona, a few, thin riparian zones support an abundance of wildlife – coyote, javelin, waterfowl, eagles, hawks, hummingbirds and much more, including a significant number of endangered species. Riparian zones, to beg the obvious, are critical to biodiversity in arid Arizona.[1]

Little Daisy

Arizona is nicknamed “The Copper State”. The Little Daisy mine, extensively developed just in time to supply copper for the First World War, had a lot to do with that. The Little Daisy is on the slope of Mingus Mountain. Copper ore was moved down the mountain to be processed and smelted near Clarkdale, on the banks of the Verde. Mine tailings went along with the ore.[2]

There are a fair number of photographs of copper mining and refining operations here, many from a century ago. Suffice it to say that early 20th century copper mining was an environmental calamity.

Tuzigoot

Tuzigoot National MonumentTuzigoot National Monument stands near the Verde, about two miles downriver from Clarkdale. Tuzigoot is an archeological site where ruins from the Sinaguan Native American culture have been unearthed and partially reconstructed. The Sinaguan culture dates from about 550 C.E. – 1425 C.E. There are several more unexcavated sites like Tuzigoot along the Verde, including one about a quarter of a mile downriver from my house.[3]

The Sinaguan sites along the Verde were likely abandoned around 1200 C.E. The reason the sites were vacated is not clear. A period of severe drought is a reasonable guess.

Getting to the Point

This blog is about Sustainability. This post offers three examples, all within a few miles of my home that help clarify what Sustainability, in the Triple Bottom Line sense, is all about.

The Verde and its riparian zone >> I like to think of Common Wealth, that is, of worth held mutually by the inhabitants of some place or nation – or by humanity in general. This is a form of mutual inheritance that the current generation holds in trust for future generations. Each generation is entitled to the fruits of the Common Wealth, in return for protecting and extending the orchard.

Mining operations >> Early 20th century mining operations placed enormous stress on the environment, including waters like the Verde. The photographs are really striking. And the Verde, then as now, is a major water source for Phoenix, over a hundred miles downstream. Containing the effects of mining and industrial operations is a primary management responsibility, ethically as well as legally.

The Sinaguan people >> Apparently, the Sinaguan people lived along the Verde for several centuries. Then they left. The reason for their departure may well have been a collapse of the natural environment they depended on due to a prolonged drought.

This is a rather vivid illustration of the dependence of peoples and cultures on the natural environment. It applies to everybody. And it applies to human – generated pressures on the environment, as well as natural cyclic phenomena. The natural environment is your business – and your business’s business.


Chuck - Red RocksThoughtful comments and experience reports are always appreciated.

…  Chuck Harrington (Chuck@JeraSustainableDevelopment.com)

This blog and associated website (www.JeraSustainableDevelopment.com) are intended as a resource for smaller manufacturers in the pursuit of Sustainability. While editorial focus is on smaller manufacturers, all interested readers are welcome.


[1] For more on riparian green zones, see http://arizonaexperience.org/land/riparian-areas

[2] For more on the Little daisy mine and early 20th century copper mining, see http://azstateparks.com/Parks/JERO/

[3] “Sinagua” means “without water”. For more on the Sinaguan culture, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinagua

 

The People Puzzle – Part 2

Education and the Future

Robot businessman imageThis essay is Part 2 of The People Puzzle, a continuing discussion about finding (or creating) a future where “life is still good” for everyone, in the post – industrial economy. Part 1 of The People Puzzle presented a few of the pieces to this puzzle. Those pieces seemed to fall into three primary areas: demographic changes, advances in technology and education. In this essay, we look at education.

Part 1 offered three puzzle pieces especially related to education: (1) a report that over 99% of the 11.6 million jobs created (or recovered) by the U.S. economy in the years 2010 – 2015 went to people with t least some college education, (2) a question about what people whose jobs are eliminated by technology or economics should be re-educated to do, and (3) author Daniel Alpert’s contention that globalization has unleashed a hoard (literally billions) of under-educated people, all looking for a better life.

Here are two more puzzle pieces, all specific to education:

Girls and Boys >> The U.S. Department of Education has reported that 4 out of every 7 American college degree recipients in 2014 were female. [1]

The Cost of College >> The cost of attending college has skyrocketed. A CNBC report advises that tuition and fees in 2014 ran about $9,139 at public, four year schools, compared to less than $500 in 1971. The high cost of college has resulted in more than $1.2 trillion in student debt! [2]

Tomorrow’s Jobs Outlook [3]

This is how American workforce is employed now:

Farming, forestry and fishing –                                           0.7%

Manufacturing, mining, transportation and crafts –       20.3%

Managerial, professional and technical –                         37.3%

Sales and office –                                                                24.2%

Other services –                                                                  17.6%

Looking ahead to the next 35 years or so, it is difficult for me to imagine that employment in farming, forestry and fishing will increase. “Manufacturing, mining, and transportation” jobs will continue to be under heavy pressure from automation and lower wage workers elsewhere, as will “sales and office” jobs. Competition for “managerial, professional and technical” jobs will continue to increase globally as emerging economies produce more and more educated people (South Korea, for example). “Other services” jobs should be OK, to the extent that they serve protected niche markets (hair stylists, for example, serve a local customer base).

Putting the Pieces Together

It seems clear enough to me that tomorrow’s personal occupations are similar to today’s businesses, to the extent that differentiated talents, know-how and skill sets are increasingly necessary. It is education’s task to prepare an entire population for the employment that the emerging 21st century global economy demands.

For the U.S., that means rethinking education from first principles. America’s educational systems have evolved from providing basic literacy for everyone to primary and secondary education for almost everyone. 21st century occupations will require highly individualized – and highly relevant – primary, secondary and tertiary education (or skills acquisition training) on a continuous, life-long basis for everyone, all provided at a much lower cost to those being educated (or trained). Emerging technology will need to play an important role. Existing educational institutions will face extensive change or, in many cases, extinction. Fierce and persistent resistance to the necessary changes can be expected, if not guaranteed.


In Monet's GardenThoughtful comments and ideas on the structure and content of occupations – oriented 21st century education are invited and appreciated.

…  Chuck Harrington

(Chuck@JeraSustainableDevelopment.com)

This blog and associated website (www.JeraSustainableDevelopment.com) are intended as a resource for smaller manufacturers in the pursuit of Sustainability. While editorial focus is on smaller manufacturers, all interested readers are welcome.

Image: Robot and Puzzle – licensed through www.dreamstime.com


[1] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_301.10.asp?current=ye

[2] http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-college-costs-are-so-high-and-rising.html

[3] CIA World Factbook, www.cia.gov (yes, that CIA). Figures are from 2009, the latest available. Should be close enough for our purposes here.

 

The People Puzzle

A Master Plan

“… so that we can imagine far into the future and life is still good. That’s what ‘sustainable’ means. It’s not some silly hippy thing – it matters for everyone.”

That’s how Elon Musk defines “sustainable” in Tesla’s recently released Master Plan, Part Deux. [1] The Master Plan goes on to outline Tesla’s approach to making a sustainable (solar) energy economy a reality. A solar powered economy is a key component of a future where “life is still good” – for everyone. But it is only one component. This post looks at another component – the future of employment, meaning how people might produce their livelihoods as the future unfolds over the coming decades.

Pieces of a Puzzle

Robot businessman imageUntil the middle of the 19th century, the great majority of Americans worked in agriculture. Then, the advent of railroads and the American Civil War marked a profound change — from a nation of farmers to a nation of industrial workers. A couple of decades more than a century later, the smoke stacks stopped belching and America began morphing, then rushing, toward a post – industrial economy, whatever “post – industrial economy” means for the American workforce.

Frankly, “post – industrial economy” isn’t very well defined, especially from the perspective of the millions of diverse individuals that constitute the American workforce – all of whom want a “future where life is still good”. While that future is far from clear, there are some pieces that, like a jigsaw puzzle, can be examined and fit together.

Here are a few of those pieces:

>> The Age of Oversupply: Daniel Alpert’s 2013 book, The Age of Oversupply, posits that the economic emergence of formerly iron curtain countries and of export oriented Asian countries has resulted in a global glut (billions!) of under-educated workers and of capital looking for higher returns.

>> Demographics: There are dramatic changes evident in the demographics of economically developed countries, including the U.S. Birth rates are declining and populations are aging. In Japan and a few western European countries, populations are actually shrinking. Changes of this magnitude have significant social, economic and political repercussions.

>> Jobs and Education: A recent Bloomberg article entitled Educated Americans have taken almost every job created in the recovery [2] maintains that the U.S. economy has added (or recovered) about 11.6 million jobs since 2010. Of these, about 99% of those jobs were filled by people with at least some college education. Only 80,000 – less than 1% — were filled by people with a high school diploma or less. (Note: The population of the U.S. increased by about 12.3 million between 2010 and 2015).

>> Coal Miners and Re-education: There has been much talk about the demise of coal as a fuel. Of course, that means displacement for those who make their living in the coal mining industry. Re-education comes up frequently. Exactly what these people might be retrained to do does not come up so often.

>> Poorer Kids: A recent McKinsey & Company article informs us that:

“Most people growing up in advanced economies since World War II have been able to assume they will be better off than their parents. For much of the time, that assumption proved correct: except for a brief hiatus in the 1970s, buoyant global economic and employment growth over the past 70 years saw all households experience rising incomes, both before and after taxes and transfers. As recently as between 1993 and 2005, all but 2% of households in 25 advanced economies saw real incomes rise.”

“Yet this overwhelmingly positive income trend has ended. A new McKinsey Global Institute report, Poorer than their parents? Flat or falling incomes in advanced economies [3] finds that between 2005 and 2014, real incomes in those same advanced economies were flat or fell for 65 to 70 percent of households, or more than 540 million people.”

>> Robotics and Automation: Tesla’s Master Plan, Part Deux, mentioned earlier, provides other insights on employment and the future. The Master Plan suggests that advanced manufacturing techniques could accelerate production rates between 5 and 10 times on a roughly 2 year iteration cycle. That means many more vehicles per employee. The Master Plan also mentions vehicles without drivers.

Closer to home, my local grocery and hardware stores are installing more self – checkout aisles. The bank that I use now has ATMs inside as well as outside. Retail stores (and their employees) are being thumped by on-line shopping. The beat goes on.

Robotics and automation, fueled by advances in artificial intelligence, are proliferating rapidly. Good for product costs and (presumably) prices. Not so good for people needing jobs.


What Next?

This essay is about finding (or creating) a future where “life is still good” for everyone, in a post – industrial economy. What that entails is, indeed, a puzzle. The few pieces of that puzzle mentioned here seem to fall into three areas: demographic changes, advances in technology and education. The next post to this blog, The People Puzzle – Part 2, will begin to fit together the pieces of this puzzle and attempt to draw some insights as to what that future where “life is still good” might consist of. Stay tuned.

Chuck - VancouverThoughtful comments and experience reports are always appreciated.

…  Chuck Harrington

(Chuck@JeraSustainableDevelopment.com)

This blog and associated website (www.JeraSustainableDevelopment.com) are intended as a resource for smaller manufacturers in the pursuit of Sustainability. While editorial focus is on smaller manufacturers, all interested readers are welcome.

Image credit: robot / puzzle graphic via www.dreamstime.com


[1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-deux

[2] www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-30/americans-with-more-education-have-taken-almost-every-job-created-in-the-recovery

[3] www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/employment-and-growth/poorer-than-their-parents-a-new-perspective-on-inome-inequality