Search This Blog

Tuesday, 13 November 2018

Fireside Chat with Chris Saad, former head of product at Uber

This is a write-up of the fireside chat that Chris Saad gave with the first Sydney Microsoft React cohort. I wrote it up very hastily as he was talking, and in a few places I've regrouped paragraphs and done editing to make it comprehensible to somebody reading it who wasn't in the room; hopefully I haven't put words in Chris' mouth.

Uber was the first company that wasn't something that Chris built. He only took it on the condition that it could be treated as a startup. Still there was a lot of consensus building, and politics to deal with.

Advice for Australian Startups


Chris said that he has heard many Australian startups being started up "to not have a boss"; this isn't what high-growth Silicon Valley startups are like: you don't end up not having a boss... instead your investors are your boss, your customers are your boss.

His number 1 tip for Australian companies: go faster and think bigger. Australian startups often get distracted in their pace, and are often very conservative. The idea is worthless, it's the execution that matters, and you need to execute big.

Focus on building and shipping a product, but have a big vision of where that product will go.

Launcher strategy

If you are very region-specific and entering another market is hard. Then think in terms of franchising: have a city manager. (This is the kind of thing that Uber did well. They also had a data scientist in every team.)

Advisors


There are all sorts of charlatans – particularly in Australia – who will say that they can get funding really easily. There are a lot of professional strategic advisors who don't have any actual experience and are really out of touch. Chris has been doing this for 20 years and only now does he think he can provide useful advice.

Different markets

The Asian market is very different from the USA and Australia. China loves mobile apps that can do 100 different things. The USA is all about one app that does one thing really well.
There are huge differences in scale: Australia is tiny, and the USA is much bigger. You can understand China intellectually, but even having worked in the USA, it's a shock to the system how much bigger and faster Chinese companies are scaling.

Designing a product for scale


Build a repeatable scalable product. If you are spending too much time doing bespoke work for sales teams, or writing things that are one-off for large enterprise customers, you are doing something a bit wrong, or a bit suboptimal.
Scale is about focus, and repeatability. It's about selling what you have built. It's definitely not about building what you can sell. You need to figure out the kernel of the workflow that is repeatable to get more customers more quickly. That's it.
Scaling is not easy. As you get bigger, refactoring becomes harder. It's not just refactoring the code, it's about refactoring the organisation.
To get scale, it's about delegating to the edges. It's about establishing cross-functional teams that can take responsibility for parts of the product. That's how you scale and get paralellisation of the engineering team. Otherwise you end up with bottlenecks.

Roadmaps

Making roadmaps


When you are small, it's easy to set up a roadmap and know what features customers want, because you might only have 5 customers. But when you get 20-100 customers, the dataset changes. Product management decisions need to be data driven. But this is not just analytics – even though these are great sources of information. The number of data sources starts to grow as you get more customers. So eventually, you need to listen to all the data and then have a very strong opinion about what you are trying to build and why.
That roadmap vision has to be clear enough to give you the power to say "no". It should animate the team and empower them to self-direct without constant supervision.

How far ahead to share roadmaps

Question from the audience: our larger clients want to see a roadmap – how far out should you plan?
Answer...

Be very cautious about customers that want to see your roadmap. They think they are so important to your future. That is an unhealthy and unbalanced relationship.
Salesforce gives a rough set of themes of the next quarter. That's about it.

You should have one internally, and you should feel good about it. 3 months for high confidence; 6 months for low confidence should be more than enough.
The goal is to help you say no to things. It helps engineers be a little bit future-proof. It helps run the process (knowing what the pipeline is for ideation and research).
Don't give away your detailed roadmap. It implies that you are something more like an agency for them. That's not what you are doing, you are creating something scalable for millions of customers

Your might abandon your first customers

Your first few customers may be the wrong customers. Just because they paid you, doesn't mean that's who you want to target long term.
That might be sufficient for a lifestyle business, but that's not enough for a startup.
  • Are there enough of these customers?
  • Do they have deep enough pockets?
  • Is the problem acute enough?
  • Is the buy cycle fast enough?
Be unafraid to do a hard pivot and lose a bunch of customers.
Choose a market as intentionally as you choose the next feature. Just being born in Australia is not a good enough reason for targeting Australia.
Your existing customers might be holding you back. You are not in the business to satisfy those legacy customers unless they will come along with you in whereever you are going.
Chris says that he often didn't make the hard decisions soon enough. Make the decision and then make really hard cuts to legacy code, legacy processes, legacy contracts.


Selling to enterprises

In order to lock down clients, they will often tell you the things they want you to do. They will muse all day about all the things that they wish you could solve. "Gee whiz, I would buy you if you did these five other things." There's a difference between what customers will tell you what they want and what they will live with.

Come up with a modern way of selling: sell directly to the individual.
If you only have an enterprise sales team, you are probably under-optimising. You also want a self-service funnel so that users don't have to go through IT. You want teams to be able to pick up a credit card and pay for themselves. Infiltrate the company so that IT is forced to adopt the enterprise account in order to control costs.

Small teams will often do an end-run around IT and buy things that are contrary to their corporate IT strategy. Aiming for this is really the only option when you are getting started, because you don't have the features to offer a wide product. As a young company, you can't compete on breadth, integrations and features.

Product Managers

Is there an average time and headcount to bring in a dedicated product manager?
As a startup you are doing three things
  • running the business: funding the corp, salesdev, bizdev, etc.
  • engineering & writing code
  • building a product
You need all three in your company. You are a tech company; you need a cofounder who is an engineer; the other cofounder needs to be able to sell. You also need a product.

It's hard to get people in Australian with product experience. Bring it on-board straight away if you are lacking this area. It's the most underrated. Everyone knows that they need engineering, fundraising and sales, but not everyone knows that they need product.

A product manager is like the director for a movie. It's corralling everyone to put something coherent together on film.
  • If the sales person does product management, then everything needs to be done now, now, now to win the next client.
  • If the engineer does it, they'll do it the easiest way, and this-will-do attitude will rule.
There's a big difference between product and engineering. There is a tension there between sales, product and engineering. That's how it should be.
Usually the founders take on product – that's how it happens for a long time – and then at some point you get someone dedicated.

When to bring on-board a product manager

Here's the signs that you need a product manager:
  • you have a vision in your head, and you tell your engineers, and it comes back broken.
  • Or you are spinning your wheels going from account to account and things are evaporating.
  • You have five different priorities and you don't know which one to do.

Money isn't that important. Nobody cares how expensive something is, the question is what's the value to it? The goal is to raise the money and spend it efficiently. You should raise funding to last 18 months. Don't hoard it. Bring people on board who can reduce the time to market.

Product Manager Traits

In an ideal world, poach a product manager from somewhere else. Poach from Google, Atlassian, Canva, or wherever; go overseas if you have to. Go get people who have done this before.
Failing that, umm, actually, don't fail at that. There really isn't an alternative in Australia.
Having someone with an engineering background is good, but it needs to be someone who doesn't take it very seriously. A respect for engineering, but a healthy amount of irreverence for it. A respect for design, but a health scepticisim of endless creative design cycles. A respect for data, but having a vision.
Perhaps a prior founder. A lot of founders are going to recycle through in Australia now – a bit like the cycle that happened in Silicon Valley in 2007.

Recognising good and bad product managers

The product managers who are the most frustrating are the ones who act like project managers. They carry information from here to there, and they spend a lot of time doing consensus building, but it's design by committee. They don't have a strong opinion about what the vision should be. These are the most painful. "Oh, you want to do this? Let me work out how to do this."
Product management is not air-traffic control. Not every plane has to land.

How to hire Product Managers


Give product managers homework. At Uber, it will be something like "we have twice as many people taking Ubers to the airport than from the airport". We would say, here are the five questions:
  • Why do you think this is happening?
  • What would you do to solve? (Write a PRD)
  • What would you call it?
  • How would you announce it?
  • How would you know if you are successful?
It should be that a new-hire product manager jumps instinctively to the things that you've already thought through, and gets you there faster than you got there yourself.


Organisational structure


What's the optimal structure? Initially the product manager should be on the front-line, but as you scale, you need to shield the product manager from direct contact with customers day-in day-out. You need a marketing team who is doing brand and content marketing, gathering customer success stories: they should be creating all sorts of collateral, etc.

Then you want a sales team that are talking to the customer. In a scalable business, sales should be self-service. You want to minimise any kind of bespoke conversation. You need to pair the sales people up with people who deeply understand how the product works in a practical way. You bring them in half-way through the sales process.
Customer success people should own 5-10-20 customers each. Their goal should be to work themselves out of a job. Every sales question, every support question, every implementation question, should be treated as a product fault. They should then work through these with the product team and minimise.
That's how you keep the tight feedback loop with product.
(You also have a developer platform with APIs, there's a whole other thing with developer advocacy.)

Tuesday, 2 October 2018

My contribution to the Piano Guys' success


Don't listen too closely -- I haven't done any jazz improvisation in nearly 20 years. It kinda shows.

Sunday, 12 August 2018

Cryptocurrencies and the Australian Tax Office's asset tracking rules

While I'm on a roll getting quoted on the taxation and technology, the ATO has issued some guidelines around record keeping for cryptocurrencies which are onerous and unnecessary (and thus failing to comply with the taxpayers' charter).

Essentially, the tax office is asking taxpayers to record the Australian dollar value of any cryptocurrency transactions at the time that they occurred. This seems harmless enough because it is consistent with any other taxable asset.

But it is asking taxpayers to keep records that the tax office already has.

The tax office (perhaps in conjunction with Austrac) will of necessity be keeping copies of all the ledgers or all the major cryptocurrencies. This is not a particularly large dataset -- HPE or Dell could easily sell a single system capable of holding all this data and perform sophisticated analysis over it. If the tax office and/or Austrac weren't at least attempting to keep somewhat on top of the cryptocurrency transactions of criminal elements, then that's a major problem!

So, given that the tax office already has information about every transaction anyway (including when it happened, and the public wallet addresses involved in the transaction), why is it necessary for tax payers to do so as well?

Indeed, the missing piece of information that the tax office would really like is the association between TFNs (or SMSF ids) and public wallet addresses. So why not simply ask for this information? This would help the tax office in its investigations immensely, and creates a ready-made CGT record-keeping system for the taxpayer.

The simple way would be for the ATO to provide a web interface where tax payers could enter their public wallet addresses for each currency that they own together with the relevant TFN. A more sophisticated approach could be done by having the taxpayer complete a transaction on the blockchain to prove the association.

Having obtained this TFN-to-wallet address mapping, the tax office can automatically calculate the CGT applicable for the tax payer. In the same way that taxpayers can take advantage of a pre-filled tax declaration for the PAYG information provided by their employers, so too could all cryptocurrency transactions be handled the same way.

Note that this does not apply very well for Monero, but would be fine for Bitcoin in all its variants, ethereum, litecoin and all the other major currencies.

The advice the tax office is giving is simply archaic and utterly misses the opportunities of taxation paperwork simplification inherent in having a public blockchain.

Currency-to-currency transactions are even more problematic; the tax office can issue guidance here that would be quite straightforward and automatic, but instead relies on taxpayer estimation over matters which are ambiguous without guidance.

For example, how to handle a cryptocurrency fork? Consider the fork that created Bitcoin Cash. On August 1st 2017, suddenly every tax payer who previously had Bitcoin now also had bitcoin cash, and that bitcoin cash had a non-zero value. What cost base should be used for that? $0 because on September 30th Bitcoin Cash was just a concept, and worthless? Or should it be the value of bitcoin cash on its first transaction? Or should it be the value of bitcoin on the last common block? Or the cost base of the bitcoin when it was purchased?

All of these answers have serious accounting challenges, because in some sense they necessarily involve double dipping.

Associated with this is that there are low-profile forks that a taxpayer might only find out about much later: bitcoin gold for example. It's entirely possible that a cryptocurrency owner may discover that years after they have emptied a wallet -- and perhaps even trashed the original paperwork that they used -- that they may have significant quantities of wealth in a previously unknown fork of a wallet. The ethereum fork is almost old enough that this could be relevant soon.

Finally, since there is a real-time bidding system on many exchanges (e.g. bitcoin to ethereum was traditionally done this way) the actual price achieved or paid might be dramatically different to the published prices of that day. A taxpayer might have added a zero to an offer (and still had it accepted), or left one off (and sold very cheaply). This would not be reflected in any official price; but this is the kind of thing that the tax office could infer automatically from a system if TFNs were associated with wallet addresses.

So why isn't the tax office simply asking tax payers to match their wallet addresses with their TFNs and then telling the taxpayers how much to include on their tax returns? It is logically equivalent to having TFN matching with bank accounts and superannuation accounts (all of which already happens). This would be a much simpler system for both the ATO and tax payers.

Sunday, 5 August 2018

Software treated strangely by tax laws, part 1 ...

It's tax time, and small-medium enterprises are frantically evaluating what assets they can write off. Eligible assets include things like cars, vans, kitchens, machinery provided they cost less than $20,000. However, the exclusion of one particular asset from the instant deduction scheme is adding to the tax time blues. In-house software.
As it stands, in-house software is only deductible under the uniform capital allowances (UCA) rules or the simplified depreciation rules for small business entities. This lack of a tax break for SMEs means there is less of an incentive to invest in software and therefore innovate. By deliberately penalising low-tech companies, it is preventing them from delving into high-tech such as artificial intelligence which is set to have a hugely transformative effect on Australia’s economy. If we’re to establish ourselves as world-beaters in innovation then tax reforms are in order.

Friday, 26 January 2018

What should we do with the Australian economy?

Matt Barrie’s recently wrote a very detailed analysis of the Australian economy which he published on Medium and LinkedIn. Summarising his points can’t possibly do an hour-long read justice, but here’s my best attempt:
  • Australia’s ability to create complex exports has dropped rapidly and is well below many un-technological third world nations. Our mining industry is barely relevant any more.
  • Our education system isn’t helping, with many students unaware of what an engineering degree offers and bizarre subject connections (e.g. computing and woodwork are in the same course for many students in NSW).
  • The most significant industry we have to speak of is preparing and selling real estate to Chinese millionaires. This foreign investment isn’t being well regulated in Australia, and is likely heavily driven by illegal currency transactions in China.
  • The effect of this is that it is becoming difficult for ordinary people to buy real estate, which in turn makes it harder to attract staff.
  • A cozy duopoly in our media makes it hard to have coherent conversations about these issues as they are only surviving the worldwide journalism train wreck because of real estate advertising revenue.
The challenge we have is coming up with effective solutions to these problems. It’s easy to call for reform. It’s easy to blame politicians for short-sighted decisions. It’s easy to complain and despair. But, what, specifically are the smallest and politically most-acceptable things we could do to address these problems?
I propose there are 9 micro-reforms that we could advocate for that have a reasonable chance of being enacted.

Earmark 0.1% of superannuation towards tech venture creation and funding

Startups rarely make money. Investors generally won’t make a good return on any startup. But we need there to be tech startups to keep all the rest of the economy innovative; it’s just that everyone wants someone else to pay for it.
So let’s mandate it. 0.1% of all superannuation funds need to be invested in tech startups. We’d need to have a definition of a tech startup, so I suggest that the definition should be this: an Australian company that qualifies for the R&D tax concession. While this doesn’t completely overlap with a “startup” (a young company optimised for growth), it’s pretty close. If a young company wants to grow, they will need to be breaking new ground and there’s likely to be some new knowledge being generated.

Expand R&D tax concessions to include open source

The R&D tax concession is the only effective government program that supports startups. QUT’s CAUSEE study showed that accessing a government program that was designed to help startups get going was one of the best predictors that a startup would fail.
The exception to this is the R&D tax concession and tax rebate — which is a strong predictor of success.
The idea behind these concessions is that if you are researching something — if you are generating new knowledge — then companies can claim between 125% and 150% deductions on the cost of doing this. Basically, if you have to perform an experiment to find out something, the Australian government rewards you for this because it’s increasing the stock of knowledge and skills in Australia.
Australia doesn’t have large software companies that can build their own stacks to do specialised tasks at the same scale that Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon do. Atlassian and Freelancer aren’t in the same league. So to be competitive, we will need to co-operate.
There is already a model for cooperation among software development organisations: it’s called open source. If as a company you devote development resources to open source projects, you are providing the basis for cooperation with other Australian (and international) organisations, and you are adding to the stock of knowledge and capability in Australia.
So for all the same reasons that we should be supporting the tax concessions for research and development, we should be expanding them to cover effort involved in creating open source software.

Increase minimum wage for foreign technology workers

The USA recently did this for H1B visas. There were many problems with the 457 visa, but at the same time it did have some advantages.
On the downside, it was abused terribly by numerous multinationals. Since the company nominating a job role for a 457 role only had to demonstrate that they were paying the same wages as they were paying a local (and even then there were loopholes), all they needed was to promote one very junior Australian employee to a senior position at a low wage and then it was a free-for-all to employ foreign workers at the same seniority and (below market) wage.
On the other hand, Atlassian do pay fair wages to their local Australian staff and to their foreign workers on 457 visas, and it will be a major drag on their ability to compete in a worldwide market using staff in Sydney if they don’t have some avenue to hire overseas. Likewise Freelancer.
The solution doesn’t strike me as difficult. While the minimum threshold salary of ~$50k for foreign workers for some jobs where there is a worker shortage is reasonable, it’s absurdly too low for IT. Let’s set the minimum for an IT role (sysadmin, developer, analyst, salesperson) to $100k. That will let fresh graduates from our universities be able to compete for local jobs and get experience. Then, once they are experienced, it is fair for them to be competing for more senior roles in a world-wide marketplace.
A good programmer or sysadmin (local or foreign) can easily bring in $100k of value to their employer; one who can’t bring in that much value has no business being brought to Australia under a visa to provide “needed” skills.
If a foreign worker does have 5 years’ experience in something valuable, then we do them no justice by letting them be under-paid when they come to our shores for the first time with little idea of what their actual value add will be.
So: let’s have a minimum $100k wage for guest IT workers.

Track what happens to reports of immigration fraud

Visa fraud is being perpetuated by multinational IT companies. Not just Indian ones — although their fraud levels are legendary — but also house-hold names, well known companies who pretend to maintain a semblance of ethics. Every IT worker in Sydney or Melbourne can name some company that they have seen doing something way outside of the scope of the law.
Whether it is advertising for a “senior devops engineer” for $60k (about half the going rate) so that they can bring in a foreign worker to fill their shortages; or letting workers come for a “conference” where they happen to work 9–5 in their own cubicle for several weeks without meeting up with anyone in Australia; or bringing someone to help with “short term training to bring skills not found in Australia” (for classes like basic MS-Word training) — we all know it is happening.
And yet, as far as I can tell, these rampant crimes aren’t getting investigated. Among IT workers, we have become so inured to it that we barely bother reporting it. Nothing ever gets done: when was the last time you saw blatant visa fraud get prosecuted?
Reports to the Immigration Department get ignored as far as I can tell. You can submit a tip-off, provide as much evidence as you want (names, dates, what visa they arrived on, who their manager was and how the manager detailed to the employee precisely how to execute the visa fraud, why it is comically fraudulent etc. etc.). What you will get is a thank you note, and a comment to say that the Immigration department cannot comment on any ongoing investigation.
There’s a difference between commenting on the details of an investigation and commenting on whether anyone has bothered even to read the submission.
I’d settle for getting a reference number for an investigation and a notification of of where it is up to in the process (reviewed, dropped, continuing). Annual reporting about the number of investigations in each phase would be nice. I would imagine that the local Federal member would want a full and frank update about how many companies in their constituencies are under investigation as well.
This matters, because if we lose confidence in our country’s institutions’ integrity to do what they are supposed to be doing we will have bigger problems than what Matt Barrie outlined in his original write-up.

Require proof of residency to buy property

Australian property prices have gone crazy. A median income 30-year-old is now in a position to afford the bottom 10% of the property market (down from around 30% in the 1980s). That’s accounting for the low interest rates we have at the moment; one huge challenge for many younger families is saving anything after they’ve paid rent.
There are several causes, but high rates of immigration to the capital cities is a significant factor. On the streets of Shanghai and Beijing, it’s common knowledge that investing in real estate in Vancouver, London, San Francisco, Sydney and Melbourne is a safe bet.
There are more millionaires in China than there are houses in Sydney, so unsurprisingly, this has pushed the price of real estate in Sydney to absurd levels.
Amazingly, ASIC hasn’t even found a dozen cases of illegal real estate purchases by non-residents. Fascinating. It’s almost as if the system is deliberately set up so that it’s impossible to investigate.
So here’s my $0.10 on how to make Sydney prices more affordable for the next generation: as part of paying stamp duty on the purchase of a house, you should be required to show your residency status, and demonstrate that you have the right to buy it; otherwise the transaction is voided.
A photocopy of your passport or birth certificate will be sufficient paperwork for nearly any legal buyer; it wouldn’t add much in the way of burden.

Publish details of non-resident purchases

In fact, we barely need to add any resources to ASIC to make this enforceable. Let’s simply publish the real estate purchases of all foreign citizens. Even a busy Saturday could be recorded in the Bitcoin blockchain for a negligible expense and no effort by the land titles office — but we could equally well require the land titles office to run up a new system to publish it in a centralised database.
And why would that be sufficient? Because it shines a spotlight on mainland Chinese buyers who mysteriously can simultaneously buy a multi-million dollar property in Sydney while never once taking more than USD50k out of China. The Bank of China stopped publishing estimates of illegally expatriated money a few years back when it was over USD2 trillion; it’s probably much higher now. And with the current Chinese currency crisis (they will be out of foreign reserves in around 5–6 years) the BOC would really, really like to keep their capital controls in place. Easily-available evidence to help prosecute money laundering would really help a lot of people right now.
There are economic arguments that say that capital controls aren’t a good thing, but when the economists of the second largest economy in the world say that they want to do something, that really is a matter for China to handle internally and it is their sovereign right to do so. It’s not a human rights abuse. If China wants to make it illegal to take large amounts of money out of the country (as they do: the limit is USD50k per annum), Australia is under no moral or political obligation to protect Chinese citizens who choose to disobey their country’s laws. In fact, seeing such people prosecuted would be really very helpful for us.
So let’s have a big asset register of all foreign-owned property and let foreign law enforcement help solve our housing bubble for us.

Mandate solar panels on all buildings sold in high-value areas

Just hypothetically, suppose you had a house on a plot of land that was worth $500,000 and you wanted to sell it. Then suddenly the state government mandates that unless you have 10kVA of solar panels on your roof (which could be bought and installed for around $12,000), that they will fine you or alternatively, refuse to record the sale.
It’s possible that someone might want to buy your land at $512,000 after you’ve spent the money on the solar panels; but unless something has also changed in the economy it’s more likely that they will still only afford to pay $500,000.
So, you end up slightly worse off than you otherwise would have been. Effectively you only make $488,000, but in truth, if you are selling land in an Australian city, you probably are making a tidy profit anyway, none of which was anything other than inter-generational theft. This is a small tax on a large profit.
But the benefits are enormous and significant: 10kVA worth of solar panels on 9 million dwellings in Australia would produce around 130,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity per year. This is roughly half of Australia’s total power consumption; the 70 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions that this would save would meet our carbon goals for 2030 at no cost to any government.
The 1.8 million houses in Sydney would — during peak times — generate 18 gigawatts of electricity. This is substantially higher than the highest-ever peak load in NSW (which was approximately 15 gigawatts during the summer of 2010/2011).
Thousands of new jobs in the green economy would be created at the stroke of a pen.
So how about this? If the valuer general has valued a property at more than $200,000, the property can’t be sold without the capacity to generate 40kWH per day from solar sources. (That’s roughly what a 10kVA system should produce).

Increase target inflation rate to 5–7%

This isn’t something our government can do — interest rates are set by the Reserve Bank, and they operate independently. But Treasury can ask very nicely, and the Reserve Bank can give it some serious consideration.
Our politicians and econocrats have an irrational hatred of inflation, which is a pity because that’s what we need right now. We have below-target inflation, and only the hint that maybe perhaps some day we might get into an inflationary danger zone — and yet we hear talk about the next interest rate change definitely being a rate rise.
Let’s compare ourselves with Spain. Up until about 2008, Spain was doing OK, with good economic growth and a balanced budget. As it turns out, this was a bit of an illusion, it was mostly caused by wealthy Germans buying houses in Spain so that they could get some nice clear blue skies for a change. (Does this story sound familiar? Substitute “China” for “Germany” and “Australia” for “Spain” and that’s basically us.) After 2008, Germans started repatriating their money to pay off their debts and started complaining about the lazy Spaniards who couldn’t manufacture anything cost-effectively any more. (Still sounding familiar? What happened to Australian manufacturing?) This was of course because the Spanish economy was being dominated by real estate and gushing in-flows of money, so the manufacturing industry got destroyed. (Familiar again?)
Where things get particularly nasty is that the German Bundesbank has basically refused to lift their own inflation rate, which means to become cost-effective again, Spain has to have deflation. Now, while economists don’t like inflation, they have a total cold-sweat fear of deflation. That’s because we can’t control it, and it’s quite awful.
You are not likely to sell your house for less than you bought it. Generally you will stay in it and keep making repayments rather than take the on-paper loss. Likewise, you are not likely to leave your job if the only other option involves a pay cut. You will stay on in a job even though you might hate it. But Germany is asking Spain to lower wages and lower real estate prices. Let me spell out what that means: it means making people hate their jobs so much that they leave anyway; it means making companies who don’t fire all their staff go bankrupt; it means making people so economically desperate that they sell their houses with nowhere else to go.
Does that disgust you or frighten you? It should. Our only alternative to this (in Australia) is to inflate our way out of trouble. That means aiming to keep house prices steady (in Australia dollar prices — i.e. your typical suburban house should stay at around 1.5million), but have wages go up rapidly so that it becomes affordable again. We should be aiming for everything else (salaries, food, entertainment, etc.) to double in price over the next ten years while the dollar price of housing stays the same. We wouldn’t be as worried about buying a 1 million apartment if average wages were around $100,000 and a smashed avocado was $20.
Incidentally the consequence of this will be that the Australian dollar will become worth half what it is today; but that shouldn’t matter for anything else if we get this right.
Many economists will object to this plan, and will talk about NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment). There’s a belief (which doesn’t have particularly strong evidence) that says that there’s a certain stable unemployment for a country and if you go above this that bad things happen. The idea is that if unemployment gets down to zero then the only way to get more workers is to lure them away from another employer with higher wages, which means you’ll have to charge more. This is inflation. Accelerating inflation is where everyone starts considering this as normal, and so to lure someone away from a job requires steadily bigger and bigger pay jumps. If the process isn’t stopped, eventually you end up with hyperinflation like Zimbabwe or the Wehrmacht.
It’s a reasonable theory, but as a tech geek looking at robotics, AI and biotech I think it’s hilarious. We are about to launch into the generation where robotics replaces manufacturing, where AI replaces large amounts of white collar work, where international outsourcing will be replacing most of the remainder of the white collar work that can’t be automated, and where our agricultural outputs are going to be dominated by how quickly we can splice new genes into plants, not on how quickly we can hire day labourers.
Runaway inflation is not how it’s going to play out in Australia in the future, and it’s not how it’s playing out right now.
Just looking at the tech scene it’s obvious that this isn’t happening. We’re hitting the limits of local tech employment without any doubt at all. As Matt Barrie pointed out, if he gets one good tech resume per day he’s happy. If we were going to start seeing runaway inflation, we would be seeing it in the tech scene now.
But we’re not seeing it — the latest economic reports show progression towards full employment but weak wage growth — because the link between getting stuff done and employing extra people has been broken.
As an employer with a need for something, the first step is never “let’s go and pay more and hire someone away from the competition”. The first step is always “can we automate this task away?” As robotics get cheaper and AI gets smarter the answer is going to be “yes” more and more often.
The second step anyway is “is there a company somewhere in the world that specialises in this?” A niche expert will always be better than an employee. I was talking to the founder of a company the other day — she specialises in fixing photographs in e-commerce stores to improve sales. She’s brilliant, and her company is growing rapidly because she can do this better (cheaper, faster, better results) than anyone can do it in-house.
The third step for most large Australian companies is “can we get this done by our Indian outsourcers?”; for smaller companies it’s the same question but the method is Freelancer. (Hey, Matt, did you like my plug for you?).
Only when there is really no choice does anyone put an ad up on Seek, and when they do they get deluged with people looking for 457 visa sponsorship transfers rather than salary-gain hoppers.
It is in this world that the Reserve Bank’s mandate is to make sure that Australia doesn’t have an over-employment problem. I can’t see this problem happening, so I can’t see why we need to keep inflation down. Outside of real estate, surely it’s the opposite. Let’s aim to keep house prices steady by whatever means possible — clear messages to all investors that Australian real estate is not going to be a good long-term investment by publishing their transactions and prosecution where required — and let a high inflation rate clean this mess up.
To paraphrase a quote from another era, let’s get Philip Lowe to credibly promise to be irresponsible for a while.

Publish numbers of children accelerated in schools

This might be a very strange policy suggestion, but hear me out on this. We have several problems in our education system in Australia (and NSW in particular):
  • We aren’t teaching the right things. When computing gets bundled into the same curriculum stream as woodworking, we will train up a generation of children to think that computers are all about design. This will leave them hopelessly underprepared for a world of AI, robots and software eating the world.
  • We aren’t delivering better education now than we were 20 years ago.
  • The system isn’t in any way fair: if you can afford to pay for tutoring, you can get your child into a selective school, regardless of your child’s actual abilities. Only one selective school in NSW matches the population for parental level of income and ethnicity. That school is not James Ruse, which is very much the school of the wealthiest quarter of the population.
  • We are spending way too much, particularly in the public system. When a suburban church with no educational administration experience can put together a low-fee-paying private school whose total running costs are lower than the public system but are competitive in outcomes with it, there’s something deeply wrong in the way our schools are spending their money.
  • We aren’t delivering an educational experience that makes foreigners want to come to Australia and have their children study here. (Unlike, say, Finland, or Germany, or to a lesser extent Singapore or Shanghai).
I would argue that they have as their root cause a general disinterest among our educational administrators in being scientific. There is a bias towards promoting humanities — and along with it, a bias against STEM. In NSW, you can complete your HSC without doing a single subject in science, computing or mathematics. But if you are a gifted mathematician who loves physics and engineering and programming (an easy 12 units which will directly help with your likely future career), sorry, you must take some English because without knowing Shakespeare you really can’t be let loose into society and be allowed to program a microcontroller.
I asked half a dozen schools whether one of my data science students could do a statistical analysis of the school’s Naplan results — to build a machine learning model of student skill growth; to answer “what are the actual underlying causes?” rather than just the draw pretty pictures of reported results. The report would be shared only with the school, and would let their English teachers pinpoint what areas were the most efficient to be work on in order to help every child pass at least band 8 in year 9. Most of them simply said no, that they were not interested. One was sort-of doing it, but for various reasons couldn’t take up the free offer. The one school that said yes happened to have a teacher who completed a degree in both maths and English, immediately saw why this would be useful and moved heaven and earth to get it happening. As for the others: being scientific, disciplined and being data-driven is a STEM thing that their humanities-driven administration aren’t interested in.
There are a few areas of educational research where we know the answers very well: where everyone who studies it comes out with a statistically strong signal. For example, we know full well (from dozens of studies) that if you want children to achieve fluency in a foreign language, that you teach them Esperanto first, get them fluent in that (which is much easier than any non-artificial language) and then teach the foreign language after that. Going from bilingual to trilingual is a very quick process; it’s going from monolingual to bilingual that’s hard — if you make mono-to-bilingual easy then the total time spent getting to three language fluency is less than if you try to jump straight to two language fluency using a native language. This is a well-known and easily reproducible result.
Of course, this has been completely ignored in educational policy across Australia, but at least there’s the argument that it’s hard to hire Esperanto-speaking teachers. (Actually, it’s not, but at least it’s a coherent argument.)
There is controversial research: computers add little to the classroom in non-IT classes except for distraction. I can understand why that sort of research hasn’t been brought back into the classroom yet.
Where we see life-changing, tragedy-inducing problems is when educational administrators ignore the 70 years of research on acceleration of gifted kids. Here’s the research summarised in two points:
  • If a child is gifted, then they should be accelerated unless the child has an older sibling in the year above, or unless the child doesn’t want to. This is the only way that an intelligent child can get a peer group that they can connect with, which is the only way to get social skills
  • If you don’t accelerate a gifted child, they have far worse life outcomes, problems of self-esteem and mental health and a variety of other issues.
I have seen administrators just state their opinions — completely at odds with the research — and are surprised when it is questioned. Doctors who continue to prescribe medicines that fail clinical trials and have bad side effects would be struck off the register, but educators can do it with impunity.
A school where you can ignore 70 years of research on a whim is not a school that is going to be taking advantage of the best practices in doing anything. It is not going to run efficiently; it is not going to improve.
So let’s publish statistics per school on the number of children that are being accelerated. A school with a thousand children should have around 20 Mensa-level full-year-accelerated children, and usually one child accelerated at least two years.
(Amusingly enough, this data is being collected in NSW schools already. School principals are supposed to report this to their regional coordinator. However, since the NSW Department of Education doesn’t think anyone would be in the least bit interested in this, and that it has no relevance to anything the department cares about or monitors, the regional coordinator is incentivised to throw the data away.)
Why does this help?
  • It will bring to light anti-science sentiment in schools, which at least gives us a chance to do something about it.
  • It’s a meaningful measure that smart parents can use to choose between schools
  • If — as a school — you have to acknowledge the existence of children who will rip through your curriculum in 4 years instead of 6, you’ll have to do something about this, rather than just ignoring it.
  • It’s just possible that if you know that you have a cohort of very bright, very mathematical children coming through your school that you can’t ignore, that perhaps you’ll work out some approach to keep them interested: that might involve STEM, biotech and meaningful computing studies.
  • If you are a smart expatriate with highly gifted children — exactly the kind of person we would want coming to Australia — you can get a sense of where you might find a like-minded cohort and social group for your children.

Make biotech and medtech the highest priority at CSIRO

As someone who grew up with computers, and who believes that being able to program is important to a child’s education as literacy is, it pains me to say it, but I think Australia has missed the boat when it comes to IT. I can’t see us having a programming workforce that can compete on a world stage; I can’t see us building data centres that are cost and power competitive with global needs; I can’t see us being the leading centre for robotic-driven manufacture.
It’s possible we will become the dominant economy when it comes to robotic mines.
Textile manufacturing is about to go through a dramatic change — now that robots are beginning to handle cloth and fabrics better, it will no longer make sense to manufacture in third-world sweatshops. It’s possible that woollen garments might be made closer to the source of the wool; so perhaps we might see a renaissance of (robotic) textile manufacturing in Australia.
But, these aren’t going to be sure winners.
Globally, Australia is good at making new medical devices. We’re in a race with Mexico to be the number one “best” location for doing that. The next decades of the twenty-first century will see a dramatic increase in the number of medical devices and their sophistication. That is, they will be physically much simpler, and easier to manufacture, but have more complex software.
Australia is also trusted for our ability to do biotech more broadly. When an Australian company releases a genetically modified wheat or rice or other plant, it’s viewed quite positively around the world. There’s a lot we could do: there are two forms of photosynthesis, one more efficient with water than the other. One way or another, with a drying climate Australian farmers will end up very knowledgeable about low-water crops, and will be stretching the boundaries of how little of various nutrients are required in order to grow a healthy crop.
Vat grown meat: there’s no reason Australia shouldn’t be known for this. It’s the kind of mass-scale high-tech that we can do. This will be the dominant source of protein for our children’s children, and will constitute an ever-growing part of our diets.
So: it seems that the most effective use of directed research and development funding is going to be medtech and biotech. Let’s see some heavy investment here, rather than the continual gutting of the CSIRO.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
That’s the best list I can make. Feel free to add further ideas in the comments below: aim for initiatives that are win-win for everyone, achievable, only require small amounts of funding, and that are about directing the momentum of existing organisations in the right directions rather than trying to establish something new (which is always harder).
Also: print this article off, and forward it to your local members. Sign it with a hand-written note saying that you support these initiatives, and that you will vote accordingly. Put pressure on our politicians to make sure reform happens. Do it now, and set yourself a reminder in your calendar for 3 months, 6 months and 12 months from today to write again to your local members if you haven’t seen enough progress.