[p2p-research] trends ? : "Corporate Dropouts" towards Open diy ? ...

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

Somehow, after having a look at this link on "Globalization and Income
Distribution <http://www.nber.org/papers/w14643.pdf>"
(  pdf : http://fmwww.bc.edu/ec-p/wp699.pdf - see more with excerpts further
below )

I ask myself *how local economic systems based on diy open manufacturing
would impact allocation **of skills ?*
*
*
*And how this compares or interacts with current globalized cognitive
capitalism.*
*
*
*Would there also be concentrations of skilled workers ? ( such as current
concentrations  in certain businesses ? )*
*
*
*Is there a potential scenario for a brain drain from corporations to
intentional peer producing networks ?*
*
*
*Is such process already happening ?*
( or is it currently mainly from corporations to self-owned small companies
? )
*
*
*What are the alliances we are currently seeing ? *
*
*
Can part-time , non-paid ( in mainstream money ) "hobby" work
in open, diy, collaborative convergence spaces
become an *argument for long term material security of the participating
peer* towards he's/her family ?

*Do we have a "Quit Work Slavery" Kit ready for use ?*
*
*
*---*
*
*
Hacker spaces seem to be convergence spaces for open source programmers, and
possibly more and more other artists,
open manufacturing, diy permaculture, ... ?

Can we expect a "Massive Corporate Dropout"... to drain into such diy
convergence and interaction spaces ?

*Can "Corporate Dropouts" help financing new open p2p infrastructures ?*

Is there an increase of part-time "Corporates", working part time in open
p2p ?

Would such a transition , potentially part time "co-working / co-living "
space be a convergence "model" and scenario some of us would consider
working on ?

Do some of us already experience such lifestyle ?
*
*
*
*
*some more context *:

I remember that one of the difficulties google's human resources department
is having,
is that even though they may be offering a context that makes google listed
as one of the best employers,
some of their skilled employees sometimes prefer leaving their job at google
to set up their own business.

http://delicious.com/deliciousdante/google+jobs

" Though Google almost always wins talent wars with the likes of Microsoft
and Yahoo, its twin HR demons are *startups and retirement*. "

after searching the web, I notice its called "*Corporate Dropouts*".

In a 1993 article :

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1563/is_n2_v12/ai_13990649/

excerpt : *" Why work for someone else when you can work for yourself?
That's what a lot of people are asking these days, ..."*
*
*
It leads me back to the "vectors" we may have mentioned in a previous thread
( the VW dresden thread , on p2pr list  ) :

*What vectors motivate us ? *
**( how much does a need for security, and all other needs in maslow's
hierarchy, influence our choices ? )
*What lifestyle do we choose for ?*
*What form of governance do we choose for,*
*and what can currently empower ( or dis-empower ) such choices ? *
*
*

I guess it also related to a face to face discussion I had with a small
group of people in Brussels following the initiative of Manfred - minutes :

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AdJHqFvEd3IfZGd2enZxZGRfNTBjNXpubmNtaw&hl=en

which lead Jaime to share links related to "Why do high potentials avoid
large organizations ?"

http://groups.google.com/group/imaging-the-hub/browse_thread/thread/a740100179528454/caf7f264da3234a7?lnk=gst&q=jaime#caf7f264da3234a7

---

I personally observe some of my friends working for money as little as
possible, sometimes on or two months a year, and spend the rest of their
time working on their own projects.

I realize that the free time they have makes them reflect and make choices
about their lifestyle and what they wish to contribute to.

It also reminds me of this link to the " Disciplined
Minds<http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/>" book that one of you
shared with me, or through the list :

" Jeff Schmidt shows that professional work is inherently political, and
that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain
strict 
 ideological discipline.
 "

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------

I feel like leaving some excerpts of this economic overview :

*
*
*"Globalization is often thought to have increased inequality. The model of*
*this paper delivers the stark result that globalization raises inequality
in both*
*North and South. Globalization is also commonly thought to have increased*
*personal income risk."*
*
*
*http://www.nber.org/papers/w14643.pdf*
*
*
*Pdf available on :*
*
*
*http://fmwww.bc.edu/ec-p/wp699.pdf*
*Globalization and Income Distribution: A Specific Factors Continuum
Approach*
*
*
* Some more excerpts :

   " resource reallocation between firms within sectors in this paper is
driven by a Darwinian gale blowing through the sectoral factor market. When
paired with wage bargaining, the model can explain why larger and more pro-
ductive firms pay higher wages for skilled labor. "
" A more novel result shows that in the presence of aggregate productivity
shocks, globalization reduces the variance of the factoral terms of trade
and
hence the dispersion of personal incomes."

" Globalization widens income inequality
in each country, raising the top, lowering the bottom and narrowing the
middle. Viewed ex ante, the model formalizes the popular sense that per-
sonal incomes are more risky in globalizing world with purely idiosyncratic
productivity shocks.
    When productivity shocks include an economy-wide component that shifts
relative productivity between countries, there is a countervailing effect on
in-
come risk. "

"    Section 1 presents the basic production model. Section 2 derives the
global equilibrium of the two trading countries. Section 3 deals with the
equilibrium comparative statics of the model. Section 4 derives the
distribu-
tional implications. Section 5 derives efficient ex ante allocation of the
specific
factor. Section 6 analyzes heterogeneous firms within sectors. Sections 7
and
8 conclude with speculation on extensions to dynamics and empirical work. "

"     A key distributional property of the model is that the average skill
pre-
mium gK /w − 1 is independent of international equilibrium forces. The av-
erage skill premium rises with the skill bias of technology (α) and falls
with
relative skill abundance (K/L). The wage rate is given by
                           w = gL = α(K/L)1−α G "

"      More general neoclassical
production functions in the specific factors setting imply that the average
skill premium may rise or fall in both North and South due to
globalization,(*10)
depending on whether the average skill intensity of production rises
or falls. The Appendix develops the details and argues that with CES pro-
duction functions the skill premium ordinarily rises (falls) as the
elasticity of
substitution is less (greater) than one.
(*10)     Linkage between openness and capital accumulation or technology
will also violate the
invariance property."


*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091013/68a89a8c/attachment.html>