5 Ways to Stimulate Innovation and Restructure the Economy

In my previous post, I outlined what I believe to be the almost irreparable state of many 20th century business models. However, all hope is not lost. Here are 5 concrete ideas for stimulating innovation and restructuring the economy for the next century.

1. Focus investments and don't spend to preserve

Each government needs to draw up a priority list during these times of scarcity and decide where it has the best shot at a competitive advantage for the next century in the global economy. Resources are scarce in this day and age so we must focus those resources and investments. The future economy is like a start up. It needs extreme focus to engender success. We also need to be like venture capitalists and kill the ideas that are not working.

How can we focus the resources? We should pour lots of money and offer incentives up and down the stack in that chosen industry from universities to businesses to worker training in order to create a critical mass cluster in those areas. In my own country, Israel, I would argue we need to invest massively in Digital Innovation (broadband), Water, Biotechnology and probably Energy or Agriculture. How can we do this?

Let's take digital innovation as an example. The Israeli government must invest to upgrade the broadband infrastructure with more underwater cables, bandwidth to the home etc. Like Korea, 100 MBPS should be the near term target. This will enable Israelis to work at home for companies across the globe and not be limited to job creation and demand for skills in tiny Israel.

With increased bandwidth, the government should provide micro-loans and tax incentives to people who work independently from home in the digital economy. We should provide tax incentives to these workers since they are saving money on gasoline, road upkeep, traffic accidents, to encourage them to work at home and hire others. We should incentivize profitable IT companies to hire and retrain more of our workers with tax rebates per worker trained. The government should shower university labs with money for post-docs and basic research into innovation that will drive the 21st century economy and to keep our brains in Israel and bring back those that have left. The same can be done in agriculture where Israel is a world leader and has critical mass and in Water where we need to get much better and already have an advantage. This type of investment must be done at all levels in order for it to work and truly drive innovation.

2. Do not be afraid of virtual companies and local production

I alluded to this in #1 above. I have had two experiences with startups that have most, if not all, of their workers working remotely. It has its challenges but is incredibly cost effective and efficient when you learn to manage it.

Think of the time saved not driving to work. That is extra responsiveness and productivity. It forces a great spirit of collaboration and removes a lot of office politics.

A corollary of this is local production. I referred above to agriculture. The 20th century saw a dramatic move to centralized agriculture (read this excellent NYT article). It turns out that industrial agriculture has a lot of unwanted side effects from transportation costs to fuel consumption to abuse of the land. That is a model that can be rethought. In fact it is already happening. CSAs and local farms are gaining steam (for a good summary see my favorite agricultural site www.localharvest.org). These are local businesses run by fellow members of my community who are improving both the health of our diets and the environment as well as creating local jobs and living symbiotically with our natural resources.

3. Invest in retraining

We keep stimulating businesses and preserving jobs at these companies but the companies keep laying off folks and taking more stimulus money. That should tell us something about the shrinking need both for those businesses and the skills of its laborers. Let's rethink how we take care of the workers. In fact, we need to take care of the employees but not necessarily the businesses. Morally and socially, society owes workers respect, decency and a shot at earning a good living. It is not their fault that technology advances and changing economics has eroded their employer's business.

While at a macro level, we cannot provide for everyone, that should be our goal nonetheless. You will notice that even in my example of digital innovation above, there are jobs for technology savvy people and blue collar workers as well. Israel is today reeling from the potential impending closure of a vegetable packing plant and a chicken packing plant. The plants have been losing money. I do not know if it is from poor management or a bad business model. However, they will not be the first or last factories to close as production and packaging seeks cheaper global alternatives.

We need to invest in retraining these people in local agriculture, in laying fiber optic cables and other elements of 21st century economies when Israel will be less competitive in certain areas. We owe it to these workers to take care of them, not by pouring good money after bad to prop up failing factories but in exhilarating them to tackle a new career that they can certainly handle with the government's retraining help. We must invest in worker retraining in the focus areas the governments will lay out. The government, which has never been particularly adept at retraining, can offer tax rebates to successful businesses to retrain many of these workers. I believe it will not cost more than paying people unemployment and the societal costs of thousands of disgruntled former employees.

4. Reexamine business models.

I spoke in my previous post about the anomaly in the music industry of people paying 10X for a concert ticket what they pay for the same number of songs on iTunes. They also pay $1.99 for a ring tone when the song costs a buck. Go figure.

Let's use the music industry as an example of a business that can reexamine its business model. For years the music industry sold songs (it still does, just digitally). Like newsprint, music is IP. It can move in bits and on physical media and today I can get it any way I like and often for free but I am still willing to pay lots of money to go to a concert. Why? The experience.

Here is an idea: Artists and music labels need to start turning music intro a consumable experience rather than a sale of songs. Here is just one idea among many: how about if the labels or artists sold you ten songs by an artist, 3 ringtones, special digital photos of the artist for your screen saver or social network profile, behind the scenes video of the song making (unseen footage!!), priority access to concert tickets (real or virtual) and membership in the artist's fan club for 10 bucks. You could let them post this all to their social networking profiles with a cool badge and label so they get digital reputation for having spent the dough and they market it to their friends. I bet this will be as profitable for the music industry as selling CDs for $10. Media costs are lower, ad costs are lower, there is zero distribution cost and I may not need to pay Apple (AAPL). Artists will need to reach out to their fans online as part of the fan club but they spend time on that anyway. It will be a good way to identify who and where your fans are so you can plan concerts and marketing properly. Sell the experience. Not the individual IP asset.

The same reexamination can be done in agriculture, water and any other industry. We just need new blood and new brains to think and invest deeply in the stack of innovation.

5. Market your expertise not your time and labor

I hosted a panel the other day at Israel's Internet Association annual conference. At the end of the panel I remarked to everyone in the audience that they needed to build their digital reputation and domain expertise because that will become their job of the future. Next thing I know, the next day the WSJ runs an article on the same topic entitled "Selling Expertise on the Internet for Extra Cash." Here is the well-put money quote

"It was the economy," she says of her move to take her skills online. "LivePerson is way more lucrative than my private practice." Ms. Estes had charged her private clients up to $75 an hour.

As the recession deepens, a small but growing number of people are taking their skills online, doling out expertise or performing specified tasks for a fee. Labor-at-the-keyboard sites are gaining popularity as people increasingly turn to the Web in search of work.

It is not just the layoffs but the structural change in the economy that makes it more lucrative to work from home and sell your expertise rather than your hours. In a knowledge economy, we should pay for knowledge and not time. Everyone is an expert at something and in many cases that expertise has economic value. When you think about the corporate cost equation above and the changing cost models required to compete in the 21st century, independently selling your expertise looks like an exciting model for many workers in the next century. It can be done remotely and globally and is not limited by local market size.

Governments should provide incentives for ongoing education and independent business owners that sell their expertise globally. This is the export economy of the 21st century. It is no longer crates shipped by boat and plane (although that will not go away) but keeping brains at home that will export their knowledge. Governments should stimulate this type of economic creativity. It will have meaningful societal and employment benefits as well.

As we continue thinking about stimulating the economy we need to encourage politicians to think about their children and our children. By increasing deficits and borrowing from tomorrow, we are mortgaging a big part of the future. By propping up failing businesses and business models we are bequeathing our slow adaptation to the 21st century to our children who will really not understand the 20th century that politicians think was built for them. Now is the time to invest for the future. It is a time to lay the roots of innovation rather than watering the decaying trees of the past.

We have arrived at a moment that defines leadership. Leadership requires hard and often unpopular decisions. It will take a remarkable group of political and business leaders who will be willing to stare down political pressure to spend on quick fixes in order to invest in stimulating innovation for the future. Let's hope they do it.

Comments

[CautiousInv...:]

Looking back, maybe it would have been better to implement the Stimulus and Recovery Act in three stages.

Stages I and II would have been individual tax relief and critical safety net spending, including extended unemployment benefits, food stamps and other assistance essential for day-to-day living.

Stage III, which would be the result of much thought by an apolitical body, would in effect create a national industrial strategy and offer (1) a blueprint for the future of our economy and (2) a funding plan in the form of grants, tax credits, tax deferrals and low interest loans to implement our national industrial policy. Implementation of Stage III would require the creation of a national enterprise boardupon or national venture capital firm that would allocate resources based ranking of importance, employment multiplier and time to market.

The blueprint might contain such goals as achieiving energy independence and the corollary of funding solar and renewable energy. It may also include establishing a national competitive advantage in creating and applying nano technologies. To assist in thinking about what might be included, I have pasted a list from another source:

1. Cheap solar energy: Solar energy systems inexpensive enough to be widely available to developing and undeveloped countries as well as to economically disadvantaged populations that are not on existing power grids;
2. Rural wireless communications: Widely available telephone and Internet connectivity without a wired network infrastructure;
3. Communication devices for ubiquitous information access: Communication and storage devices - both wired and wireless - that provide agile access to information sources anywhere, anytime. Operating seamlessly across communication and data storage protocols, these devices will have growing capabilities to store not only text but also meta-text with layered contextual information, images, voice, music, video, and movies;
4. Genetically modified crops: Genetically engineered foods with improved nutritional value - e.g., through added vitamins and micronutrients, increased production - e.g., by tailoring crops to local conditions, and reduced pesticide use - e.g., by increasing resistance to pests;
5. Rapid bioassays: Simple, multiple tests that can be performed quickly and simultaneously to verify the presence or absence of specific biological substances.
6. Filters and catalysts: Techniques and devices to effectively and reliably filter, purify, and decontaminate water locally using unskilled labor;
7. Targeted drug delivery: Drug therapies that preferentially attack specific tumors or pathogens without harming healthy tissues and cells;
8. Cheap autonomous housing: Self-sufficient and affordable housing that provides shelter adaptable to local conditions as well as energy for heating, cooling, and cooking;
9. Green manufacturing: Redesigned manufacturing processes that either eliminate or greatly reduce waste streams and the need to use toxic materials;
10. Ubiquitous radio frequency identification (RFID) tagging of commercial products and individuals: Widespread use of RFID tags to track retail products from manufacture through sale and beyond, as well as track individuals and their movements;
11. Hybrid vehicles: Automobiles available to the mass market with power systems that combine internal combustion and other power sources;
12. Pervasive sensors: Presence of sensors in most public areas and networks of sensor data to accomplish widespread real-time surveillance;
13. Tissue engineering: The design and engineering of living tissue for implantation and replacement;
14. Improved diagnostic and surgical methods: Technologies that improve the precision of diagnoses and greatly increase the accuracy and efficacy of surgical procedures while reducing invasiveness and recovery time;
15. Wearable computers: Computational devices embedded in clothing or other wearable items such as handbags, purses, or jewelry;
16. Quantum cryptography: Quantum mechanical methods that encode information for secure transfer. (Silberglitt et al, 2006)


I am not a fan of governemnt planning or governemnt sponsored planning, but under the circumstances I would embrace it and favor it over the ad hoc political process that has determined much, if not all, of the spending comprising the Recovery Act.

And while Stage III of my working proposal could time to implement, I believe it offers rational grounds for allocating scarce resources and the prospects for building a platform to support sustainable job growth.

Mar 08 05:03 PM

[If U Say So:]

We actually are already instituting government planning in the field of energy. The Obama administration has chosen the path of picking the winners and losers. No matter that government planning of this type has served up a batting average of .000 in the past. The past is the past and this administration says they know what they're doing. The American voter has apparently agreed, and surely what will be will be.

Mar 08 05:48 PM

[retiredengi...:]

If Obama wants big government and puts in place more spending to get more american people on the welfare role this will be hard to reverse and more will be dependent on the government dole and less will see a reason to work when their neighbor has his hand in the governments pocket. The more Obama distributes the wealth and picks the winners and losers the more losers there will be

Mar 08 06:06 PM

[Dirk McCoy:]

Michael,

You say "resources are scarce in this day". I'd like to know what resources you think we're running out of- because I believe the mistaken belief that we're running out of resources is behind this current economic disaster.

If you tell me there's a drought in California, or we're at peak oil, or parking in Manhattan goes for $100,000/year, please explain why these constraints can't be dealt with the way we've dealt with other resource constraints that have caused the price of commodities to drop over time. Instead of coppper, wireless. Instead of land, skyscrapers. Instead of oil, nuclear or solar. One could worry that we could run out of III-V semiconductor for CPV solar, but it turns out there is capacity for 1 TW per year. A Terrawatt is A LOT of energy- about 20% of global energy consumption from oil.

The constraint to converting all this material to energy isn't natural resources- it's people, vision, and investment capital. The investment capital will become available if the combination of energy cost, technology, and a level playing field give investors confidence there will be a payoff. The government picking winners and losers doesn't help. Manipulating energy costs doesn't help. And rationing energy, when there is abundant energy available with investment, doesn't help.

And there is a world of investments to be made to continue the trend that has been in place for thousands of years- more people equals more goods and services per person. We need to be careful that a false "scarcity paradigm" doesn't rob our children of a future prosperity by rationing natural resources instead of employing human ones.

Mar 08 08:21 PM

[a fat panda:]

"The investment capital will become available if the combination of energy cost, technology, and a level playing field give investors confidence there will be a payoff"

The critical resource is investment capital, and it is scarce by any measure in the private sector. But I am just a fat panda, here is what Buffett said in his annual report, "Conversely, highly-rated companies, such as Berkshire, are experiencing borrowing costs that, in relation to Treasury rates, are at record levels."

Much of the capital that we have is already leveraged. Much of the capital that we have has been driven into hiding by the lack of confidence in the market. Mostly, the problem is that the government has funded the TARP program shifting capital from the private sector to government-guaranteed borrowers. This capital had to come from somewhere. Buffett again, "Moreover, funds are abundant for the government-guaranteed borrower but often scarce for others, no matter how creditworthy they may be."


On Mar 08 08:21 PM Dirk McCoy wrote:

> Michael,
>
> You say "resources are scarce in this day". I'd like to know what
> resources you think we're running out of- because I believe the mistaken
> belief that we're running out of resources is behind this current
> economic disaster.
>
> If you tell me there's a drought in California, or we're at peak
> oil, or parking in Manhattan goes for $100,000/year, please explain
> why these constraints can't be dealt with the way we've dealt with
> other resource constraints that have caused the price of commodities
> to drop over time. Instead of coppper, wireless. Instead of land,
> skyscrapers. Instead of oil, nuclear or solar. One could worry that
> we could run out of III-V semiconductor for CPV solar, but it turns
> out there is capacity for 1 TW per year. A Terrawatt is A LOT of
> energy- about 20% of global energy consumption from oil.
>
> The constraint to converting all this material to energy isn't natural
> resources- it's people, vision, and investment capital. The investment
> capital will become available if the combination of energy cost,
> technology, and a level playing field give investors confidence there
> will be a payoff. The government picking winners and losers doesn't
> help. Manipulating energy costs doesn't help. And rationing energy,
> when there is abundant energy available with investment, doesn't
> help.
>
> And there is a world of investments to be made to continue the trend
> that has been in place for thousands of years- more people equals
> more goods and services per person. We need to be careful that a
> false "scarcity paradigm" doesn't rob our children of a future prosperity
> by rationing natural resources instead of employing human ones.

Mar 08 10:54 PM

[Michael Eis...:]

I don't think I suggested government planning and picking winners and losers. what I suggested was focus on clustered areas and then massive investment in everything down the stack to get critical mass. The winners will bubble up. The government always picks areas of focus.


On Mar 08 05:48 PM If U Say So wrote:

> We actually are already instituting government planning in the field
> of energy. The Obama administration has chosen the path of picking
> the winners and losers. No matter that government planning of this
> type has served up a batting average of .000 in the past. The past
> is the past and this administration says they know what they're doing.
> The American voter has apparently agreed, and surely what will be
> will be.

Mar 09 03:26 AM

[Michael Eis...:]

Dirk -
i was referring to financial resources and investment resources. Printing endless amounts of money does not solve the real scarcity problem. Tax receipts are down and will be and trillion dollar deficits are a slippery slope.


On Mar 08 08:21 PM Dirk McCoy wrote:

> Michael,
>
> You say "resources are scarce in this day". I'd like to know what
> resources you think we're running out of- because I believe the mistaken
> belief that we're running out of resources is behind this current
> economic disaster.
>
> If you tell me there's a drought in California, or we're at peak
> oil, or parking in Manhattan goes for $100,000/year, please explain
> why these constraints can't be dealt with the way we've dealt with
> other resource constraints that have caused the price of commodities
> to drop over time. Instead of coppper, wireless. Instead of land,
> skyscrapers. Instead of oil, nuclear or solar. One could worry
> that we could run out of III-V semiconductor for CPV solar, but it
> turns out there is capacity for 1 TW per year. A Terrawatt is A
> LOT of energy- about 20% of global energy consumption from oil.<br/>
>
> The constraint to converting all this material to energy isn't natural
> resources- it's people, vision, and investment capital. The investment
> capital will become available if the combination of energy cost,
> technology, and a level playing field give investors confidence there
> will be a payoff. The government picking winners and losers doesn't
> help. Manipulating energy costs doesn't help. And rationing energy,
> when there is abundant energy available with investment, doesn't
> help.
>
> And there is a world of investments to be made to continue the trend
> that has been in place for thousands of years- more people equals
> more goods and services per person. We need to be careful that a
> false "scarcity paradigm" doesn't rob our children of a future prosperity
> by rationing natural resources instead of employing human ones.

Mar 09 03:28 AM

[John Petersen:]

The one addition you might consider are modest tax incentives for direct investments in small to medium sized businesses because that's where the bulk of the jobs come from. All too often, Investors think "liquidity first" and the first place they look is the stock markets. Unfortunately, with the exception of IPO investing, the stock markets have no direct impact on a company's ability to create jobs and expand business. Policies that encourage risk taking and by transitivity job creation should not be overlooked.

Mar 09 04:59 AM

[Michael Eis...:]

John -
Good comment. That is what i was trying to get at in a somewhat more novel way in the third to last paragraph. i copy it here for you.

"Governments should provide incentives for ongoing education and independent business owners that sell their expertise globally. This is the export economy of the 21st century. It is no longer crates shipped by boat and plane (although that will not go away) but keeping brains at home that will export their knowledge. Governments should stimulate this type of economic creativity. It will have meaningful societal and employment benefits as well."

On Mar 09 04:59 AM John Petersen wrote:

> The one addition you might consider are modest tax incentives for
> direct investments in small to medium sized businesses because that's
> where the bulk of the jobs come from. All too often, Investors think
> "liquidity first" and the first place they look is the stock markets.
> Unfortunately, with the exception of IPO investing, the stock markets
> have no direct impact on a company's ability to create jobs and expand
> business. Policies that encourage risk taking and by transitivity
> job creation should not be overlooked.

Mar 09 07:03 AM

[kelm:]

This is a good article.Fundamentally, our economy is unbalanced and needs to be re-balanced and re-directed to ensure our competitiveness going forward. It is interesting how people fear a degree of government involvement in the direction of technology. We created the H bomb and most of the attendant nuclear technology due to direct government involvement. We can debate the good of nuclear weapons but nuclear technology in medicine, energy, oil exploration etc is hugely beneficial). We landed on the moon, developed communication and weather satellites and indeed created the internet through government efforts. So setting clear targets for the nation and putting the resources behind them can indeed lead to breakthroughs.

While your ideas are good I do take issue with your over reliance on internet based businesses. The world is physical and we have to build. The US convinced them selves that the information economy was the way to go. We moved up the value chain and the result was a consumer culture accounting for 70% of GDP. Oh we're great at video games and social network web sites but when we get into a crisis like this one there is very little we have to export our way out. We are a trade deficit and debtor nation and that is making it very hard to re-focus the economy.

Mar 09 10:51 AM

[Robert LoCa...:]

Michael,

I am the founder and CEO of LivePerson and want to say that I think it is great that you picked up the WSJ article on my company. Our website has bout 30,000 experts and does about $30,000,0000 a year in gross transactions. Our top experts make over $100,000 a year selling their knowledge. There is definitely an opportunity for people to sell their knowledge to others who want that knowledge. In the past, usually you could only sell your knowledge to people who you knew personally or professionally and who have proximity to where you live or work. With a website like LivePerson, you can sell your expertise to the world. We have doctors from places like India and Pakistan that are great doctors and they are selling their knowledge to people in the US and making more money than they would in their local country. People will buy Tacit knowledge, knowledge that is learned and that is personalized, and that can not be simply written in a book or on a web page. What we see is our best experts are passionate about what they are experts at and really want to help others. There are about 1.3B people on the Internet today and growing, you have to figure that some of them would want to buy what you are an expert in. Thanks, Robert

Mar 09 11:50 AM

[PainfullyAware:]

You Rock With Your Utopian Outlook !!!

The unfortunate truth - Utopia Can Not Be Obtained Through Central Planning Because Evil Exists And Craves Power Over Others. The seats intended for angels are coveted by demons. Power given is not so easily taken back.

"Safety Net Spending" is the only form of Governmental Spending that I would not despise right now. As It Is - they are wasting what we will need in the coming months; we are mortgaging the future to save the past.

Way To Be A Thinker !!!



On Mar 08 05:03 PM CautiousInvestor wrote:

>
>
> Looking back, maybe it would have been better to implement the Stimulus
> and Recovery Act in three stages.
>
> Stages I and II would have been individual tax relief and critical
> safety net spending, including extended unemployment benefits, food
> stamps and other assistance essential for day-to-day living.
>
> Stage III, which would be the result of much thought by an apolitical
> body, would in effect create a national industrial strategy and offer
> (1) a blueprint for the future of our economy and (2) a funding plan
> in the form of grants, tax credits, tax deferrals and low interest
> loans to implement our national industrial policy. Implementation
> of Stage III would require the creation of a national enterprise
> boardupon or national venture capital firm that would allocate resources
> based ranking of importance, employment multiplier and time to market.
>
>
> The blueprint might contain such goals as achieiving energy independence
> and the corollary of funding solar and renewable energy. It may also
> include establishing a national competitive advantage in creating
> and applying nano technologies. To assist in thinking about what
> might be included, I have pasted a list from another source:
>
> 1. Cheap solar energy: Solar energy systems inexpensive enough to
> be widely available to developing and undeveloped countries as well
> as to economically disadvantaged populations that are not on existing
> power grids;
> 2. Rural wireless communications: Widely available telephone and
> Internet connectivity without a wired network infrastructure; <br/>3.
> Communication devices for ubiquitous information access: Communication
> and storage devices - both wired and wireless - that provide agile
> access to information sources anywhere, anytime. Operating seamlessly
> across communication and data storage protocols, these devices will
> have growing capabilities to store not only text but also meta-text
> with layered contextual information, images, voice, music, video,
> and movies;
> 4. Genetically modified crops: Genetically engineered foods with
> improved nutritional value - e.g., through added vitamins and micronutrients,
> increased production - e.g., by tailoring crops to local conditions,
> and reduced pesticide use - e.g., by increasing resistance to pests;
>
> 5. Rapid bioassays: Simple, multiple tests that can be performed
> quickly and simultaneously to verify the presence or absence of specific
> biological substances.
> 6. Filters and catalysts: Techniques and devices to effectively and
> reliably filter, purify, and decontaminate water locally using unskilled
> labor;
> 7. Targeted drug delivery: Drug therapies that preferentially attack
> specific tumors or pathogens without harming healthy tissues and
> cells;
> 8. Cheap autonomous housing: Self-sufficient and affordable housing
> that provides shelter adaptable to local conditions as well as energy
> for heating, cooling, and cooking;
> 9. Green manufacturing: Redesigned manufacturing processes that either
> eliminate or greatly reduce waste streams and the need to use toxic
> materials;
> 10. Ubiquitous radio frequency identification (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> tagging of commercial products and individuals: Widespread use of
> RFID tags to track retail products from manufacture through sale
> and beyond, as well as track individuals and their movements; <br/>11.
> Hybrid vehicles: Automobiles available to the mass market with power
> systems that combine internal combustion and other power sources;
>
> 12. Pervasive sensors: Presence of sensors in most public areas and
> networks of sensor data to accomplish widespread real-time surveillance;
>
> 13. Tissue engineering: The design and engineering of living tissue
> for implantation and replacement;
> 14. Improved diagnostic and surgical methods: Technologies that improve
> the precision of diagnoses and greatly increase the accuracy and
> efficacy of surgical procedures while reducing invasiveness and recovery
> time;
> 15. Wearable computers: Computational devices embedded in clothing
> or other wearable items such as handbags, purses, or jewelry; <br/>16.
> Quantum cryptography: Quantum mechanical methods that encode information
> for secure transfer. (Silberglitt et al, 2006)
>
>
> I am not a fan of governemnt planning or governemnt sponsored planning,
> but under the circumstances I would embrace it and favor it over
> the ad hoc political process that has determined much, if not all,
> of the spending comprising the Recovery Act.
>
> And while Stage III of my working proposal could time to implement,
> I believe it offers rational grounds for allocating scarce resources
> and the prospects for building a platform to support sustainable
> job growth.

Mar 12 08:39 PM