How Multitasking Affects Production
Bylund continues to prove his point that we produce so that can consume. If we do not produce goods or services, we will have nothing to consume and therefore we will not have basic necessities, much less items we just want to have.
In chapter 4 he focuses on we work together to complete a common goal. Bylund uses the example of Crusoe and Friday. Crusoe has wrecked his ship and is forced to spend every moment hunting and gathering to provide food for himself. He must also build or find shelter. Being alone trying to do these things is nearly impossible and Crusoe simply cannot survive on his own. By adding Friday into this equation, their circumstances have not changed. However, they are able to both hunt, build, and rest.
"Two people can do things that one simply cannot." (Bylund, 2016, p. 47).
Because Crusoe and Friday can work together to survive, they can double the amount of tasks they can complete in one day. This will give them both time to rest while they are stranded, upping their chances of survival.
This example reigns true for many different situations. If one man tried to build a house by himself it would take years to complete. However, if there is a bricklayer, a concrete man, a carpenter, and a painter, they could complete the job much faster. Not only would the job get done faster, it would probably be done better. The one man would not have to multitask. Each worker could focus on one task. Maximizing the time and effort put into building the house. (Bylund, 2016, p. 50).
When we focus on task, we can become experts on it. The bricklayer can do his job efficiently and the outcome will be much better than if the carpenter tried to do it. Working together to complete the goal makes much more sense. However, the house must be of value to the buyer. If the buyer does not believe that the work meets their standards, it has no value to them. Meaning the production of the house was a waste of time and money.
Bylund then mentions int his chapter that it makes more sense to employ workers who already have the skills required to do the job. (Bylund, 2016, p. 57). He uses the example of Becky hiring employees that already have the skills and knowledge to produce nails. It would be silly to hire a baker to produce nails. I absolutely agree with this point. Most employers will not hire workers that do not have experience or knowledge in the area of their work. For example, a hospital would not hire someone without proper education. The same goes for restaurants. If they are in need of a chef they are more likely to hire someone with experience in cooking. Say two people applied for the job and one was a construction worker and one just graduated from culinary school. The obvious choice if going to be the applicant that went to culinary school. It is smart to employ workers that have knowledge and are passionate about the line of work they will be in. Choosing someone who can create better quality products in a shorter amount of time is a smart business decision.
Creative Destruction
In my opinion, Schumpeter's article on creative destruction was confusing. However, one quote really stuck out to me,
"... That incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one." (Schumpeter, 1962, p. 83).
This quote made me think of Apple and other technology companies. They continue to create new products that are better than the last. We choose to buy the newer versions because they work better, they have new features, and they look cooler. This relates to creative destruction because each time a new version is released the value of the older versions decrease. Not because they are not just as good as they once were, but because there is a newer and fancier one available. Society tends to focus on new, shiny, and fancy. Each time new technology comes out it has a new feature that our old product did not have. For example, when the first smartphone was released it had touchscreens and better quality cameras. Consumers were willing to pay a much higher price for it compared to the flip phones they had originally. Another example would be televisions. People are willing to pay more for better quality and bigger screens because they value those features.
Creative destruction does not necessarily "destroy" existing products, it simply makes them valued at a lower price because there are better products on the market.
References
Bylund, P. L. (2016). Chapter 4: Unbeatable, Imperfect Markets. In Seen, the unseen, and the unrealized: How regulations affect our everyday lives (pp. 47–72). essay, Lexington Books.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1962). Chapter VII: The Process of Creative Destruction. In Capitalism, socialism and democracy (pp. 81–86). essay, Harper Torchbooks, Harper & Row.
I think you did a good job at summing up what Bylund was wanting to communicate about multitasking. It is generally known and accepted that a crew can better accomplish a multilayered task than an individual. This is because different individuals have different skill sets which allows the individuals to specialize in their specific field. This was an aspect of Bylund's writing that I think you could have mentioned a bit more. The reason that this system you described is more efficient, is because specialization is able to happen which is what leads to efficiency.
The idea here is that usually, organizations will spend time and resources to find individuals who already have experience or established skill sets in the particular field that they're looking at. This is a point that Bylund discusses and a great business strategy that employers should adopt.
I think that something that you could have spent a little bit more time expanding on was Bylund's ideas on the separation between production and consumption. He basically explains how you can spend your entire life working in one particular industry and benefiting from a different one. For example, you could spend your whole life working for the fashion design industry, and never know a thing about car manufacturing, yet you can still purchase a car and benefit from the luxuries of owning a car. This is made possible by market cooperation. If everyone specializes in their certain industry and allows other to do that same, there is going to be balance and ultimately success in the overall market place.
I very much agree with you the Schumpeter's article was confusing and hard to follow. However, I think you did a really good job at putting creative deconstruction into an example. Your example about Apple made a lot of sense and I think that it is the perfect example of what Schumpeter was trying to define creative destruction as.
I think of everything you wrote, this was the most significant to me. Again, I had a hard time following Schumpeter's writing and even after studying it, I didn't gain a really good understanding of what creative deconstruction meant until reading your post. I think the idea that creative deconstruction simply meant things became less valuable and new things emerged, is the perfect way of understanding this concept. Schumpeter put it into words in a far more complicated way that was very difficult to understand, but I really enjoy the way you summarized it.
Overall, a really great post and very organized!