(For new reader and those who request 好友请求, please read my 公告栏 first)

Reproduced below isanother Op-Ed piece by my favorite columnist. Although his target is primarily forthe American audience, his message has serious implications for the futureeconomic growth of China. The huge population of China is both a problem and anopportunity looking through the lens of his message in my view.

It’s P.Q. and C.Q. asMuch as I.Q.

By THOMASL. FRIEDMAN

Published: January 29, 2013 NewYorkTimes

PresidentObama’s first term was absorbed by dealing with the Great Recession. I hopethat in his second term he’ll be able to devote more attention to the GreatInflection.

Dealing with the Great Recession was largely about “Yes WeCan” — about government, about what we can and must do “together” to shore upthe safety nets and institutions that undergird our society and economy.Obama’s Inaugural Address was a full-throated defense of that “public” side ofthe unique public-private partnership that makes America great. But, if we’reto sustain the kind of public institutions and safety nets that we’re used to,it will require a lot more growth by the private side (not just more taxes), alot more entrepreneurship, a lot more start-ups and a lot more individualrisk-taking — things the president rarely speaks about. And it will all have tohappen in the context of the Great Inflection.

What do I mean by the Great Inflection? I mean somethingvery big happened in the last decade. The world went from connected tohyperconnected in a way that is impacting every job, industry and school, butwas largely disguised by post-9/11 and the Great Recession. In 2004, I wrote abook, called “The World Is Flat,” about how the world was getting digitallyconnected so more people could compete, connect and collaborate from anywhere.When I wrote that book, Facebook, Twitter, cloud computing, LinkedIn, 4Gwireless, ultra-high-speed bandwidth, big data, Skype, system-on-a-chip (SOC)circuits, iPhones, iPods, iPads and cellphone apps didn’t exist, or were intheir infancy.

Today, not only do all these things exist, but, incombination, they’ve taken us from connected to hyperconnected. Now, notesCraig Mundie, one of Microsoft’s top technologists, not just elites, butvirtually everyone everywhere has, or will have soon, access to a hand-heldcomputer/cellphone, which can be activated by voice or touch, connected via thecloud to infinite applications and storage, so they can work, invent,entertain, collaborate and learn for less money than ever before. Alas, though,every boss now also has cheaper, easier, faster access to more above-averagesoftware, automation, robotics, cheap labor and cheap genius than ever before.That means the old average is over. Everyone who wants a job now mustdemonstrate how they can add value better than the new alternatives.

When the world gets this hyperconnected, adds Mundie, thespeed with which every job and industry changes also goes into hypermode. “Inthe old days,” he said, “it was assumed that your educational foundation wouldlast your whole lifetime. That is no longer true.” Because of the way everyindustry — from health care to manufacturing to education — is now beingtransformed by cheap, fast, connected computing power, the skill required forevery decent job is rising as is the necessity of lifelong learning. More and more things you knowand tools you use “are being made obsolete faster,” added Mundie. It’s as ifevery aspect of our lives is now being driven by Moore’s Law. This isexacerbating our unemployment problem.

In their terrific book, “RaceAgainst the Machine: How the DigitalRevolution Is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and IrreversiblyTransforming Employment and the Economy,” Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfeeof the Massachusetts Institute of Technology note that for the last twocenturies it happened that productivity, median income and employment alltracked each other nicely. “So most economists have had this feeling that ifyou just boost productivity, the pie grows, and, in the long run, everythingelse takes care of itself,” explained Brynjolfsson in an interview. “But thereis no economic law that says technological progress has to benefit everyone.It’s entirely possible for the pie to get bigger and some people to get asmaller slice.” Indeed, when the digital revolution gets so cheap, fast,connected and ubiquitous you see this in three ways, Brynjolfsson added: those with more education startto earn much more than those without it, those with the capital to buy andoperate machines earn much more than those who can just offer their labor, andthose with superstar skills, who can reach global markets, earn much more thanthose with just slightly less talent.

Put it all together, he added, and you can understand,why the Great Recession took the biggest bite out of employment but is not theonly thing affecting job loss today: why we have record productivity, wealthand innovation, yet median incomes are falling, inequality is rising and highunemployment remains persistent.

How toadapt? It will require more individual initiative. We know that it will bevital to have more of the “right” education than less, that you will need todevelop skills that are complementary to technology rather than ones that canbe easily replaced by it and that we need everyone to be innovating newproducts and services to employ the people who are being liberated from routinework by automation and software. The winners won’t just be those with more I.Q.It will also be those with more P.Q. (passion quotient) and C.Q. (curiosityquotient) to leverage all the new digital tools to not just find a job, but toinvent one or reinvent one, and to not just learn but to relearn for alifetime. Government can and must help, but the president needs to explain thatthis won’t just be an era of “Yes We Can.” It will also be an era of“Yes You Can” and “Yes You Must.”