Innovation and Job Creation

David Octavius · 03-21-2007, 05:26 PM

Since it should be understood that innovation and technological advances helps create jobs for not only the innovative product itself but all the secondary and supporting industries built around it..ie MP3 players is not only manufacturing the device but also creating jobs to market it, secondary services for add-ons and accessories and of course other competitors entering the mix etc. Should government help push start innovation for certain things through tax money (until it reaches a point where the market can take over and do it efficiently) knowing it may potentially create millions of jobs ten years from now for not only the innovation itself but all the markets that spring up around it? Or is such a thing a waste of tax dollars?

To me, if an innovation, say a solar power car is 15 years away from being legitimate (I don't know if that is true or not), many business would not waste the time to do - their investors would not wait that long, so if government push through research for 10 years (through grants) until businesses see it is viable, then they will take over. This could not just offset job losses due to outsourcing and other things, but create much more.

Would you agree with this or do you think its a violation of our tax dollars or just plain pork because it is not guaranteed?

MTdream · 03-21-2007, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Should government help push start innovation for certain things through tax money (until it reaches a point where the market can take over and do it efficiently) knowing it may potentially create millions of jobs ten years from now for not only the innovation itself but all the markets that spring up around it? Or is such a thing a waste of tax dollars?

If the private sector is notinvesting, it is a sure sign that somethign is further out than 10 years...VC money will easily invest within a 10 year window...

problem is two fold...you are thinking (I assume) down path of energy off set sources either auto or home...

These are not big areas of development, as the investors are savvy enough to know that their investment could be shot in the head by merely a change in policy at OPEC...and that there really is not a shortage of fuel, there is a shortage of peoples memory...and they leverage that against us. curent fuels are actually pretty efficient...they are caught in the noise of other issues right now though...

second part of it...there is not really any investment in this space as it would require dramatic transformation in buyer perception, buyer expectation, buyer knowledge, buyer capability (distance, power, yahoo factor, etc.)

MP3 players etc. hit home well as they ask for nominal changes in those three elements above...

6SpeedTA95 · 03-21-2007, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

If the private sector is notinvesting, it is a sure sign that somethign is further out than 10 years...VC money will easily invest within a 10 year window...

problem is two fold...you are thinking (I assume) down path of energy off set sources either auto or home...

...

What?

6SpeedTA95 · 03-21-2007, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Since it should be understood that innovation and technological advances helps create jobs for not only the innovative product itself but all the secondary and supporting industries built around it..ie MP3 players is not only manufacturing the device but also creating jobs to market it, secondary services for add-ons and accessories and of course other competitors entering the mix etc. Should government help push start innovation for certain things through tax money (until it reaches a point where the market can take over and do it efficiently) knowing it may potentially create millions of jobs ten years from now for not only the innovation itself but all the markets that spring up around it? Or is such a thing a waste of tax dollars?

To me, if an innovation, say a solar power car is 15 years away from being legitimate (I don't know if that is true or not), many business would not waste the time to do - their investors would not wait that long, so if government push through research for 10 years (through grants) until businesses see it is viable, then they will take over. This could not just offset job losses due to outsourcing and other things, but create much more.

Would you agree with this or do you think its a violation of our tax dollars or just plain pork because it is not guaranteed?

I'm ok with government offering tax incentives for investment and R&D. I'm primarily ok with this because I'm against corporate taxes but reality is they are in place. As long as they are in place I think the government should give incentives whenever possible especially if there appears to be long term benefits to such investment.

I'd prefer government eliminate corporate income taxes and therefor incentives and let the market sort out some of this stuff, but thats not going to happen.

MTdream · 03-21-2007, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

What?

ok, will spell it out...

Venture Capital money will invest within a 10 year window of market adoption...

greater than a 10 year window will be something most venture capital money will stay away from...

Linzyhop · 03-21-2007, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

ok, will spell it out...

Venture Capital money will invest within a 10 year window of market adoption...

greater than a 10 year window will be something most venture capital money will stay away from...

true. 10 years is even stretching it a bit.

MTdream · 03-21-2007, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

true. 10 years is even stretching it a bit.

nah, not when you factor a lot of pre-mezzanine funding...i.e. ideation side...not even a productization side funding...

proven team, prevent paths...funding is pretty easy to get...but this sector (above) has never really proven to work in 10 year windows for the above mentioned reasons...