Personal Perspective, Future of Work, Innovation

The rapid globalization and integration of the economy, including the power of technology to make work performed and done anywhere more accessible have resulted in our 21st Century societies finding themselves at a potentially critical moment in humanity's millennia-long story. 

Our world has shrunk considerably over the past 50 to 75 years. The end of World War II saw with it the birth of a more integrated global economy with capitalism gaining influence as communism waned into the early 1990s. The emergence of China from the 1990s to 2020s also reflects the triumph of global capitalism, albeit state-sponsored capitalism.

​As with any change in how society is structured, there were groups that benefited massively from this shift to a globalized, capitalist (neoliberal) world and those who didn't. One of the main results of this shift was many goods became cheaper to produce and consumer prices, at least in the United States, remained low for decades. 

For nearly 40 years, the average percentage change in consumer prices in the United States barely crossed 5%. In fact, median "inflation" (ie, yearly change in consumer prices) was 2.8% from 1983 to 2021 (we are a far cry from those levels in 2022, though). Compare this to the growth of capital and investment returns over the same time period. The median rate of yearly return for the S&P 500 (a basket of the 500 largest US-based corporations) from the same period, 1983 to 2021 was 12.8%. While this is not perhaps the most elegant economic analysis, I think it demonstrates how much relative value in capital was produced relative to costs passed on to consumers...nearly 10% more per year. 

Clearly, the returns to capital relative to the costs born by consumers was the result of companies trading more expensive labor for cheaper means of production. For a time, this bargain seemed "good" for many...prices were kept (arguably) artificially low through low-cost labor. Many workers in more economically developed countries didn't see this shift in economic structure as a problem as it benefited many of their pocketbooks either via high rates of return on capital and/or lower cost goods. Some individuals, especially those working in manufacturing sectors in the United States, Europe, Japan, and other developed countries saw opportunities shrink in favor of increased outsourcing of their work to China or, at least in the past few decades, automation. 

For a time, a global, capitalist, and neoliberal economy seemed to produce more overall prosperity than what came before it. Millions were lifted out of poverty and provided jobs that allowed them to live a life of greater convenience and security. The emergence of China's middle class was the growth engine of the global economy for the past 20-plus years. In a cruel twist of fate, however, the continual pursuit of maximum profit, minimal cost, and "optimization" of a global, capitalist economy may end up resulting in an overall more impoverished world. Globalization produced ever more competition amongst labor markets and the shock of the COVID-19 pandemic illustrated that a complex, global supply chain only works when all its requisite components and inputs are allowed to flow across borders and oceans.  

Competition drives innovation. The market forces that have dominated western economies in the neoliberal area allowed corporations and organizations with more innovative products to increase their profits. In sum, the lives of those using these products also became better. However, those groups that could not innovate and adapt died, resulting in layoffs and loss of entire sectors of our economy. The destructive nature of capitalism is fundamental to its success. There must be winners and losers. 

A bigger philosophical question facing the United States in particular as we approach the end of the first quarter of the 21st Century is whether we will allow the innovative and destructive forces of capitalism to continue to affect our citizens' personal health and wellbeing. Deaths of despair (from suicide and drug overdoses) have risen in the United States over the past 15-20 years despite our overall gross domestic product (GDP) per capita continuing to rise relative to other developed economies. 

The juxtaposition of income inequality and high poverty rates in the US along with overall greater economic growth and productivity of our economy as a whole illustrates that our current form of "US-led, global capitalism" results in big winners and losers. 
​
Some illustrative data from McKinsey's Rethinking the Future of American Capitalism report drive home the point: 

• American firms rank among the most widely known and the most profitable globally: in economic profit, they make up 38 percent of the top 10. 
• In the United States, just 6 percent of counties account for two-thirds of GDP output.

​In addition, a variety of data available from inequality.org, sourced from OECD statistics and the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report highlight the enormous share of wealth concentration in the United States relative to other developed countries.

In exchange for our dynamic and growing "economy" (ie, corporate profits) in the US do so many have to be left behind?
​
What is the ideal balance between creative destruction, economic progress/reinvention, and the stability of our society? When should workers be protected at the potential expense of consumers? Will work as we know it be a thing in the future? And if not, is more time for leisure and creative pursuits for all a good thing? Will humanity fill the free time of a technology-laden future making the world better or worse?  

These are thorny questions and ultimately how things transpire is unpredictable but that does not mean we don't have some agency in shaping the future we want to see. ​

We have constructed a society in the United States where so much of the social safety net has been removed that we may ultimately become less innovative as a society. Who can afford to take the risk of starting a small business or company when they lack affordable access to health insurance or reasonable childcare costs? There is data supporting the notion that innovation is lower in more unequal societies. ​

Innovation also threatens many people's sense of value and contribution to society. As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more capable at replacing work traditionally performed by humans, even white-collar work, many are left asking how they can contribute to society. The decline in American's confidence in institutions leads one to wonder whether individuals will feel the need to engage with larger societal structures in the future or choose to escape to some version of the metaverse (a la Ready Player One). 

Clearly, this is a time of immense change and uncertainty.
Will we become a less globalized and interconnected world, retreating inwards as societies and people?
Will the speed of automation and change result in many being left behind economically in the new world order?
​Will inequality continue to increase with potentially explosive societal consequences? 

A fundamental set of questions arises: Is our system broken? Can it be reformed? Must it be re-envisioned? Do we have the collective and political will to make real change?

The current structures of our society add further complexity to addressing the problems we face. What is "right" is not always what is popular making it difficult for a democratic country to push forward with changes that may be difficult in the short-term but lead to long-term positive impact. While pursuing my Ph.D. in neurobiology from UNC Chapel Hill, I looked at delay discounting behavior...the tendency for people and animals to discount the future. The future is "worth" less than the present partially because at an individual level the future is uncertain. You may not make it to the future and so why delay consumption now? The YOLO ("you only live once") choices of many young adults reflects the underlying basic instinct of all living things to prioritize the NOW over the LATER. It is in our nature to do this.  

In large part, I think our politicians and leaders have failed to articulate a truly promising view of the future and America's place in it. Rather, "othering" and blaming certain groups is used for political gain while real solutions go undiscussed and our two-party system fosters division and extremism. We have the potential to move closer to being a true melting pot of culture and ideas, welcoming immigrants from across the world who seek to better their futures and our country as a whole by leveraging American Capitalism and the innovative ecosystems it can foster.

​If we don't find a way to strike the right balance between growth at any cost and compassion for all people within our society, though, we could lay the seeds for the destruction of the future we all want to see. 

More from the blog:

• The End of Work as We Know It: How an Increasingly Automated World Will Change Everything
• The Challenges of Being an International Researcher: Implications for Advanced Degree Labor Markets
  • Part 1
  • Part 2​

For Further Reading:

• What exactly is neoliberalism?
• Book: Capital in the Twenty-First Century
  • See also the documentary on the topic
• Rethinking the future of American capitalism (from McKinsey)
• Inequality: A persisting challenge and its implications (from McKinsey)
• The social contract in the 21st century: Outcomes so far for workers, consumers, and savers in advanced economies (from McKinsey)
• Book: The Power of Creative Destruction: Economic Upheaval and the Wealth of Nations
• Book: US vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism
• Book: Six Faces of Globalization: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why It Matters
  • More on this concept from one of the book's authors, Anthea Roberts on her personal website
  • Who wins and who loses from globalization? There are (at least) six answers (excerpt from the Book)
  • The Corporate Power Narrative: How Corporations Benefit from Economic Globalization (excerpt from the Book)
• Book: Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism 
• America's crisis of despair: A federal task force for economic recovery and societal well-being
• Book: Forward: Notes on the Future of Our Democracy 
• Relevant political reads from The Atlantic:
  • ​How the U.K. Became One of the Poorest Countries in Western Europe
    • ​A cautionary tale?
  • The Wreckage of Neoliberalism
    • The postwar neoliberal economic project is nearing its end. The question is who will write the last chapter, the Democrats or the totalitarians?

Sites Worth Exploring:

• INEQUALITY.ORG (United States and global data)
• realtimeinequality.org (United States data)

Last week was National Postdoc Appreciation Week, an annual event organized by the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) to raise awareness for the work postdocs do and encourage the institutions they work at to show their appreciation. 

As someone who was a postdoctoral scholar and now works as an administrator to support postdocs, I know the value they provide to their institutions. However, many people - including those working at our institutions - either don't understand what a postdoc is or the impact they make through their research, mentorship, and teaching efforts.

The NPA has launched a whole campaign to try to better articulate that while postdocs perform important research and scholarship, they are also human beings like anyone else - mothers, fathers, leaders, volunteers, immigrants, and innovators. If you are a postdoc, I encourage you to share your story as part of the What's a Postdoc? initiative. 

The definition of a postdoctoral scholar (postdoc) by the NPA reads:
"An individual who has received a doctoral degree (or equivalent) and is engaged in a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced training to enhance professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her chosen career path."

The major task associated with postdoctoral scholars is helping lead and drive forward research and scholarly work at their institutions. And these institutions can range from universities and academic medical centers to national or government labs and corporations. My experience lies in supporting postdocs at universities which is what I will touch on in the rest of this piece. However, there is important emerging research that pursuing postdocs outside academic institutions does not necessarily preclude one from pursuing a faculty career. Perhaps a topic for a future post.  

​I ran climate surveys on our postdoctoral population at North Carolina State University in 2020 and 2021 as well as at Virginia Tech in 2022. In these surveys we asked how postdocs spend their time and the distribution of their work devoted to the tasks below were remarkably consistent across survey years and institutions.  

As you can see in the figure above, postdocs spend a nearly equivalent amount of their time performing research or scholarship related to their personal interests/goals and those of their supervisor(s) and that these efforts take up ~60% of their total work hours each week. It is great to see postdocs are working on their "own" research/scholarship efforts as a key point of the postdoctoral position is to develop as an independent researcher and scholar.

​Writing takes up another large portion of postdocs' time (~16%) with manuscript writing being the largest area of focus outside research/scholarship. Finally, mentoring junior colleagues (7%) and teaching (6%) were tasks most postdocs reported doing as part of their roles, although there was large variation in the distribution of effort on these tasks based on the disciplinary background of the postdoc. 

Clearly, then, postdocs do report focusing largely on research/scholarship but are also doing work beyond that, including mentoring others. There is data to emphasize that postdocs play a critical role in the development of research skills in Ph.D. students working in their groups. The authors of the PNAS study that investigated postdoc mentoring of graduate students discussed a "cascading mentorship model" where faculty supervisors' mentoring of postdocs allows for postdocs to then mentor their more junior colleagues. So, postdocs are both mentoring and are being mentored. 

Given many postdocs also seek to move into future careers where they will need to mentor others, increasing the development of effective mentoring skills in this population is critical. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's report and online guide on the Science of Effective Mentoring in STEMM is a great place to start. 

Many readers may wonder what is the purpose of a postdoc? How is it different from graduate school? These are good questions. Traditionally, a postdoctoral position was seen as a type of apprenticeship where aspiring faculty members (especially in the sciences and engineering fields) would be mentored by a more senior faculty member as they worked to develop the various skills (experimental design, analysis, manuscript and grant writing, people and project management, etc...) needed to become an "independent researcher". To achieve a faculty position at many research-intensive institutions a postdoctoral position is becoming essential. And data demonstrate that completing a postdoc improves scholarly productivity and positively contributes to securing a tenure-track faculty appointment. However, one can have too much postdoctoral training and experience diminishing returns from extended postdoc positions. 

Many postdocs do not ultimately land faculty positions and move on to a variety of careers, post-postdoc. Additionally, while postdocs are at their institutions, they contribute importantly in a variety of ways from mentoring students (as discussed previously) to teaching and assisting in the management of their research groups. Perhaps their most important contribution to their institutions, however, is driving research and innovation forward. 

Innovative programs that promote start-up company creation led by postdocs are gaining steam including those at Cornell University's main campus and Cornell Tech in New York City; University of Memphis; University of Washington in Seattle; Carnegie Mellon University; Duke University's Department of Biomedical Engineering; and now Virginia Tech. Postdocs are uniquely situated to help lead the commercialization efforts of new technologies emerging out of university research groups. It will be exciting to see in the years to come how these programs perform in allowing postdocs to spearhead the creation of start-up companies from universities' intellectual property. ​

While many anecdotes and assumptions exist suggesting postdocs are critical drivers of research and innovation at their institutions, I have found surprisingly little analysis of this topic. 

So, I set out to do a crude analysis myself. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) publishes a wealth of information on research expenditures and snapshots of the graduate student and postdoctoral scholar population at institutions across the United States. Specifically for this analysis, I leveraged data from the Fall 2020 NSF Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering (most recent data available) and NSF Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey data from fiscal year 2020 (released in December 2021 and the most recent data available). So, we will be comparing research expenditures from the HERD Survey (both overall and federally-funded) to postdoctorate and graduate student population size in 2020. 

Caveats: NSF data on population counts are self-reported and institutions are left to determine the best process for counting their graduate student and postdoc population. Postdoc population counts can be quite variable (see this blog post from Gary McDowell for more on that). 
In addition, I removed three institutional data points as they vastly skewed the postdoc data in particular: Johns Hopkins (1,723 postdocs in 2020), Harvard (5,787 postdocs), and Stanford (2,446 postdocs) all had postdoc populations >2.5 standard deviations of the mean postdoc count of all reporting institutions in 2020 (mean postdoc count: 260, Std Dev: 520). In addition, Johns Hopkins research expenditures are nearly double that of the next largest institution (University of Michigan), making its data an outlier on both metrics - postdoc counts and research expenditures. With those outliers removed we are left with 200 institutions who reported postdoc counts in 2020. 

Let's look at the correlation between the number of postdocs at an institution and its overall research expenditures in 2020.

An R-squared value of 0.81 demonstrates a very strong correlation between the number of postdocs at an institution and its overall research expenditures in a given year. The R-squared value between postdoc counts and federally-funded research expenditures was 0.75. As a reminder correlation does not equal causation but clearly there is a strong association between research expenditures and number of postdocs at an institution. 

Plotting the same 200 institution's fulltime Ph.D. student populations against research expenditures we see a strong but weaker correlation. 

The R-squared value between number of Ph.D. students and federally-funded research expenditures was 0.59.
​
The trendline equations for the relationships plotted above can be used to "measure" how research expenditures associate with either the number of postdocs or Ph.D. students.
​REMINDER: This is an overly simplistic interpretation of the data as there are many factors we aren't looking at here but for sake of argument, let's run the math.

For the postdoc vs research expenditure trendline: y=1038.4x + 81898
Where x=postdoc number & y=research expenditure (in $1000).
If x=1; y=82,936.4
So, based on these overly simplified (and not to be taken literally) data, 1 postdoc equates to $82,936,400 in research expenditures & 1,000 postdocs to $1,120,298,000 or $1.12 billion in research expenditures. 

If we do the same math for Ph.D. students, 1 Ph.D. student equates to $48,629,790 in research expenditures & 1,000 Ph.D. students to $331,137,000 or $330 million in research expenditures. 

So, while this is a very crude analysis, hopefully it emphasizes the very strong relationship between postdocs and research "output" (ie, expenditures of funds on research) at institutions AND that this relationship is stronger than for Ph.D. students who also lead research will making progress towards their degree. 

While research expenditures are perhaps not the best metrics of "output" from postdocs or Ph.D. students, it is available data we have. Long term, we must do a better job of understanding the impact of graduate students and postdocs on not only research/scholarship and innovation but the teaching and outreach mission of many of institutions.

​I discussed the need to better measure the impact of postdocs in a prior blog post from 2020 and there is still much to do in that regard. 

Postdoctoral scholars do a lot. Clearly they play a large role in research output at their institutions but are also critical mentors for many working in research groups and universities and other academically-focused research organizations.

While it is difficult to fully capture the impact postdocs make, those of us who work in this space know it is large and often underappreciated. We must do better to measure and report on postdoc impact moving forward. Why? Because if institutions don't find a better way to understand postdoc impact, they will not invest in supporting them. This in turn, will make the postdoc path less desirable. In fact, that is already happening, with many faculty reporting difficulties in recruiting postdocs. Granted, some institutions - St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and the Van Andel Institute in particular - are working hard to increase compensation for their postdocs but systemic barriers (grant budgets, organizational classification of postdocs as non-employees, etc...) make it challenging for compensation and benefits to be increased for many postdocs. Add these challenges to the opportunity cost in pursuing a postdoc and one should not be surprised to see Ph.D.s pursuing different paths post-degree.

It is my belief that we must think of creative ways to reimagine the postdoc experience to make it a more holistic training experience that sets those who pursue it up for success. The innovation postdoc fellowship programs I mentioned earlier are one example but I think a variety of creative solutions could be proposed. To begin with, though, we must all do better in collecting and reporting on data that allows us to advocate for postdocs and the critical roles they play at our institutions and beyond.

For Further Reading
From the Blog

• ​Measuring Postdoc Impact​
• Reimagining the Postdoc Experience
• Factors That Affect Career Choice and Diversity in Science
• Ph.D. Recipients' Employment Trends: Insights from National Science Foundation (NSF) Data
• Ph.D. Employment Trends: Insights from NSF Survey of Doctorate Recipients 

Papers and Programs of Potential Interest
United States National Postdoc Survey results and the interaction of gender, career choice and mentor impact

Career choices of underrepresented and female postdocs in the biomedical sciences

Surveying the experience of postdocs in the United States before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

​A startup postdoc program as a channel for university technology transfer: the case of the Runway Startup Postdoc Program at the Jacobs Technion–Cornell Institute at Cornell Tech

​Postdocs to Innovators program (consortium of European universities and partners)

Virginia Tech Presidential Postdoctoral Fellowship Program