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.
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.
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.
