As someone who’s undergraduate degree has nothing to do with his career since leaving University, I can relate. I’ve had this conversation with the Bee, who worked through summers and Christmas holidays for minimum wage if not less in some instances. I didn’t start working till I was 18 and then it was in the summers in some very manual jobs (for example cleaning subway stations in Toronto from 11pm to 7am).

So I find it hard to relate to people who leave school at 16 and then live on benefits, I’d much rather the government focused on creating apprenticeships and keeping people in school, I understand tuitions are high, especially in the UK. But when employment figures clearly show that those with higher education have much lower unemployment figures and when the government isn’t asking for people to pay back student debt until they’re earning over £21K, I don’t get why people don’t stay in school?

So, I voiced my opinion on Twitter and Zohra (a good friend, fellow Canadian and someone who’s opinions I value) and I had a bit of back and forth about it that I thought was worth sharing. It was over twitter so please excuse the txt talk.

Me – tired of the UK youth unemplymnt stats. Moved across the world to get a job/got paid little to get experience, feel like a bitter old man
Zohra - do you mean you had to suffer, so everyone should? Or something else?

Me - no, mean if you don’t have qualifications – voluntr or study, like sayin can’t afford a big flat so I’ll live in a council flat
Me – if you can’t afford your dream flat you live in what you can afford/with your parents, why is work different?
Me – if you can’t get the job you think you deserve, take the job you can get, or volunteer, to build up your cv (end of rant)
Zohra - if there are no jobs, and tuition fees are £9k a year (for a BA!), then it’s not really as simple as: adjust your attitude?

Me – 9k is high, but you don’t pay it back till your earning >£20K?! why are we measuring unemployment for 16-19 year olds?
Zohra - erm, the unemp figures r worse they’ve been in 20yrs or summat (so no jobs, period), & u have 2 have money already 2 volunteer.
Zohra -understand that you worked hard (been there, too), but the figures on youth unemp are from ONS – not just ‘complaining yng ppl’

Zohra - hmmm, if I’d volunteered instead of worked over my teenage summers, I’d not have been able to pay my uni tuition
Zohra - in my case it affected my options, working @ that age, in the summers – & during school yr too. I think relevant 4 that age grp
Me – but that’s the point you went to Uni and worked (guessing for min wage), as did I, if u leave school at 16 what ru expecting?

Zohra - also, thats 9k a year = 36k by end of uni, and hello, 20k in london?! Doable, but it’s not like ur guaranteed earnings on a BA.
Me – they should be in school or getting an apprenticeship, if you look at unemployment for those with higher ed, it’s much lower
Zohra - well, that’s great news at least. To be honest though, I’m still in the ‘school should be free’ camp

Some interesting food for thought, while I would also love to see University be free – especially with the thought of paying for a child’s university in 16 or so years, the thought of how much university may cost is scary. However, even if for some reason I can’t afford to pay for my children’s university education, I would still encourage them to go to school for as long as possible.

I don’t have many friends who didn’t go to university for some time at least and at the same time I don’t have many friends who’ve been unemployed or on benefits for years, I think that’s a bit of causation there.

What I’d love to see is University tuitions scale as the year of study goes up. So first year of university would be free, however in second and third year tuition fees would be introduced, and these would scale and go higher for graduate certification and post graduate studies. As I believe if you give people an incentive to at least start University they’ll see the value and hopefully stay in University.

I don’t know what the exact solution is, but I do think the UK benefits system, in many cases, provides people with the wrong incentives. I do believe that work should always be more attractive then being on support, I’m just not sure how you make that system work.

What writing a blog post there showed me is the real viral nature of the web, especially the social web. The post talks about how companies should be ambitious and try to disrupt like Google, design like Apple and deliver like Zappos. This wasn’t the first time I’d referenced these companies and these principles as people who regularly read my blog would know. But what followed was really interesting. Before I even sent out a tweet about the article, 3 people put the post out to twitter, and someone came up with a great hashtag, #3DValue, I really like this short term to describe my thinking. And I really love the fact that a search for #3DValue on twitter brings up a whole stream of people who are referencing this principle.

This is what’s great about social media, instead of communication being one way, multiple people can adapt and reference the thinking in a way that benefits everyone.

It’s great to have one more personal example of how many people can spread and idea as well as making it more succinct using social media.

That said both of them are missing key points when it comes to social media.

Seth,In Lynchpin, thinks social media is a giant time suck and people would be better served spending their time making stuff happen. Gladwell thinks social media’s reach is limited and that we won’t we see a revolution through a medium like Twitter. They’re both right but they’re wrong as well.

They’re right in that social media CAN be a time suck and that a giant movement needs a lot more channels than twitter, but what their both missing is that social media connects and makes people far more aware than ever before. Being connected and being aware helps inform and create in a way that was not possible a while ago. Gladwell and Godin are not active on twitter or any other social media channel (I’d link to their twitter feeds but their both useless on twitter).

Personally, I think Steven Johnson’s research and thinking on connectedness is bang on, when Steven says “Chance favours the connected mind” that totally resonates with me and my experiences. Do yourself a favour and watch this four-minute video from Steven Johnson about “good ideas”.

The key with social media is to know what you’re using different mediums and channels for. For me personally, Twitter is for building connections and information (reception and distribution), facebook is for interesting personal and social matters, Linkedin is professional contact building and maintaining and so on and so fourth. I don’t look at any of these channels as a time suck or as a revolutionary device, I look at them as channels within a new marketing mix and I think Gladwell and Godin would do well to try and understand the mediums better before waving them off as irrelevant.

I’ve been working out of the Yahoo! offices for a couple of days a week and then out of the London Business School Library and most recently I was granted access to Camden Unlimited’s Collective project this is great as it allows early stage entrepreneurs some office space for a short period of time. I’m really hoping I can help shape the space and make it a really good environment.

Then, the Bee and I were having a conversation that turned into an idea for a work space that could encompass childcare and working space, and then someone tweeted about Third Door which is trying to do something just like that. I think this is a great idea and I really hope they’re able to get it off the ground and expand it into different areas.

And finally, today I came across this great blog post from Seth Godin, goodbye to the office, it’s great post discussing why do we need an office and how technology and our society has progressed beyond the need for a traditional office. I think Seth’s right, but I do think there’s something to be said for social interaction with individuals, they just don’t necessarily have to be in the same company.

Imagine if there was a group of hubs in different areas of cities where local residents could go with childcare and an office set up. Where people were working but not everyone worked for the same company. Where you could socially interact, where you could hold meetings, where video conferencing capabilities were available, but it was walking distance from your home and everyone had access to one of these work hubs. Companies pay a lot for overhead, where they have to pay for cleaning, supplying basic stuff like utilities, water, coffee etc. Imagine if they gave employees a work space allowance that allowed individuals to subscribe to a office away from home but close enough that you could roll out of bed and be at work. People may say that working in the same place helps as your team helps productivity but having worked in traditional offices for the most of my career and having worked away from my teams for the last couple of months I don’t buy that.

I’m a big fan of Scott Adams, the creator of dilbert, and I love the fact that he has an office across the street from his house, or something like that. Why can’t everyone have an office across the street. Think of the environmental impact (transport emissions saved), the societal impact (less time commuting means more time with the family) or the productivity impact. I think that’s the future of the office.

The issue is having control over technology. I have the TV on waaaaay too much. I accept that, it’s a hard habit to break, the Bee absolutely hates it and sometimes we get roped into watching a silly TV show rather than having a conversation. At the same time we both have iPod’s, blackberries and laptops – our house has two of everything and 4 laptops right now – so we spend a lot of time on devices. And this is likely to grow rather than stop.

We need to take back control. Just because we have Blackberry messenger, or skype, or email, or facebook, or twitter, or whatever doesn’t mean we need to be on it all the time. I’m a bit torn because I love watching TV with facebook or twitter on in the background, and I don’t think I want to give up the occasional sporting event or series that I’m really interested in. But it’s about balance; it’s about spending time wisely rather than wasting time.

Returning a piece of kit, or killing an account on a social network is not the answer, the answer is being conscious of how much time we’re spending with technology and what the opportunity costs are of that time.

3. Why set up your start-up in the UK? Especially in the current environment of higher taxes (VAT, capital gains, etc) and reduced government spending?

Here’s something controversial for you, I don’t mind paying taxes. Especially for things like education and health care. As someone who grew up with a single mom who worked very hard, I had to take on a huge debt to go to University and then graduate school so I appreciate everything the state does and if that means that I take a little bit less home so be it.

At the same time London is one of the most active entrepreneurship and digital centres so anytime you can get a mix like that you’d be mad not to take advantage of it.

The capital gains tax hits entrepreneurs and investors hard, but I do believe the government won’t take it higher than 40% which is what it was a couple of years ago. Hopefully, the government will include some breaks and exemptions for entrepreneurship.

Right now you have to be where your market is and where you can build a business, if you get to a point where you’re worrying about how much of your profits are being taken by taxation you’re going in the right direction. For me, the amount of connections, meetings, clients, advisors, investors you have in the UK and especially in London is phenomenal. People always talk about Silicon Valley and that’s great if you’re a tech company, but in places like London and New York you’re closer to the real world, where most people look at you funny when you say you “tweet”.

More on the Nestoria blog

First the obvious, the continued explosion of social media – This whole post is a great excuse to highlight the fact that Rage Against the Machine is the Xmas number one in the UK. A purely grassroots social media campaign got the song – which is over 15 years old – to the top spot. Regardless of what you think of the song, you gotta love the fact that a Facebook and Twitter campaign toppled the machine (get it, rage against the…) that is the x-factor. People trump marketing dollars in this instance. I think more and more companies are going to spend less and get more mavens, influencers on board to promote goods and services, 2010 is the year where marketing dollars seriously move from the traditional to the emerging social channels. An example is the news today that the Economist is going to try and acquire over 500K in facebook fans and 750K in twitter users.

Secondly the less obvious but pretty transparent and related to the first, the continued explosion of local – small is the new big. Being small, being nimble, being flexible is going to win. Big brands are going to lose more and more market share to the little guy. As Gary Vaynerchuk likes to say, “small town rules”, where the internet allows smaller companies to compete. More small guys are going to leverage social and other channels to acquire costumers at the expense of the big guys.

Thirdly, the wild/out there, based on a hunch – Newspapers will fold their print publications. I’d like to see a couple of major newspapers move from a mix of print and online to being purely online. Physical newspapers are costly, not only in manufacturing but also in terms of distribution and other costs. I think we’re going to see some news brands move to less copies (if not none) and more online news distribution as their major means of revenues.

Fourthly, I think we’ll see the return of the IPO. Linkedin or Facebook are my bet for this one. I think one of these companies will get going on their move to an IPO in 2010.

Lastly, the big dream, I believe there will be a lot of good happening in 2010. I think we’ll get closer on the climate change exchange, maybe not a legally binding agreement, but there will be a serious agreement on climate control. I think politics will move in the right direction. I think the US President Obama will have a much better second year than his first. I think he’s inherited and had to deal with some serious challenges and we’re going to see 2010 where the US, and it’s administration, gets over the crap from 2009 and starts really performing.

Not sure which of these predictions will come true and which ones are going to fall flat, but I would totally trade all four of the first ones for the last. Any out there have any predictions for 2010?

Yesterday Aziz mentioned that it was going to take him an hour and fifteen minutes to take public transport to get to work in Toronto. He tweeted repeatedly about how crazy his journey, suggested improvements (like mobile phone coverage) and you could tell he was annoyed. I responded with the tweet:

@azizkara one of the major reasons why I won’t move back. Unless it get’s TO’s transport gets to a world class level fahgeddaboutit

This really got me thinking about Public Transport in North America. I’ve lived in Europe for the last 10 years (seriously, 10 years? How the heck did that happen?) and I’ve always been impressed by the quality of public transport you have in Europe. Paris, Rome, Milan, Munich, Barcelona and yes even Geneva and Zurich, all have great public transport. What’s my definition of quality public transport? My definition is being able to get to and from work or school, the airport and public services, like the Hospital or any social services you might need, fairly easily – and by fairly easily I mean comparable to the time spent taking a car.

I also commented about how the lack of really good public transport in Toronto keeps me from moving back, it’s not the only reason but definitely a major one. I know I could live downtown and get to work probably okay, but the problem is a lot of the people I want to see are spread out and going to the “burbs” in Toronto without a car is difficult. Not to mention the fact that if you’re planning on getting to or from the airport to downtown Toronto without a car you should have a good book that you’ll probably be able to finish over the length of the journey– my friend told me they wanted to open a direct line from the airport to downtown, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

I haven’t been to many places in North America but wherever I’ve been I’ve needed to rent or have a friend with a car. I think that’s one of the worst things about the continent. Although the twitterati did respond with many comments with good stuff to say about Portland, Boston and Washington all having good public transport, I’m not sure any city could compete with the scale and spread of public transport in Europe.

The problem is North America was built with the car in mind and as a result a lot of people are fine to rely on the car to get around and now, sadly, it would cost way too much and take too much time to change user behaviour. Dubai, Qatar, Saudi and Kuwait are spending billions, yes BILLIONS on their public transport infrastructure, because good public transport can be a competitive advantage and is worth the investment and time. Unfortunately the US and Canada don’t have the appetite or the time to make the change they need to have world class public transport and as a result it will continue to keep people, okay maybe just me, away.

A couple of friends commented on her post, on Facebook and on her blog. My favourite comment was on facebook from our friend Rahim, who said:

“When babybee is in your position, there will be no books. There will be a cloud and there will be an access device. Some of which you will have to pay for, a lot of which will be free. Is the business model of the past suitable for digital? No. Is the business model being formulated at present going to work in the future? Probably not. Do people read as they do now as they did in the past? No. They consume their time differently. But books, in some form will remain, information will remain and time will remain. The book is dead. Long live the book..”

I loved this comment. But I disagree, slightly.

The thing is it’s hard to be social, tactile and share an electronic experience with an ebook, regardless the format. We’ve bought books for friends and their kids to share that have “touch experiences”. I’ve enjoyed reading with the kids of my family and my friends, and I can’t wait to open up a book with my own kids and read, and ask questions and share their experiences while discovering books.

The social experience of books with children is totally different from the social experience with music and film. Which is why I can’t see the book totally disappearing.

Don’t get me wrong, I think people will use ebooks, especially on vacations, especially for text books, and business books. And I don’t buy the serendipity argument, well get discovery through different channels (like Amazon book lists, people who bought this book also bought suggestions and things like facebook applications). More and more books will be read and discovered electronically, and this isn’t a bad thing, in fact – at least from an environmental perspective – it’s probably a pretty good thing.

Electronic books will just mean we’re able to read more, we’re not limited to what we can carry, and if things go the free route, what we can afford. But as long as we read and have shared experiences with our kids about books, our kids will continue to have positive thoughts and feelings about books. So while we embrace technology and new business models regarding books, don’t write off the book just yet.

Two cases of this recently have set me off.

First a lot of noise around Microsoft’s search engine Bing. Bing’s nice. It’s a great progression for MSN in search. It’s a good search engine. It’s also got Microsoft behind it. So distribution through MSN’s portal services and email services and other channels means it’s going to be big, i.e. have a large footprint off the bat. So when people start talking about Bing being bigger than sites like Digg or twitter, or it being the 13th biggest site on the internet, I want to shout “Well DUHHH!”. It’s a rebranding of a popular service, ofcourse it’s going to be big.

The second is a couple of stories around YouTube stopping support for IE6. Journalists are claiming that this is Google stepping up the browser wars. I’m sorry it’s a browser that has since moved on, twice. MSFT has launched IE8 recently. YouTube links to Firefox, Chrome and… guess what… IE8 from the YouTube homepage in IE6, it’s not a browser war battle, it’s stopping support for an old, some would say bad, browser. Now if Google hadn’t linked to a newer (better) version of IE and just to Chrome, Firefox and say Safari, I can understand, but they didn’t. They gave people the choice to download an “E” thingy that they may be used to.

I’ve purposely not linked to the stories above because they’re crap, but for the record some of the offending parties include the big boys (like the FT) and the blogs (like Mashable).

The point is that people shouldn’t be subjected to bad interpretations of the news. With things like Twitter, Facebook, Digg etc, people can share good stories and call bull shit on the not so good stories easier than ever before, so news outlets should focus on reporting and simple, clear and genuine interpretation, not on sensationalism.