Slashdot Asks: Does Britain's 'Know Your Place' Culture Stifle Innovation? (yahoo.com) 57
Tom Blomfield, founder of Monzo, challenges the notion that Americans work harder than Europeans, attributing the U.S.'s economic edge to a culture of "positivity, optimism, and ambition" rather than sheer work ethic. He argues that the "know your place, don't get too big for your boots" mindset stifles innovation, whereas the U.S.' "American Dream" fosters a more dynamic start-up culture, making it easier for entrepreneurs to bounce back from failure. Fortune reports: Blomfield said the American dream wasn't a reality that a lot of people in the U.S. get to live, but it was one that a lot of them experience. "That idea that anyone can create anything if they try hard enough is so deeply American, and it's so antithetical to the British culture," he said. Blomfield was 28 when he co-founded Monzo in 2015. While he said people in the U.K. "looked at me like I was crazy" as he tried to get a banking license, he had a much more supportive reaction in the States. The Brit said his fellow countrymen were more inclined toward a "know your place, don't get too big for your boots" attitude that stifles innovation.
In Blomfield's view, this filters down to the career decisions made by the country's most promising university students. In the U.K., Blomfield says the most ambitious thing for students to do is work at a trading firm like James Street or a consultancy like McKinsey. Indeed, he suggests the default choice for PhD students in computer science is to join Goldman Sachs. In the U.S., meanwhile, Blomfield says he'll often get pitched start-up ideas by students from unexpected backgrounds, including English Literature undergrads. [...]
In April, Nicolai Tangen, the CEO of Norway's $1.6 trillion sovereign wealth fund, sparked a debate with his comments that there was a difference in the "general level of ambition" between U.S. and European workers, adding that Americans work harder. Blomfield said he had read data suggesting that the latter wasn't the case. But his thoughts do align with another of Tangen's points, namely that it is easier to start again in the U.S. if a business fails than in the U.K. Backed by the "American dream" ideal that Blomfield mentioned in his interview, the U.S. has long been more closely associated with entrepreneurialism and disruption than Britain, and Europe more widely. Since these comments were made last May (reprinted yesterday via Fortune), we'd like to open this up for a "Slashdot Asks" discussion. Do you think the "know your place" mindset Blomfield cited stifles innovation? How does it compare to the mindset in the United States or elsewhere? Any insights or examples to support your point are appreciated and will contribute to a more meaningful discussion.
In Blomfield's view, this filters down to the career decisions made by the country's most promising university students. In the U.K., Blomfield says the most ambitious thing for students to do is work at a trading firm like James Street or a consultancy like McKinsey. Indeed, he suggests the default choice for PhD students in computer science is to join Goldman Sachs. In the U.S., meanwhile, Blomfield says he'll often get pitched start-up ideas by students from unexpected backgrounds, including English Literature undergrads. [...]
In April, Nicolai Tangen, the CEO of Norway's $1.6 trillion sovereign wealth fund, sparked a debate with his comments that there was a difference in the "general level of ambition" between U.S. and European workers, adding that Americans work harder. Blomfield said he had read data suggesting that the latter wasn't the case. But his thoughts do align with another of Tangen's points, namely that it is easier to start again in the U.S. if a business fails than in the U.K. Backed by the "American dream" ideal that Blomfield mentioned in his interview, the U.S. has long been more closely associated with entrepreneurialism and disruption than Britain, and Europe more widely. Since these comments were made last May (reprinted yesterday via Fortune), we'd like to open this up for a "Slashdot Asks" discussion. Do you think the "know your place" mindset Blomfield cited stifles innovation? How does it compare to the mindset in the United States or elsewhere? Any insights or examples to support your point are appreciated and will contribute to a more meaningful discussion.
I Don't Know, But... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know if it does or not. But the question did make me pause and think about British technology innovation. The first things that came to mind:
Bletchley Park. Thankfully, those women didn't know their place.
Commodore
Raspberry Pi
It's not a long list and I know it's far from complete. But, still some meaningful contributions from the World's 21st largest population.
Re: (Score:2)
This short list, plus thinking about British innovations in the 19th century, makes me wonder if there's a time factor. Was British society more innovative at some times than at others? If so, what is that correlated with? (Find the correlation, then consider causality. I think 'lack of correlation does imply lack of causality'....)
Re:I Don't Know, But... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if it does or not. But the question did make me pause and think about British technology innovation. The first things that came to mind:
Bletchley Park. Thankfully, those women didn't know their place.
Commodore
Raspberry Pi
It's not a long list and I know it's far from complete. But, still some meaningful contributions from the World's 21st largest population.
The whole question is ludicrous. The modern age was born in "know your place" Britain. The Industrial Revolution. Modern Finance. Aviation. Computing. All had world-leading pioneers there. Most of the world's CPU's are now ARM, thanks to mobile phones. Where was ARM created? Ole Blighty. Second, the question assumes that there's no path of upward mobility for Britons. Again, ludicrous to the point of horseshit.
To the extent that Britain is being left behind by the US and China in technology, well, that's not a question of work ethic or innovation. It's a sheer question of size. But Britain still punches way above their weight class in technology, business, and culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Bletchley Park Women == Computers (Score:1)
The men, as they do in all sciences, made almost all the intelligent breakthroughs.
Pretending women are men in all things men succeed in, but are just held back by
Demented feminazis must stop doing that and let people be themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be demented, many of the women there did more than just compute. Part of that was because Turing was eccentric and thus would listen to them. Much of the problem is that women of the time were not given an opportunity for better education, and being a "computer" was a big step up for smart women who'd otherwise be expected to be secretaries.
In America many early computing work and advances were done by women, because touching computers was considered clerical, and thus women's work. The men used th
Re: (Score:3)
Bletchley Park.
biggest achievement was reimplementation of BOMBE received from Polish scientists.
Commodore
CBM? The Canadian company started by Polish Auschwitz survivor?
Raspberry Pi
Broadcom dev board company started by Broadcom director?
Did you try badly on purpose? :) UK is pretty much ARM and banking.
It does not: it acts as a filter (Score:2)
Crazy European Regulations (Score:2)
data is there (Score:2)
Investment and risk (Score:3)
We all like to shit on Silicon Valley VCs and the completely inane things they have financed (Juicero anyone?). But the fact is the VC culture in America in general is prepared to take a lot of gambles on the off chance that things might get very big. It's very very obvious in hindsight which things are daft (and sometimes at the time, such as Theranos), but maybe selling books on the internet sounded pretty silly to many in 1994.
The UK venture culture is much, much more risk averse, and promising startups and companies with fantastic technology (RIP Reaction Engines) die of starvation or get bought up by large foreign companies.
It's not about making a thousand bets one of which might go mega multi billion, it's "oh when you're making a million in annual recurring revenue, we'll consider taking a controlling stake for a modest investment of a couple of million".
IME innovators in the UK don't lack for talent, ideas and skill, it's the business and venture side which lack ambition and a willingness to take risks.
So all this still born wankery about "silicon roundabout [not a roundabout anymore]", or "silicon Fen" or blad de blah there's another miss the point, that a few rando tech companies on a major road do not make an innovation center. You need the culture and cash for high risk high reward investments, and a workforce paid well enough to hop between startups on the off chance.
Oh also we pay engineers shit compared to America. That also doesn't help.
Regulatory Environment (Score:2, Insightful)
If the UK ever wants to grow again they must embark upon the second phase of what Brexit was supposed to allow them to do, as this is the path they chose. The path of aggressively deregulation of their economic system
Re:Regulatory Environment (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, the lament of the Brexiter: it's not Brexit that's flawed, you're just not Brexiting hard enough.
Brexit has caused shit loads of red tape. Imports from and exports to Europe are still fucked. I now cannot easily buy machine vision cameras in quantity because I have to go through a UK distributor with limited stocks because EU ones can't be arsed (or aren't licensed) to sell them abroad. Previously I could buy from anywhere in the EU because they were obliged to sell.
And a fucking air pump got stuck in customs for a week because reasons.
In the UK businesses are entirely subservient to their government, especially local councils.
And the problem with businesses being beholden to the democratic process as opposed to controlling it is...?
Re: (Score:2)
And the problem with businesses being beholden to the democratic process as opposed to controlling it is...?
People control the Democratic Process.
Businesses are People.
Therefore, Businesses control the Democratic Process.
Re: (Score:1)
Businesses are a very particular kind of people. Much higher percentage of sociopaths and psychopaths.
It's like saying, "HOA's are people". People on HOA's are often narcissitic power hungry bully's. Not always... but more often.
Here here (Score:2)
Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Laws reflect culture, because when they don't, you get changes in government, either through elections or through revolution.
The U.S. has a "know your place" culture, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. has a bit of a "know your place" culture, too. It just is applied less even-handedly. If you've ever been a woman in the c-suite, a man in nursing, an African-American in the rural South, a Hispanic in a lot of different places, etc., you have probably experienced it.
And yes, it almost certainly drives down ambition and reduces innovation. I see no reason why an internalized version of that way of thinking would not have the same effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who uses the nonsense description "African-American" has just lost the argument, whatever that was.
In the rural South, yeah, probably.
Re: (Score:1)
Do the majority of US residents call themselves "European-Americans"?
What happens when an "African-American" moves to Europe?
Does he call himself an "African-American-European"?
Or does he just tell the pathetic students who invent this nonsense to grow the fuck up and join the real world?
Why is the world now ruled by the views of the pathetic, inadequate people who became student politicians and who we all mocked at college?
Re: (Score:2)
All racial categorizations have issues when you break things down to edge cases. You've done nothing here other than let us know you're a right wing culture warrior as your picking and choosing of which terms offend you is telling.
Don't have you have a movie to review bomb?
Re: (Score:2)
Are people surprised to meet the "African-American" Elon Musk?
*shrugs* I suppose if he wants to call himself that, he can. He'll probably get a lot of glares, but...
Do the majority of US residents call themselves "European-Americans"?
A decent number of people have called themselves Irish-Americans and German-Americans. Not sure about other nationalities. So same sort of deal, just continental instead of per-country, which is probably a good thing etymologically, because other than Morocco and the Republic of South Africa, I don't think any country in Africa from even a hundred years ago still has the same name (though a few now hav
Re: The U.S. has a "know your place" culture, too. (Score:2)
Bletchley Park was an outlier incident in history that was forced to breakdown the barriers to push innovation. Otherwise it would have been a much shorter war. Unfortunately, afterwards there was a push to go back to the status quo on both sides of the ocean. Preferably the status quo before the suffragettes.
Tony Flowers, for example, with his East End cockney accent never had the same recognit
What an utter crock! (Score:3)
Piketty tried this one too.
Others have pointed out the modern examples that make the lie of this thesis.
What the US has that is perhaps less in the UK/Britain... A certain ruthlessness.
Europen cultures seem to think about things like "If I CAN do this; Should I?"
Europe still has unions. The US destroyed collectivism action in favor of ruthless personal gain.
Social Structure (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The ambition of the typical person was to get into the upper classes and do nothing useful.
I'm confused. Isn't this the same complaint we make about American CEOs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Social Structure (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the thing that has held back innovation and economic growth in England (and possibly Europe) is class culture. Someone from the lower or middle class would create a business. They would send their sons off to Oxford or Cambridge to become gentlemen and that was the end of the family business. No business dynasties like the Fords or the DuPonts. The ambition of the typical person was to get into the upper classes and do nothing useful.
There was innovation in England during the industrial revolution, at a time which class was arguably more prominent than it is now.
The wealth of a country is no doubt in part due to innovation, but England's wealth may have been more thanks to an enormous empire.
Now I understand that there is a certain resistance in the US to admit the existence of class - part of the whole culture of optimism is the framework of the American Dream, and an egalitarian society - but as one example, surely the racial divide in America, with its influence on opportunity is just as consequential as any class divide in Europe. Likewise, Trumpism has been described as the rising of a disgruntled underclass...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly, there is racial prejudice in the US, but it is not classed based. If you are one of the groups that are discriminated against, it does not greatly matter if you are dirt poor or a millionaire, you will still be on the receiving end. Of course, rich people have more recourse, but the discrimination is still there. A classic example from the old days was that Sammy Davis Jr. could perform in Vegas at hotels, where he was not acceptable as a guest. There is still an issue, but it has gotten better, at least up till now. I have no idea where this country is currently headed.
I take your point that racial discrimination is not the same as class discrimination, but your comment made me wonder about the difference. A class system can mean that a person with talent can be held back simply by being born into the wrong class. That surely has some equivalence in a society with racial discrimination.
I understand your concern about the direction of the US, but whatever the current direction I can't help but admire a country that carried out the mission to put a man on the moon. In my op
Re: (Score:2)
There is class based prejudice in the US, it's just not as openly seen or widespread as in the UK. Just look at how many members of congress or the cabinet came from ivy league schools. Go to places in the east and they still have their debutantes, and upper crust families where you don't marry to someone who also isn't upper crust.
Re: (Score:2)
In a word? No. (Score:2)
We just happen to have tons of venture capital floating around because the US refuses to shore up its safety net by taxation and other wealth distribution methods. Add to that a culture that sees most people as disposable labor to exploited and sure, you get a lot of stock market unicorns. All of these ideas come from universities and research centers and increasingly those are completely underfunded while tuition skyrockets as government takes away more and more support for public schools.
Do these companie
Regulatory oversight differences? (Score:2)
Is the difference in entrepreneurship also a function of the different regulatory approaches?
I'm just a slashdot commenter, not an expert by any means on either nation, but my general understanding of American model vs the European model is that the USA has a more explicitly literal regulatory model. Basically, X is against the law if and only if the law clearly says you cannot do X. If you do X+1 or X-1, you can get away with it because the various regulatory bodies have to make a calculation of their odds
I.e. if it isn't nailed down steal it (Score:2)
On a good day the US approach means good ideas are able to develop and come to fruition. On a bad day it means that there is no trust that a reasonable expectation that isn't codified in law will be respected, and laws multiply to try to regulate what in a sane country would be obvious.
We are led by donkeys (Score:4, Interesting)
When I worked for a UK based company they took too long to let people go.
It took a year to see "the guy who goes out for a walk" get fired. When 4 of the 7 main developers gave notice, on the same day, they should have shut down the US office for the project. Within 2 months another lead dev and the lead devops left.
The devops left because he was supposed to be able to hire 1-2 more devops. When he asked for budget to set up CI in the cloud, he was denied and spent the next few months figuring out how to use AWS for the runners on the free tier and looking for another job. When he left, no one could fix it, they gave us the budget right away for the runners in the CI system
It took over 6 months to start closing things. Management was too busy doing boarding school pranks like carrying a real life poo emoji to upper management when there was bad news. Wankers.
It was easily the worst place for management I ever worked.
The US coworkers were good. They fired one guy when he had cancer probably because they didn't understand the US Heath system (which is fair, but they should figure it out. I brought him in to my current company within a year when he was able to work again and he's still here 5 years later
Re: We are led by donkeys (Score:2)
Does UK have employment contracts like many European countries? U.S. is largely at-will employment, so hiring/firing is relatively easy. Employment contracts definitely put a roadblock in front of both.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't care to learn about the US employment system.
Know your what? (Score:2)
I live in the UK and work in software, and I've never come across such an attitude from anyone. All I know are ambitious people who would always help you if they can, and they would learn how to help you, just for you, if they can't.
That's for those 'inside the system' (Score:2)
The question is about wider issues of openness to challenge, change and the really unorthodox approach. As IT staff we're used to change, but in institutions that have no such expectation, it's far more of a drag.
Re: (Score:1)
These are social scientists spouting this shit. So you have to engage with them and accept that all views are equally valid, whether supported by facts or just an opinion picked up from a loon at some student debate they once went to in freshman year.
How anyone thinks this belongs on "News for Nerds" is the real question.
The entire summary misses a point (Score:5, Insightful)
No one ever askes what the underlying reason that Americans work harder than Europeans is, it really doesn't matter. Whether it's culture, ambition of the American Dream, the end is really the same. Americans live to work. Europeans work to live.
Take a look at the Netherlands. A typical American will balk at what the average engineer earns there, especially given the high cost of living. But what people don't realise is that when you have laws in place that give workers a social safety net, protect workers from being fired at will, mandate that part time work weeks don't come with a reduction in benefits, you suddenly see people working only enough to actually go out and enjoy their actual life. 4 day workweeks are really common there. The average hours worked per week is 29 hours. 61% of people work part time. And even before the pandemic hit, 39% of the workforce worked from home.
The American Dream is to make money all else be damned. If you're not rich you're not happy.
The European Dream is to go to the pub. Easily achievable which is why everyone's happy. Which is what I intend to do lunchtime tomorrow, on a day Americans would refer to as a "working day".
Work harder? (Score:3)
Considering that pay does not keep up with inflation, as well has a distinct lack of labour rights, of course Americans work harder.
It's nothing to be proud of course
Perhaps the UK needs a new slogan to inspire (Score:3)
The "American Dream" has served as a good marketing slogan for the U.S.. Maybe that's what the UK needs -- some catchy slogan to inspire a new generation of entrepreneurs. But realistically, regardless of your race or social class in the U.S. (or any other country): most big dreamers aren't going to succeed. Only a very few will. Just as most new business ideas will fail. That's not being cynical; that's just the truth and reality. The "American Dream" has done a great job masking over these realities.
So having known a few Brits (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the problem is "know your place" I think the problem is Britain is basically in a permanent recession that you don't notice because London boosts the GDP so much. Decades of thatcher-like economic policy has left them a blasted out Detroit style post-industrial society. They have a more robust safety net and a proper medical system so it's not as noticeable as say living in actual Detroit.
America just has more money and we still have something of an empire so it's not quite as noticeable over here. We also have a military industrial complex pushing at least some innovation still. Although we gutted The university system that does all the basic research and we are eventually going to run out of research that can be monetized. It's one of the many ticking time bombs we're all just kind of pretending isn't a thing because we're busy with moral panics over here.
Bankruptcy laws (Score:1)
A primary original reason was the U.S. forgiving bankruptcy laws vs other countries nasty bankruptcy laws ... plus debter's prisons.