Removable and non-removable work

The first thought we need to make about smart working even before we can talk about figures is to understand (and estimate) which jobs are actually removable; because it is obvious that there are jobs where smart working is not feasible… Bartenders, Assemblers, Warehousemen, Maintenance Technicians, Nurses, Physiotherapists, OSS, Bricklayers, Electricians, etc.

It is clear that in such contexts, where presence is a key element in being able to conduct business there is little that can be done.

However, there is a long line of professions in which office presence is not only unnecessary (at least slavishly), but produces a number of objective “cons” that impact the worker’s mental energy, time, and even the environmental ecosystem.

Developers, Data Scientists, Cybersecurity Experts, Copywriters, Graphic Designers, SMMs, Video editors, Accountants, Tax accountants, PMs, Recruiters, Corporate Consolers, Online Trainers, Professional Coaches, Editors, CRM Specialists, SEO Specialists, Customer Service Specialists, Design Engineers, Analysts, Researchers, etc. etc.

The list is endless… These are all professions that can easily be done remotely.

Statistical data

To date, according to the most recent data, about 3.5 million Italians do at least part of their work in agile mode. But the true potential is much larger. Authoritative studies estimate that between 9 and 11 million workers, or 35 to 45 percent of the Italian workforce, have professions that are compatible with smart working, at least for a few days a week. Unfortunately, these workers, often due to cultural or bureaucratic rigidity, are still forced to travel dozens of kilometers a day to be in front of a computer that they could suare from home.

Huge environmental impact

According to an ENEA estimate (based on real data from cities such as Rome, Bologna, and Turin), each day of smart working avoids about 6 kg of CO2 per person.

Translated into annual terms (assuming 100-120 smart days per year), they imply about 600kg of avoided emissions for each agile worker.

Multiply this figure by the number of potentially removable workers (9-11 million): we get savings ranging from 5.4 to 6.5 million tons of CO2 per year.
It is a concrete, measurable contribution, comparable to the positive impact of a national reforestation plan.

Indirect environmental impact: benefits for those who cannot do smart working

Here is the decisive point: less commuting also means less traffic. And less traffic also means that those who necessarily have to move by motor vehicles: doctors, workers, technicians and all the categories already seen, will do so faster, consuming less fuel and consequently polluting less.

A practical example?
A truck that takes 40 minutes to drive through a city during rush hour in congested conditions consumes up to 40 percent more diesel fuel than the same route traveled in 20 minutes in free-flowing traffic.
The same reasoning applies to slowed or queued cars, motorcycles and public transportation.

So every smart worker also indirectly helps those who cannot, contributing to a second wave of CO2 reduction.

Less stress equals more clarity

In addition to the environment, there is also personal well-being. Each smart worker saves an average of 150 hours per year in commuting. This means more time to sleep, less fatigue while driving, less exposure to urban pollutants, and more peace of mind; and this is also true for those who stay on the road but are in smoother, less aggressive traffic.

A breath of fresh air for the pockets as well

Those who work in attendance know this: going to the office comes at a cost, and not just in terms of effort. The math is soon done. Fuel, vehicle wear and tear, tolls, parking, meals out, coffee, small daily expenses, and the sum can easily exceed 3,000 euros a year. Even if you reduce your on-site presence to two or three days a week, you can save at least half that amount without sacrificing anything of your efficiency or professionalism, and this is even more true for those who live out of town.

For those who are out, traffic can last an hour or more, and in those cases smart working is not a “plus,” it is a logistical and economic survival measure.

What about the smart working scoundrels? Yes, there are but you catch them right away

Let’s face it: yes, “smart workers” do exist. Those who think smart working means lounging on the couch with the laptop open and Netflix have always been there and always will be but it is not the tool that is wrong, it is the way productivity is measured.

A worker who produces little remotely simply already did it in the office, too, only he hid it better there, between endless coffee breaks, two chats with colleagues, and a thousand useless meetings.

With smart working, on the other hand, you notice sooner and better. Delays become apparent. Missed project deadlines pile up. Deliveries slip. Emails go unanswered for hours. Production flows slow even when everything else on the team marches.
Those who work well make even more from home.
Those who work poorly from home have no more excuses.

No need for micro-controls or spy software. Just look at the results, the metrics, the timeliness. A company that works by objectives immediately notices who is performing and who is taking advantage of the situation, and can act accordingly, exactly as it would for an ineffective employee in attendance.

In short, smart working is not a free pass to work less. It is a test of professional maturity that rewards those who can handle autonomy, discipline, and trust, and, as always, those who don’t measure up will screen themselves out.

An opportunity for civilization

To think of working from home as a whim or a shortcut is a very short-sighted view. Smart working is not a benefit but a tool of civilization. It is good for the worker, good for the company, good for the city, and not least in importance, good for the environment!

Moreover, it does not penalize those who cannot adopt it; on the contrary, it also improves their lives by relieving traffic, reducing delays and decreasing emissions.

In a country struggling to reform itself, adopting smart working where possible is not a matter of fashion. It is a matter of common sense, fairness and collective responsibility.

Those who can work from home and choose to do so in earnest are not privileged, they are silent accelerators of civilization for all. Because sometimes to change the world you don’t need to do anything active, you just need to not leave home.

[starbox]

L'articolo Want to save the planet? Make them work from home, you moron! proviene da RENOR & Partners S.r.l..

You will probably say to yourselves, “Okay, bye! To the people?” and, indeed, how can I blame you? It’s not like I’m the Ferragni! ????

However, I still want to entertain you for a few minutes with some thoughts that perhaps some of you will share.

I have the feeling that I am witnessing a kind of “politics spilled over” into the work environment. I give an example: I follow some people with lofty and ridiculous titles on the tone of “NeuroHR Evangelist of Agile Emotional Empowerment and Quantum Team Alignment politically (in)correct.” since I joined. They will undoubtedly be good people, however I find their posts to be extremely “populist” (a term that, unfortunately, is used and abused by everyone but is fitting here), and downright trite. This is a truly “politically incorrect” statement. Once you reach a certain threshold of followers, it seems to me that you end up posting any platitude, to cite a few examples, “A world without war is a better world” or “A nice picnic in the countryside is better done on a sunny day than under hail.” All embellished with a catchy image and a vectorized signature like the one I put in the featured image of this article (to satirize of course).

Not to mention the so-called marketing “Gurus” who have discovered the hot-water secret to becoming millionaires but, STRONGLY, instead of enjoying their fortune on an indefinite vacation to the Fiji Islands, they seem to spend their lives in front of their computers “nagging” anyone who has written in their profile “CEO” or “Founder” to turn their company into SpaceX in no time and with two liras; how selfless!

It feels like a fish market.

I wonder if these people from the “lapidary” posts have ever visited the corporate realities that generate 80 percent of the national GDP or if their world stops at companies like Google, Meta and other multinationals with billion-dollar turnovers that can easily stuff their mouths with Welfare, bonuses, stress-free work environments, health insurance that covers the dentist for them and family, etc. etc.

No gentlemen, it is too easy to talk about work values when you are reasoning about companies with turnovers of billions of euros…. I am talking about small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which account for 99% of businesses in Italy (so this is the norm, it is not Google, it is not Amazon, it is not SpaceX), employ about 78% of the private workforce and contribute 65% of the total value added. If we also consider microenterprises, it comes close to 80% of GDP, as I mentioned earlier.
Italy remains standing and can sit at the G7 table thanks to this entrepreneurial fabric, the so-called “hard core.”

When I read phrases from these characters such as “With the good ones we work better,” I am puzzled: is there really anyone who has totally lost their senses that they can disagree with statements of this tenor? I would say no, which is why I consider such content to be lapalissian and populist. But, having ended this parenthesis of thought worthy of Gianni Rodari’s best fairy tales, let us return to reality….

The majority of Italian businesses are SMEs, the very ones that pay their taxes all, all the time and to the last penny (at least the majority), and those that do not pay them, do so because they cannot pay them not because of fraudulent attitudes! “Either I pay the state to throw them out with electoral marquees or I pay my employees,” and this is how entrepreneurs who have fallen on dark times, risk having their movable and immovable property seized…. In order not to let his employees go without bread and avoid firing them.

Closing this parenthesis. Precariousness reigns in Italy, which is not imposed by employers, but by the state. It could not be otherwise: a company, in order to give 1,600 euros of salary to an employee, must spend almost 3,000 euros.

In all of this, the majority of entrepreneurs have to struggle with unbounded bureaucracy, with complex and slow procedures that hold back both hiring and investment, forcing the same companies to devote a lot of effort to administrative management.

Employees who, with what little the company can give, under the pressures of the IRS, cannot make ends meet, and live their lives (not only work) with loads of stress and uncertainty in the future.

Difficulties in accessing credit, both for employees and companies. Especially for SMEs, getting adequate financing to develop growth or R&D projects is a drama, because they have no access to any kind of credit.

On the fiscal side, in addition to the very high tax burden (among the highest in Europe), the lack of medium- and long-term certainty makes it difficult to plan and schedule investments.

At the contractual level, the Italian labor market is characterized by constraints that, while protecting workers, can discourage business growth, especially in a context of economic uncertainty such as the one Italy has been experiencing since the late 1990s after joining the eurozone.

Many SMEs struggle to keep up with digital transformation, thus losing competitiveness in increasingly globalized markets. This is due to the fact that although there are funds for digitization 4.0, accessing them requires labyrinthine bureaucratic procedures and biblical time frames.

Geographically, then, there is a clear north-south divide concerning infrastructure and services, resulting in a decrease in development opportunities that hinder an equitable distribution of jobs and investment.

Responding to: “with the good ones you work better.” The good ones rightly want to be paid properly. Otherwise the door to France and Germany, if not America and Canada are wide open. We produce talent in universities for other nations to produce. I too would like a talent to work with me, but with my turnover and the inordinate amount of taxes I pay I could not have given him more than 1,500 euros a month and not 4,000 net a month as he deserves. Obviously, I have avoided making a fool of myself!

In conclusion, before sharing pre-packaged reflections and catch phrases on social media, it would perhaps be better to immerse ourselves more in the Italian business reality, made up of so many small businesses and true heroes who, despite a thousand difficulties, support this state unworthy of their sacrifice and the sacrifice of millions of workers who have to work to earn wages that are among the lowest in Europe.

Personally, I believe that debate on LinkedIn can be stimulating, as long as real problems are addressed and, perhaps, concrete solutions are proposed and not basing arguments on catch phrases such as “Peace is better than war”… No f@@@ing shit! Do you understand what a breakthrough!

L'articolo Peace is better than war (No f@@@ing shit!) proviene da RENOR & Partners S.r.l..

Why don’t we find them on the front pages of newspapers? Why aren’t they invited to speak at TEDx, go on TV, fill feeds on LinkedIn?

I am not writing this article to express complaints but to analyze an all-Italian paradox: the best talents are often invisible. And through no fault of their own!

If we don’t learn to recognize, value and support truly competent profiles, we will never have a robust tech ecosystem. We will continue to reward those who talk instead of those who build. Mine is not a matter of envy or personal exclusion. It is a cultural, structural and media problem. And as such, it needs to be addressed with the right clarity.

The paradox of invisible talent

The case of interdisciplinary profiles

The first major Italian paradox concerns interdisciplinary profiles: people who possess high-level skills in multiple fields, often considered distant from each other, and who manage not only to integrate them, but to create new value precisely from their contamination.
In an ideal world, these figures should be highly sought after. To some extent they are but not here in Italy. Here, those who master both semiotics and artificial intelligence are looked upon with distrust.
As if knowing “too much” is a fault, a sign of dissipation or, even worse, presumption.

The typical statement when looking at a multidisciplinary profile is always the same: “Those who do too many things do neither well!”

I wonder whether such drivel finds motivation in envy or in the deep though unconscious consciousness of mediocrity of the person uttering it? What do you know about how much time that person has taken away from amusements, outings, social life to devote himself professionally to more cultural spheres? What do you know about his abilities, his natural talent, his intelligence? How can you assume that he “failed” if you never even talked to him?

In fact, the interdisciplinary profile is often the only one that can deal with complex contemporary problems. Because the real world is not zoned. A health application requires knowledge of medicine, psychology, engineering, UX, and law. An AI system may have to integrate semantics, cloud computing, language models, data management, and GDPR regulations. And who better to design truly effective solutions than a professional who has crossed multiple domains?

The problem is that Italy continues to think in watertight compartments, as if we were still in the culture of the professional register, the “title,” the single specialization. The university system itself tends to build vertical, hyper-specialized figures in one language, one branch, one tool.
Companies, for their part, look for “hybridized figures” only after the problem has exploded, but know neither how to recognize nor value them when they knock on the door. And the media, unable to categorize them, ignore them altogether.

The result? Those who excel in multiple areas remain on the margins, crushed by a system that prefers labeling to intelligence, the reassuring specialist to the cross-cutting innovator. He or she is considered “atypical,” “difficult to place,” and thus, at worst, not placed at all.

Yet in the history of innovation, real change has always come from hybrid minds: Leonardo da Vinci was engineer and painter, Alan Turing was mathematician and philosopher, Steve Jobs was technician and humanist, Jaron Lanier is computer scientist and musician. None of them would have a place in Italy today, in a context that demands “to be something alone,” and to make them within a LinkedIn box.

Interdisciplinary talent is not only rare: it is systematically excluded from Italian public discourse. Not because it does not count, but because it does not fit into any known pattern, and the pattern here is worth more than the substance.

For this reason, many of these talents act in silence, build extraordinary things without publicity, create innovative products without fanfare. Some emigrate to countries that can value them for what they are and what they deserve to represent in a meritocratic and healthy society. Others shut down. Still others, the most tenacious, build their own ecosystem around them. But all, inevitably, pay the price of a system that cannot see beyond its own nose.

If we want Italy to truly become an innovative country, we must start here: stop being afraid of complexities, and learn to value those who inhabit it naturally.

Strong technically, humble communicatively

Another category of invisible talent, perhaps the most numerous and silent, is that of professionals who are strong technically but humble in communication. People who know how to do impeccably but do not say so. They don’t do personal branding, they don’t have time or desire to record two YouTube videos every day or chase LinkedIn trends with motivational phrases or Master Coach pseudo-inspirations, and you want to know why? Because they would rather spend their time producing and creating something useful for the world instead of spending that time producing bar chatter.

These profiles don’t sell themselves, they don’t showcase themselves, and because of this they are often bypassed by less competent but better at telling their stories. It is a well-known but still too little discussed phenomenon: in public perception, those who communicate well are worth more, even if they produce less real value.

The equation is really a form of mental perversion: “If you don’t expose yourself, maybe you have nothing to say.”

Totally wrong! Because those who really have something to say often do not need to say it. He just does it. He builds it. He lets it work. Those with a passion for engineering, mathematics, physics, computer science, live in an ecosystem of debugging, precision, effort, attention to detail. His priority is not to build a narrative, but to build systems. His voice is his code. His contribution is in the GitHub repository, in the cloud infrastructure, in the script that automated a process for 30000 users and that no one sees… But that so many are using.

Yet these people do not emerge, are not rewarded, and often are not even sought out. In selection processes, those with 30,000 followers are seen as “influential,” those who publish daily are perceived as “active,” those who are present everywhere as “dynamic.” But the programmer who quietly optimized a semantic search engine, or who containerized an entire infrastructure with surgical precision, receives no public recognition. Because he has not sold out.

Italian culture, in this, is still deeply tied to the idea that visibility coincides with value. In such a calibrated context, those who are humble are read as weak, while those who are loud are mistaken for authoritative.

But authority, the real thing, is something else. It is the ability to solve problems without theatrics. It is the consistency between what is said and what is delivered. It is respect for complexity, for data, for work ethic.

Paradoxically, in many Italian corporate environments, hard skills are taken for granted. One looks for the “spark,” the “feeling,” the “good presentation.” And so one ends up discarding extraordinary engineers simply because they do not tell the story well. Or worse, you force these same professionals to simulate storytelling that does not belong to their character, turning them into a caricature.

This has two devastating consequences:

1. On the one hand, companies lose real talent by hiring those who appear instead of those who know.
2. On the other, the most valuable technicians are retiring, challenged by a world that demands them perform in form but not in substance.

If we really want to evolve as an economic and cultural system, we need to totally rethink the relationship between expertise and communication. This is not to demonize personal marketing, which indeed can be useful and legitimate, but to stop using it as the only yardstick when it is the thing that should matter least. We need to start giving a voice to those who can do, even if they do not have a voice, because behind every product that works, every service that does not break down, every algorithm that improves the lives of thousands of people, there is almost always someone working in silence who deserves to be heard instead.

The 7 reasons why real talent in Italy remains invisible

After describing the types of invisible talent, it comes naturally to ask: why do these figures not emerge in Italy?
It is not a matter of chance or bad luck. It is a whole system: social, economic and cultural, which tends to neutralize genuine merit, especially when it does not conform to dominant models.

I have identified 7 main reasons…

1. The culture of appearance has replaced that of content

In Italy, form too often matters more than substance. We reward those who communicate best, not those who have the most expertise. A catchy pitch, a well-written profile, a CV written by a copywriter can be worth more than years of experience in the field. The result? Those who work hard and communicate little are systematically outperformed by those who “know how to sell themselves” but then in the field are unable to get anything done.

If you don’t talk about yourself, no one will talk about you. But those who do well often have more to do than waste time self-promoting.

2. Hyperspecialization is rewarded, cross-sectional view is suspect

Our educational and professional system trains vertical specialists, to be pigeonholed into specific roles, and those who are more gifted cannot be seen as someone who has succeeded on more fronts. Those who can multi-task are viewed with distrust: “but so what are you really?”

In other countries around the world, someone who integrates different skills is called an innovator or system thinker. In Italy he is a “confuso.”

Hybrid talent is not valued because it cannot be labeled. But therein lies its strength, and those who have to evaluate it often lack skills to seize the opportunity.

3. Meritocracy? Just a system for filling one’s mouth and throwing populist phrases around

Many selections (of personnel, calls for applications, awards) are driven by personal relationships, seniority or membership in circles. Those who really have value, but know no one, stay out of the dynamics that matter.
The skill itself is never enough. You need the contact, the push, the recommendation. And those who do not seek shortcuts often remain in the shadows.

Talent that is not connected risks not even being seen.

4. The media system is culturally unprepared for monto tech

Generalist journalists can’t tell the difference between an open source library and a token strartup. They invite those who “speak well,” not those who implement complex solutions.
The stories that make headlines are not those of the engineer who has made something that impacts the well-being of the world, but those of the 20-year-old who says he “founded a startup on blockchain” but does not even have a working draft product in hand yet.

Technical language is filtered through the media as “boring” or “difficult,” then ignored.

5. Innovation is still seen as the exception, not the rule

In many Italian contexts, real innovation is scary. Automating processes, making efficiency transparent, eliminating bureaucracy means threatening privileges, reducing margins, breaking balances. Those who propose effective solutions are perceived as “dangerous,” and often boycotted by those who live off rents or inefficiencies.

Talent simplifying complexity, in a system built on complexity, is a political problem.

6. Silent success does not make headlines

Those who make careers without being noticed, without sponsorship, without media exposure, are not told. He is not interested. Italy loves extreme narratives: either the “false self-portrayed genius” to be covered or the “loser” to be pitied. The figure of the serious, competent, ethical and reserved professional does not fit the public narrative.

Those who work well but quietly are not narrated in Italy. And what is not narrated, does not exist.

7. There is no structured supply chain to intercept and enhance authentic talent

In the absence of true technical incubators, serious cultural scouting, and disinterested mentorship, talents must create their own opportunity, visibility, and path.

Those who are brilliant but lack communication or networking tools stay out of the flow. In other countries there are accelerators, grants, bridging universities. In Italy, often only chance or personal resilience ultimately make the difference.

Talent unaccompanied by strategic relationships today has a very low survival rate.

In summary

The problem is not that Italy lacks talent; the problem is that we do not have a system capable of identifying them, listening to them, involving them, rewarding them and giving them the public space they deserve. The result is a paradox: we have extraordinary people who produce real value, but no one knows them ending up investing their time and extraordinary mental energy in other countries of the world producing wealth. Meanwhile, in Italy, visibility, recognition, funding and media attention end up in the hands of those who tell it best, not those who build wealth, because we are just a people of chattering charlatans.

If we continue like this, we will lose the best we have.

What happens in other countries: where quiet talent is recognized.

The invisibility of technical and interdisciplinary talent is not a universal condition, thank God! In many countries with more mature digital ecosystems, there are supply chains, tools, and a culture that allow even the quietest, most secretive or atypical profiles to emerge, be heard, funded, valued, and exposed in the media.

United States of America: systemic scouting and outcome culture

In the U.S., the entire innovation ecosystem-from universities to VC funds-is built to ferret out those who can do, even if they can’t talk.

Universities like MIT, Stanford, Berkley monitor ideas, not likes. If a student develops an interesting and scalable solution, they connect him or her with incubators, advisors, and potential investors.

Venture capital funds do not rely on how many videos the founder posted on YouTube and how many likes he or she received; they look at prototypes, metrics, and technical scalability. It is very common for an introverted CTO to become a co-founder of a successful startup because he or she is good at what it takes.

Grants and fellowships exist for innovators who work quietly: you don’t need a fanbase, you just need a well-constructed and documented idea.

Basically there where in Italy you would say “you have to know someone,” in the U.S. there is an active meritocratic principle: “if you build it and it works, someone will notice” (if you build something and it works, someone will notice).

Germany: enhancement of engineering expertise

In Germany, the concept of Fachkompetenz (specific technical competence) is culturally central. People are not judged by their visibility but by the quality of their work.

German companies reward medium- to long-term technical figures, even if they are not very visible, as long as they demonstrate methodological rigor and implementation skills.

Growth pathways are designed for those who deliver value, not for those who tell it well in meetings. The dual education system (university + corporate experience) also allows non-academic profiles to emerge, as long as they are competent.
A software engineer or embedded designer who writes little but designs well has a career in Germany. In Italy, often not.

The Netherlands and Northern Europe: culture of transparency and inclusion of merit

In the Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland, transparency and meritocratic inclusion are central to talent selection and development.

Public and private incubation and startup support systems are often open-call, with technical and unbiased evaluation, not relational. Companies are structured to foster collaboration among atypical figures, not to force them within predefined roles.

Universities connect students and companies through hands-on projects, facilitating the emergence of those who really build. In such contexts, talent is not a communication issue: it is an objective fact to be intercepted and nurtured.

What about in Italy?

In Italy, on the contrary, universities seldom dialogue with the business world in a practical and profound way. Investment funds tend to look for “charismatic” figures, with a ready-made pitch and a good public image. Companies do not know how to integrate atypical profiles: those who do not fit the formats are excluded.

The problem is not that Italy does not have talent; it does. The problem is that it does not have cultural, structural and media tools to identify them, listen to them, help them grow.

In more advanced countries, quiet talent is a resource to be cultivated. In Italy, it is an anomaly to be ignored. And that is why it too often goes away.

The consequences of this silence

Ignoring real talent is not just an ethical failing. It is a SUICIDE STRATEGY, especially in an economy increasingly based on knowledge, ‘innovation and adaptability. When a country does not value those who can do, it not only loses human capital, it condemns itself to stagnation, to chasing instead of leading.

Those who have vision, method, competence and constructive spirit do not wait indefinitely. After years of frustration, he chooses to leave. And he does so quietly without proclamations.

The brain drain that we talk so much about is not only quantitative, but qualitative: the best, most pliant, most ethical, most determined profiles leave. The damage is twofold: we lose value and strengthen competition.
Every invisible talent that goes away is a startup that will not be born, a solution that will not be developed, um young person who will lose a mentor.

When selecting based on visibility or cultural alignment, companies end up surrounding themselves with reassuring but not transformative figures. The result is an organization that works “enough,” but does not grow, innovate, or change. And that remains vulnerable. Companies without real talent are companies that stay up only until a crisis comes along or a serious competitor that has talent and innovates.

If capital follows visibility and not substance, the entire investment ecosystem gets drugged. Projects with great storytelling but little real impact are funded, and solid, useful, well-designed but “unsexy” solutions are ignored because they are poorly presented and undressed. The result is a distorted marketplace where those who can sell win, not those who can do.

Every euro wasted on a fluff startup is one euro less to a concrete project that could have changed things.

A system that exalts stage gurus, LinkedIn influencers who do nothing but post boorish phrases with a nice signature “silhouetted” with Illustrator tracing, serial trainers with no real track record, do not generate technical culture but only bar talk that serves no purpose.

Those who study, those who want to build something, those who dream of doing real business find no concrete references, and often give up or fall in line with the winning model: visibility before real skills.

In this way, excluded talent is not only injured, it becomes challenged, and those who lose confidence stop proposing, teaching and leading. A perverse spiral is created: the more silent talent is ignored, the less others will have the courage to emerge. You lower the general level and feed a system that first well-worn mediocrity.

We are a country with enormous intellectual capital: excellent universities, a strong technical culture, widespread creativity, digital artisans of the highest caliber. But we don’t know how to transform this heritage into a modern ecosystem, because those who can do are left on the sidelines. The result is an Italy that never innovates and always ends up chasing, and while others increase the pace we will always continue to lag behind.

The disappearing talent is a collective loss, it is a missed opportunity for everyone. For a business that could have grown, for a school that could have trained better, for the country that could have begun to reverse its withering trend. Losing talent today means having no future tomorrow. To whom do we leave the Italian productive fabric? To the TikToker that does live while playing Playstation?

What we can do: five ways to enhance real talent

So far we have denounced a system but it is not enough, viable alternatives must be proposed….

Anyone who works passionately in the world of innovation, whether an entrepreneur, developer, lecturer or manager, can help reverse this trend.

1. Create independent maps of silent talents

We need a public and meritocratic mapping tool that collects projects, open-source contributions, and real solutions developed by Italian professionals, even and especially if they are not famous. An Italian GitHub with filters for impact, originality, complexity. An archive that brings out those who really work, and not just those who communicate. In other words, a radar is needed!

2. Recognize those who build value, not those who make bar talk

The media, awards, incubators, and universities need to review the criteria by which they select stories to tell. We need to start rewarding those who have created something that works, field-tested algorithms, solid digital infrastructure. Personal branding is fine, but it can no longer be the main yardstick for selection. A working project is worth more than 1,000 videos with barroom chatter; let’s acknowledge it publicly and give Caesar his due.

3. Foster models of ethical mentorship, not co-optation

The best must become mentors. Those who have built real value must help other talent grow. But an ethical model is needed, where recognition is based on merit, not personal connection.
Incubators, foundations, cmaere of commerce, can start open and transparent technical mentorship networks. The light should be shone on real talent.

4. Incorporating ethics and multidisciplinarity into educational pathways

Schools and universities must start teaching not just notions, but bridges between disciplines. A designer of the future cannot fail to know the fundamentals of ethics, AI, and inclusive design. Doing so trains generations capable of hybridizing, innovating, choosing, and not just executing.

5. Changing the cultural narrative of excellence

Change must be narrative. We need to tell stories of quiet talent, not just financial climbs and million-dollar exits. We need a new imaginary where value does not coincide with exposure, but with competence, method and responsibility. It is time to say, publicly and forcefully, that Italy has talent, but no one is listening.

When silence is no longer a mistake but a condemnation

We talked about talent, invisibility, systems that don’t work. We proposed solutions, listed best practices, suggested possible directions…

But the stark truth is that in Italy, this will probably never happen.

Not for lack of ideas. Not because of a shortage of talent. But because of an even more entrenched fact: the majority does not want it.

Italy is a country where priorities are reversed, where mediocrity is passively accepted as the norm. Where careers are made not by what you know, but by who you know. Where competence is viewed with suspicion and fear, ethics as an obstacle, culture as a useless fad.

A country where people do not vote for change, but take to the streets for a game, where influencers who sell hooey are financed and technicians who solve real problems are ignored. Where corruption is not the exception, but the accepted operating model for entire production and institutional chains.

Italy today is not a system that has gone in the wrong direction; it is a system that does not want to change. And when a system does not want to change, change comes sooner or later anyway, but not from within; it comes a Collapse. From a crisis. From a radical destruction.

Perhaps then, only when there will be nothing left to protect, no privileges left to defend, no rents left to maintain, will someone start building again and we will start clinging to the talents, the only ones who have real skills to be able to measure up to such a complex reconstruction. And they will do so, as usual, not to be seen, but because there will be no one else left who is willing to do so, and perhaps, from that pile of ashes, a country will finally arise that recognizes its best talents. Not out of convenience, but out of necessity….

[starbox]

L'articolo Italy – Country that does not reward those who can do but those who stand out proviene da RENOR & Partners S.r.l..

There are those who listen with interest, those who act as if they’re doing you a favor by letting you explain how it’s possible to reduce their company’s costs by offering solutions to help them produce more, in less time and at lower cost; and then there are those who don’t let you speak at all—because, from being a metalworker, they’ve suddenly transformed into an IT expert, transitioned through cloud architect, and landed as an app developer. A truly all-knowing know-it-all!

I believe that at the heart of everything there should be an awareness of one’s own limits—something that is not a weakness, but rather a form of strength and intelligence. It means listening carefully to what someone who has been doing that job for 30 years has to say, and recognizing the nuances and opportunities that may arise from that conversation.

I would never dream of replacing an accountant or a lawyer just because I once wrote a letter of complaint.

Everything is moving toward the digital sphere—and specifically, toward the internet—is something I take for granted.

More and more companies are turning to e-commerce to overcome territorial limitations. Increasingly, businesses are automating their internal processes because they understand that automation doesn’t make mistakes and is capable of processing vast amounts of data with a single mouse click.

There are those who are rooted in their convictions.

Alas, there are people who fail to grasp this social-technological reality, or reject it simply because they don’t understand it. I can certainly put myself in the shoes of an entrepreneur who built their success in the 1980s, following the dynamics of that era—it’s genuinely difficult to accept that the world has changed radically over the past 40 years.

And yet the effects are visible everywhere: in the automotive industry with self-driving cars, in photography, filmmaking, transportation, commerce, public administration.
On a more everyday level, just take a walk and look around: everyone is holding a smartphone… everywhere!

This rejection of technology at a business level, however, is very dangerous—especially in this phase of rapid transition from the analog world to the digital one—because other companies are moving forward, keeping up with the times, managing to produce more at lower costs, and as a result, the products they bring to market will have higher quality at a lower price.

Analog world vs. digital world

To better understand this transition, we can take the example of a call center where phone operators search for contacts in the Yellow Pages, and compare it to another call center that uses automated solutions.

In the first case, the operator has to search for numbers in the Yellow Pages, contact the client, and note the outcome of the call. If the client requests a quote, the operator must forward the request to the appropriate department, which will take 30 minutes to prepare the quote and send it back. The operator will then write an email and send the quote to the client. Finally, they’ll have to make a note to call the client back and remember to do so on the agreed date and time.

A cumbersome and inefficient procedure, with a high likelihood of errors—such as forgetting to make follow-up calls or, in the worst-case scenario, calling back companies that are already clients to try and sell them the same service again.

Now let’s look at the second case…
The operator works with an automated system. The client requests a quote, and the quote is generated on the spot over the phone by the software, simply by entering a few basic calculation parameters. The software then automatically generates the PDF of the quote and sends it to the client.

Two days later, without the operator needing to do anything, the system will automatically reassign the number for a follow-up.

And now, the usual questions…

Analog case

How long did it take to handle the user’s request? More than half an hour
How many resources were involved? At least two (the phone operator and someone preparing the quote)
What is the risk of forgetting to call some clients back for quote confirmation? Very high

Digital case

How long did it take to handle the user’s request? Less than one minute
How many resources were involved? Just the operator, who by filling out a few fields was able to generate a quote and send it automatically to the client while still on the call
What is the risk of forgetting to call some clients back for quote confirmation? None—the number is automatically re-assigned to the operator by the system and remains active until a final outcome (positive or negative) is recorded.

Considerations on the Use Case and ROI

It’s quite clear that in an 8-hour workday, if the duration of each call in the digital case is drastically reduced compared to the analog case, then within the same time frame, an operator will be able to make significantly more calls. Therefore, the first return on investment comes from the increased productivity of each individual operator.

If an operator using an automated system is able to make 300% more calls per day, it is reasonable to assume that adopting such a solution means each operator produces the equivalent output of three operators using the analog method.

Furthermore, there will no longer be a need to assign a dedicated resource to prepare quotes. The quote can be generated directly by the operator while speaking with the client over the phone.

Finally, there is no risk of human error—because computers are fast idiots. They lack the ability to make decisions, invent mechanisms, or have thoughts, but they are extremely fast and efficient at executing error-free operations they were programmed to perform.

Effects on the Market

The company that has streamlined its departments with automated solutions will be able to produce more at a lower cost. At this point, the market speaks loud and clear, and the entrepreneur has two paths they can choose to follow.

1. Maintain unchanged product costs that are in line with market standards in order to generate more revenue.
2. Lower the product’s selling price while maintaining the same previous profit margin, in order to attack the market with more competitive prices and expand the customer base.

In my view, the first option is feasible for those who have already been moving toward automating their business departments for some time. As time goes on, however, even smaller companies are beginning to head in the same direction—and they are forced to adopt the second business strategy: lowering prices to aggressively enter the market, as they need to build a customer base.

This dynamic means that as more competing companies emerge with lower prices, the market price for that particular product will decrease, leading to a reduction in profits for the company that initially chose the first strategy. That company will then be forced to lower its prices in order to remain competitive—thus shifting to the second path.

Who still works analogically?

Those who still work with pen and paper are automatically out. Solutions of this kind can’t be built in just two days, especially because—in my experience—beyond standardized procedures, every company has its own internal workflow.

Creating tailor-made IT solutions takes time, and the more complex the workflow to be automated, the longer it will take.

The risk, therefore, is that the entrepreneur realizes the mistake and tries to make up for it when the situation is already beyond recovery.

After all, they’ll never be able to sell a product that costs them 40 to make for 35, when their competitors are already selling it for 30 because it only costs them 10.

And if we look at it from the market’s perspective: if I, as a customer, have always bought a product from a company at 40, it won’t take me long to stop buying from them when I realize I can get the same product for 30 from another company.

This will lead to an uncontrolled loss of clients—and consequently of revenue streams—that will be difficult to recover unless the company has substantial cash reserves capable of sustaining costs during the transition from analog to digital.

Many businesses will shut down for this very reason: an unjustified rejection of new technologies by entrepreneurs rooted in outdated business dynamics.

[starbox]

L'articolo If you don’t keep up to date, you’re destined to shut down. proviene da RENOR & Partners S.r.l..

Some software manufacturers have already moved in this direction, especially in the 3D field. Nowadays, you work locally on a project, and the rendering is entrusted to a render farm that allocates cloud resources (vastly more powerful than any consumer computer) to perform the heaviest task: rendering the project.

Will consoles meet the same fate?

Certainly not in the immediate future, but within ten years this could well become the norm—and I’m almost certain that, inspired by the Mountain View giant, console manufacturers will likely move toward cloud services as well.

What are the main strengths of this solution?

Certainly, the primary strength lies in the fact that you can play on any device with a browser, the ability to install apps, and an internet connection.

By purchasing the Stadia Bluetooth controller, you can connect it to a Smart TV, PC, Mac, tablet, or smartphone and immediately play one of the 50 available titles on Google Stadia.

But how are the graphics?

You can judge for yourselves. The graphics are exactly what you see in the video—if anything, they’re even better, since the video has been compressed.

The movements are extremely fluid, and the user input response shows no noticeable latency—in essence, it really feels like playing on a real console. The only difference is that, just like with Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+, etc., for Google Stadia you can either purchase a game or subscribe monthly to have access to the entire library. It’s much like the streaming movie service on Prime Video: you can pay for subscriptions to various platforms or, alternatively, buy individual movies. It’s exactly the same thing.

Past rumors

There was a time when it seemed the project was about to be abandoned. In reality, it is still an ongoing project that is growing and has high maintenance costs, but it could secure significant profits for Google.

The gaming business has always been highly profitable, on par with the film industry, with multi-million-dollar revenues and thousands of people employed in the creation of a single game. It’s a market that Google recognized and which I have reinterpreted, as always, with a view to the future.

[starbox]

L'articolo Is the end of consoles coming? G-Stadia proviene da RENOR & Partners S.r.l..

I was personally responsible for evaluating the candidate’s technical knowledge, and my HR colleague assessed their psychological profile.

Over the years, after conducting hundreds of interviews I’ve seen it all, and I’ve come to understand the typical mistakes candidates make in interviews: first and foremost, inflating their résumé and, in some cases, listing skills they don’t actually possess.

I vividly remember the period when we were searching for a Senior Full Stack Developer—a professional capable of working across the entire stack, both front-end and back-end. Among the various applications that landed on our desk was a truly impressive résumé: in-depth knowledge of several back-end programming languages—PHP, C#, Java, Python—and their frameworks; expertise in HTML, CSS3, JavaScript, and various JavaScript frameworks; familiarity with SQL and NoSQL databases; proficiency with the Adobe suite, including video editing software, and even advanced skills in After Effects!

Intrigued by this résumé so rich in skills, despite its numerous short-term work experiences, we decided to invite the candidate for an initial interview.

On the day of the interview, a young man showed up looking unkempt, wearing a t-shirt with his hair all over the place… It was not a good first impression!

He sat down in the meeting room, and we began with the routine questions: what his previous work experiences had been, what he had worked on, what skills he had acquired, why he had decided to change jobs, why he had stayed so briefly, what he was looking for, what his ideal position was, where he wanted to go in his career, etc.

We then moved on to the technical interview to assess his actual knowledge, and I suggested asking him questions based on the required skill set (we didn’t need him to know languages we didn’t use)… There was total silence, to the point that starting with the hardest questions we had to keep moving to increasingly easier topics in the hope of getting a satisfactory answer… In the end, exhausted, I simply asked him to write me a login form in HTML for entering a username and password, without worrying about backend validation. Again, complete silence when faced with a topic that is the ABC of web development.

I asked for an explanation, politely and respectfully, asking why on his résumé he had claimed certain skills that clearly weren’t there.
He grew agitated, ranting about development environments and saying he couldn’t write code with pen and paper because he was used to autocomplete features. In an altered tone, almost shouting, he demanded a computer—which we of course provided; we wanted to see how far the charade would go, and naturally there was still nothing… At that point, even non-experts could see that all the skills listed on the résumé were nothing but an endless string of nonsense, and we had only wasted half an hour.

I wanted to share this example, without naming anyone, of course, simply to highlight everything that can go wrong when you’re job hunting, because that interview was the perfect example of what not to do. If I had to assign that candidate a score out of 100, taking all aspects of the interview into account, it would certainly be 0/100.

Résumé

We need to start debunking the myth that “the more you write on your résumé, the more authoritative you are.”
No! That’s a lie! You don’t write a résumé by listing everything you know how to do; you write a résumé that interests the recruiters who are looking for that specific type of candidate to fill that role.

If I need a front-end developer, I don’t care that you know how to ride a horse or that you can wire electrical panels… okay, good for you, but that’s superfluous information unrelated to what I’m looking for—I need a front end.

Another mistake… Including false information. There’s nothing worse!
What’s the point of claiming to know how to develop in PHP if you’ve never written a single line of code?
Do you think that in an interview for a PHP developer role they won’t notice? It will likely be the central topic of your interview, and they’ll bombard you with questions about PHP.

The person interviewing you, besides exposing you in a nanosecond and getting annoyed at the time you’ve wasted, will also think that you can’t be particularly bright for having applied for a PHP developer position without ever having written even…

[code]<php echo('Hello World!'); ?>[/code]

Perhaps you thought you could take a PHP course on Udemy and learn to program in two days if the interview went well? Doubly foolish!
To properly learn a high-level language takes years, plenty of practice, and extensive study! You can’t just improvise as a developer overnight, let alone fill a Senior position.

Résumés must contain only truthful information!! Otherwise, it will be a total and complete waste of time—for both you and the recruiter—and there’s more. If you tell the truth and make a good impression in an interview, even if you’re not selected, the company will likely consider you for other positions that open in the future. If you report falsehoods, you will be automatically excluded from any further job offers with that company: you’ll be burned!

You don’t need to have just one résumé; you need to have many.

Resumés should be tailored specifically to the job you are applying for, and it’s best if they are accompanied by a cover letter. If one of the key requirements is a good command of English, it’s good practice to submit your résumé in English as well—perhaps introducing it with a brief cover letter, also translated into English. Conversely, if you’re applying for a position within an Italian company that operates solely in Italy, has no ties abroad, and does not require English, it’s completely pointless to show off by attaching your résumé and/or cover letter in English, because it’s very likely that the person screening applications won’t understand English and will simply discard a résumé they can’t read.

There’s no point in including redundant information; limit your résumé to the details and experiences that are strictly relevant to the position.

It has been statistically shown that in most European countries a résumé with a photo is met with greater interest by recruiters, since they can put a face to the profile. However, there are different points of view: some argue that it’s irrelevant, others that including a photo is discriminatory, and still others that it’s necessary. In the end, what really matters are the statistics… In Italy, it seems a résumé with a photo is preferred—so let’s include one!

Cover letter.

I’ve seen cover letters that go on for miles. There’s nothing worse! A cover letter must be very concise—just like the résumé, which should only include information relevant to what the recruiter is looking for. Recruiters typically review hundreds of résumés each day. Five-page cover letters and endless CVs aren’t even read—unless applications are scarce for that position (which is very unlikely given the current job shortage). A cover letter should be at most 10–20 lines and serve as an introduction to your résumé. Write something that grabs their attention. Explain in your cover letter why you’re suited for the role, perhaps by citing a similar experience in which you excelled. No recruiter cares that you were born under Pisces or that you were top of your class in multiplication tables as a child.

A good sample cover letter.

Let’s see what a good cover letter for applying to a PHP + MySQL developer job might look like.

“Dear Company,

I decided to apply for this position because I have read excellent reviews about your company and I am seeking a work environment where I can continue to grow and further develop my skills.

As a PHP + MySQL developer, I believe my profile perfectly matches the candidate you are seeking; therefore, I refer you to my résumé and look forward to your kind response to arrange, if interested, an introductory interview.

Thank you for your attention and the time you have dedicated to me thus far; I take this opportunity to extend my most distinguished regards.

Mario Rossi”.

This cover letter introduces the recruiter to the résumé and provides the candidate’s reasons for why they could be the ideal fit for the role, highlighting skills acquired in previous work experiences. From this letter, it is clear that the candidate has a solid command of the language, has already worked in a team and is therefore familiar with collaborative development processes, understands version-control workflows, and can handle stress by meeting deadlines even under heavy workloads. They are punctual and never late for work. They explained their decision to change jobs as an investment in themselves and their professional growth.

After receiving a cover letter of this kind, the recruiter will certainly feel inclined to view the résumé favorably, ensuring that the candidate passes the first selection phase and moves on to the second phase: the interview.

The interview

Looks matter too…

Depending on the type of interview you’re attending, it’s essential to dress appropriately, in contrast to the photo on your résumé, this is not optional. A candidate interviewing for a position must meet all the outfit requirements that the work environment demands, out of respect for colleagues and the workplace. Yes, I said respect. Dressing well is a form of respect toward others, especially during a job interview. In offices, people wear shirts and jackets. You don’t show up to a job interview in a T-shirt. A T-shirt is for wearing at home when doing DIY chores—definitely not for coming to the office!

Certainly, I wouldn’t show up in a suit and tie for a dishwasher job interview in a kitchen, but if I were a restaurant owner I’d appreciate a candidate wearing at least a shirt. As for office jobs, on the other hand, a jacket is mandatory!

The visual approach is the first thing to catch a recruiter’s eye. It’s like a virtual handshake before the real one.

Therefore, let’s begin to outline the general rules for presenting yourself at a job interview:

• Dress appropriately for the workplace where you’re attending the interview.
• Hair washed, clean, and pleasantly scented… Neat! (We’ve encountered candidates with greasy, unkempt hair. Needless to say, it’s best to take a good shower before attending a job interview.)
• Other relevant notes: impeccable fragrance and cleanliness.

Behavior

It’s just a job interview… Try to stay calm and don’t let anxiety get the better of you, because one factor very often assessed in recruitment is the ability to manage stress and nerves. A recruiter will notice right away if you’re an anxious type—they’re psychologists, it’s their job! Aim to be composed; you’re not facing a firing squad. Be relaxed, communicative, and cooperative, but poised. Don’t sit as if you were at a café, but neither as if you were wearing a brace: the keyword is “relaxed.” Imagine you’re speaking with a respected friend. Courtesy comes first. Simply answer the questions and, above all, be honest.

If you’re asked for a requirement you don’t have, tell the truth: “I’m sorry, but I’ve never done that before. However, if you give me your trust and support, I can learn to handle this aspect that I’m not familiar with in a short time.”

Honesty has always been appreciated since the dawn of time. If you possess all the necessary skills and stand out from others in those areas, it’s very unlikely you’ll be eliminated from the selection process for missing just one—you’ll always be kept in consideration.

Studies

Aside from certain roles where a formal qualification is strictly required for safety reasons (think nuclear engineers at a power plant), more and more job postings prioritize what you can do over how many pieces of paper you hold. I say this as a degree holder myself: the diploma is important, but not vital for some positions. In my field, I’ve always preferred smart people who can learn new things quickly over those who had the piece of paper but couldn’t do anything and were as thick-headed as a Roman cobblestone.

Here there is room to introduce a rather broad discussion on the responsibilities of Italian universities in preparing students for entry into the workforce. Universities provide a lot of theory, but in terms of practical work experience: very little. The fact that there are no courses on HTML at university (which is the foundation for beginning to work on web projects) says it all. Graduates usually have the basics to learn new things quickly, but that’s not always the rule. It depends on how the university education was structured and in which areas one has applied all the acquired knowledge. The intellectual factor should not be underestimated either.

Personally, I would a hundred times rather have a non-graduate who is intellectually gifted than a graduate of average intellectual ability.

Precisely on this point, my company interviews have always been much talked-about because they were somewhat sui generis, especially when they involved people who would have to work in close contact with me in the corporate divisions I headed. I never limited myself to purely technical aspects but always tried to go further to understand how the candidate reasoned to solve a problem, and often during interviews I presented intellectual “tricks.” I wasn’t so interested in whether they could solve the riddle, but I asked them to think out loud to understand the mental processes they employed in their attempt.

I realized that very often—almost one out of every two people—even basic text comprehension wasn’t clear. This is very significant because it perfectly matches estimates of functional illiteracy in Italy (Level 3, ages 16 to 65: 46.3 % of the population). Essentially, it refers, in simple terms, to the inability to understand a text after reading it or to grasp a complex verbal message unless it’s repeated several times.

Another strength lies in the ability to work as a team, and this is very easily revealed during the job interview. It is particularly understood from the atmosphere that permeates the interview.

A job interview—as the term “colloquiale” (conversational) suggests—should be friendly and engaging; a joke is fine, of course without forcing it. You need to show that you can blend in with people, that you can socialize easily and quickly with colleagues, and that you know how to be cooperative. Nobody likes someone who always tries to be the teacher’s pet. Cooperation means making yourself available to others when you have a skill they don’t, but also knowing how to listen and learn humbly from people who know more than you.

By following these simple tips, I assure you that you will enjoy great benefits at work as well as in your everyday life!

[starbox]

L'articolo How to approach a job interview. proviene da RENOR & Partners S.r.l..

Those who deeply understand a subject—be it historical, philosophical, or social in nature—are able to convey the message of their idea to the masses with simple, easily understandable words. Here you can find his talk.

The Professor begins his talk by discussing the situation of young people—young people who do not have a clear view of their future. Their parents tell them they are fortunate, but that isn’t the reality. Indeed, if we think about it, those born in the 1950s rode an upward trajectory. Just emerging from the Second World War, which ended in 1945, they found themselves in a world hosting a society in poverty, with parents who had suffered through the great war—but, all things considered, they had hit rock bottom, and nothing could be done but to climb back up.

The First Republic had been established on June 2, 1946, and efforts were underway to build a better, more structured, and entirely new world.

Rebuilding means creating jobs, driving the economy, enabling people to earn and spend, and putting new entrepreneurs in a position to start businesses. The lira gained value on the market; as inflation rose, wages increased to the point that the currency’s purchasing power actually improved.

Our parents could find work with just a high school diploma; newly established companies were besieged by the first wave of consumerism, generating high revenues that translated into a greater number of job openings… Businesses were in a period of economic expansion.

Speaking as a 40-year-old… Our fathers had no trouble finding work with just a high school diploma; today, for most people, not even a PhD and multiple master’s degrees accumulated over the years are enough—in fact, I hear of people not being hired because they’re overqualified, and others because they’re underqualified. In truth, everything depends on only two factors:

1. How good you are
2. How much are you willing to lower your salary expectations?

This, in most cases, is not the result of a choice made by the entrepreneur, but the necessity for an entrepreneur to preserve cash liquidity, because due to reckless economic and political decisions, more often than not—even with the need to hire to ensure productivity—they cannot financially offer more attractive salaries.

All of this stems from what Nietzsche defines as Nihilism, as explained by Prof. Galimberti, namely the destruction of values.

In today’s saturated environment, where young people are accustomed to the comforts they grew up with during a prosperous childhood—when their parents could meet every need—those same young adults at 30 find themselves in a psychological state where they feel compelled to maintain those standards, but their working conditions don’t allow it. This generates anxiety, distrust in the future, and for the first time they experience what “need” truly means.

Facing necessity for the first time as an adult is not an easy concept to digest, especially when the world out there has become—due to individual circumstances—a world no longer defined by opportunities but by challenges. A world in which everyone must struggle against one another to secure sustenance for themselves and their family, or, even worse, merely to have the chance to start a family of their own.

A very interesting quote from Galimberti is that young people “live in live broadcast 24 hours a day, they experience the absolute present, because looking beyond the present produces anguish.”

How to plan for an unpredictable future? How to lay the foundations of one’s existence: to have a secure job to buy a house and start a family when living in uncertainty?

If we think about it, the thesis is the antithesis of itself…. Seeking security in insecurity! Here then, according to Galimberti, giving oneself to alcohol, drugs and, I’ll throw in, taking on bullying attitudes, are part of a shield that the young person builds against a world that does not give them possibilities, a world in which it is preferable not to understand, not to be clear-headed, rather than to understand and get down. This is why the young person lives in the present, because the present is the only time they can think about, the only time that gives them security because they are there.

Galimberti at this point mentions the concept of family, saying that today’s families are broken, that one in three families have separated parents. I believe that this problem is also derived from several variables…. The first is definitely attributable to nihilism, the destruction of family value. The second one due to globalization and digitization. Social networks are largely responsible.
Our grandparents, mostly born and died in a totally “analog” era knew their wives usually in their area, chose each other from a very small sample of people, and were perhaps by necessity better able to converse. Once they were married the concept of divorce was like blaspheming in the Church because those were the values and even in the face of difficulties they tried in one way or another to resolve them through dialogue and move on because there were not that many alternatives.

Today we live in a world full of alternatives where much more importance is given to appearance than to substance because there are stereotypes that have been shaped ad-hoc just for economic purposes. Today there are 13-year-old girls who look 20. Stoned women, wrapped in the stereotypes of the famous bloggers and social stars, always made up, perfect and impeccable, often totally remade from head to toe, married to soccer players and who, thanks to their status of notoriety get to work on television showing their lives made up of unbridled luxury.

The world of men certainly makes no difference!

These are the role models today. As a child my role model was Albert Einstein, Neil Armstrong. We have seen over time, with the advent of technology, a substitution of variables: a shift from art and culture, to the most boorish aestheticism, and this has created enormous damage to populations, both culturally and socially, and especially psychologically.

Young girls want to be showgirls or look like their favorite blogger, they think about getting a boob job at 15 because comparing themselves to those who have invested thousands and thousands on their bodies they see themselves as imperfect. It has come to the point of self-disavowal in a view that breeds psychological insecurity.

Yet it wouldn’t take much to understand that 7 million people cannot all be soccer players or showgirls at the same time. Mathematically speaking this would mean that 99.99999% of the population will remain disillusioned.

Coming back to the family, as already mentioned, today there are so many stimuli, the man and the woman in addition to a human part both possess an animal part, mostly carnal, and the stimuli and the ease with which they can meet other people who can give free rein to these stimuli through the web, makes the balance of the family more and more precarious, because in their heads it is quicker to look for an alternative, an outlet than to sit down, turn off their cell phones and reflect to find a solution to a problem together through dialogue. We live in the age of exemplification, where we foolishly believe that everything is easy to put into action. All these things add to the family’s problems, and eventually many families decide to opt for divorce. A divorce given by the lack of dialogue and driven by the ease of finding alternatives.

Children are severely affected, and this is a fact, and it affects their lives, including in the cultural sphere.

Schools do not improve the situation, and Galimberti gives, in my opinion, an extremely realistic picture of the situation regarding education.

Elementary schools that work, junior high schools that are a total disaster, high schools that do not educate but provide notions, and I would add universities that I would call obsolete in so many ways, at least here in Italy.

Interesting reasoning about different types of intelligence…

Each of us is totally different from others. Except for cases of delays due to physical problems, I believe that each of us is better at something than others. This is a purely statistical fact! The ability of teachers should be to understand, from the heights of their experience, what kind of intelligence is most developed in a child and direct them in order to help them cultivate it and make them excel in those trades that take advantage of that kind of intelligence.

It’s true! Today it is all about logical-mathematical intelligence, but I would further specify: logical-spatial intelligence. Even IQ tests are directed at understanding its mechanisms and scoring it. There are so many other types of intelligence: verbal intelligence which concerns the ability to express oneself, understand a text and synthesize its contents (we live in a country that has a population of 70 percent functional illiterates, that is, people who after reading a text are unable to understand its meaning). Mnemonic intelligence that allows us to memorize things we see and store them in our brains and then bring them up again when we need to remember them. Motor intelligence that allows us to synchronize movements perfectly. Musical intelligence, which allows us to maintain rhythm, remember sounds and timbres, and appreciate music in all its forms. Emotional intelligence, which is very important, allowing not only to pick up external stimuli, but also providing the ability to relate to others, ask questions, put oneself in someone else’s place before taking an action against or for that person.

Intelligence is an extremely complex concept, and a person cannot be said to be intelligent just because he or she has a very high IQ. It can certainly give some indication of a subset of intelligence, but it is not an absolutely comprehensive measure for objectively categorizing intelligent individuals from others who are less so.

From this it is easy to understand that emotional intelligence is perhaps the one we have least developed in the time in which we live, because the lack of it is also responsible for this loss of values. “I don’t understand that by acting this way I can hurt someone else because I am not smart enough to understand it,” … From here it is easy to follow the wrong stereotype of the bully, the one who gets everything through violence because he is not smart enough to understand how he would feel if that act of bullying was himself on the receiving end. The bully, however, is respected because he sets his supremacy over others through the sense of terror he instills, and that is why when the teenager has not yet developed a character of his own, he takes it as an example. All this can work in junior high, high school, what happens to bullies when these become men?

Following these stereotypes is beyond dangerous for a future that is already too uncertain, and the only certainty that pursuing this path can provide is that of failure in all respects: the occupational, the social, and the emotional; because bullies in adulthood are driven away.

In adolescence, with these kinds of attitudes we lose everything beautiful that mankind has produced to date, from literature to art, through what I consider to be Art with a capital A: music.

The stereotypical bully is one who considers classical music to be lame. I wonder how they do not understand how much beauty there is in classical music. Music composed by absolute geniuses who, according to the products of modern society, will never return, unless we abruptly divert this course.

How will another Mozart or another Chopin or a Bach or a Beethoven ever be born if the product of society is made up of young people who do not even recognize their objective height?

I, who have cultivated a passion for classical music since childhood (in parallel with my university studies, I majored in piano), live in a perceptual reality that is extremely different from what I would call the redneck reality imparted by misguided stereotypes. I constantly wonder how one cannot appreciate the artistic value of a first piano concerto by Chopin, of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, which possesses a very strong spiritual meaning: “fate knocking at the door,” of Mozart’s concerto K. 488, which includes one of the most poignant and monumental adagios in the second movement of all the music of the classical period, but also of Mahler’s lesser-known (at least to neophytes) symphonies.
They are not understood because one has not developed the intelligence that makes their understanding possible.

Galimberti at this point also talks about the bad practices of teacher hiring systems.

I have always maintained that an excellent scientist is not necessarily also an excellent professor.
As a child I often listened to scientific broadcasts and happened to follow with great interest interviews with the likes of Margherita Hack, Antonino Zichichi, and Carlo Rubbia.

I personally believe that Zichichi is an excellent scientist but that his expository skills are absolutely limiting in explaining his subject matter to the masses. This is not to say that Zichichi is not a good scientist, I repeat, but the explanations given by Hack turn out to be much clearer…. Who knows, maybe Einstein was the same way.

Galimberti suggests a personality test in addition to a competition for hiring new professors, and I agree wholeheartedly. A contest can test professional skills and knowledge but it cannot test whether one can synthesize complex arguments to get them across to students. It cannot give indications about the charisma of someone who is going to pursue a teaching career. It cannot give any indication of one’s empathy.

When I think of this concept, I am reminded of Vincenzo Schettini, the high school physics teacher who has become famous on YouTube because of his videos in which he explains nature and by what physical laws it is governed. He explains it in simple language, giving many examples, and from these lectures it is clear that he does the work he loves. He has empathy with his students who during the videos are attentive and responsive to his questions.
Beyond the look that might be questionable for some, that professor I think he is very good at his job. He possesses the ability to teach while entertaining, creating expectation, capturing interest, and trying to get students passionate about a subject that is complex and therefore often hated by many.
I am pretty sure that professor has less scientific knowledge than Antonino Zichichi but from the point of view of education I personally consider him superior.

Here, professors also possess their large share of responsibility in the cultural and sociological growth stage of the adolescent, and therefore must be chosen wisely by evaluating a number of requirements and not solely knowledge as an end in itself.

Corrado Augias, another figure I hold in high esteem, told an anecdote from when he was a student. His philosophy professor asked the class what was the point of studying? Many students gave good answers: “To become adults, to become good people, to increase our cultural level.” Nevertheless, the professor was not satisfied with the answers and exclaimed, “Studying is for escaping from prison!”
The dismayed students were astonished to hear such an equivocal phrase…
The professor resumed, “Ignorance is a prison, because in there you don’t understand and you don’t know what to do! Studying is to escape from the prison, from those who want you stupid and gullible, and to climb over the wall of ignorance so that you can understand without asking for help. And it will be hard to fool you!”

Similar phrases also come from Nelson Mandela:“Education is the gateway to freedom, democracy and development.”

As far as I am concerned: to study and, more importantly, to cultivate all kinds of intelligence, especially emotional intelligence, allow one to turn on a light to be able to illuminate, even if not deeply, this very dark future that awaits us in the coming years. It will give hope and awareness in one’s abilities, willingness to do and stimulus to commitment.

Those who firmly believe in a project and have worked on themselves by training for the race of life will come out on top one way or another, but there is hard work involved, so don’t be fooled by the ghost of exemplification… There are no things in life that, done at a high level, are easy!

[starbox]

L'articolo The Future of Young People: Towards the Unknown proviene da RENOR & Partners S.r.l..

A Newspaper must be registered with the appropriate court. It has civil and criminal responsibilities and must therefore be limited to acting as a spokesperson for facts that have happened objectively.

A Blog reports articles expressing the voice of the author which may or may not be agreeable and has, except in cases of offenses or other offenses attributable to the person, no legal repercussions.

I have made this premise because in this article I will express what are MY personal ideas about “Citizenship Income,” ideas that may or may not be shared, the important thing is to keep the conversation and any comments on a level of mutual exchange of ideas as in the best expression of concept of civility.

What is citizenship income

The Citizenship Income is a form of social cushion, implemented thanks to the money provided by the company Italy. This means that all working citizens and consumers, by paying taxes, contribute to making this economic aid possible for those who are less fortunate and are in such an economic situation that they cannot provide for their livelihood. Put on this level, it doesn’t make a dent!

Let me clarify from the outset that I personally am NOT against the Citizenship Income, because I believe that everyone has the right to have their own dignity of life. I am against the way this form of income has been structured because, and this is a fact, structured in this way, it has created enormous harm to businesses. This is evidenced by the fact that, with unemployment still skyrocketing, in past years hardly any entrepreneurs had complained about not being able to find staff today we hear of nothing else… We will then also open a brief parenthesis on the responsibilities of entrepreneurs.

Italy is a very unique country, which differs from other EU countries where there is a strong work culture, which is also “blamed” on our climate and the wonderful places we have. Basically in Italy, we have (I would say fortunately from the point of view of tourism and landscape) many alternatives and distractions from work.
There are Italians and Italians. There are virtuous people who do not “rest on their laurels”: they lose their jobs and are willing to do anything to be able to go back to work and bring their hard-earned paycheck home according to the old saying that “work ennobles man,” but it is equally true that there are plenty of Italians who literally take advantage of the RoC situation to indulge in a nice indefinite vacation at the expense of the state and thus of their fellow countrymen who produce.

This is a strong phrase, I know, but I know personally, individuals who receive citizenship income and facing the topic, they even seem to snub the “fools” who get up in the morning to go to work. Although fortunately these represent a small reality, you will understand that it is a situation that does not please those who instead work hard to bring a hard-earned paycheck home, and who actively contribute to the payment of the tax brackets that the state levies on businesses and workers.

Yet the law says that employment centers should offer jobs to these people and that on the third offer refused, entitlement to citizenship income should be terminated.

Employment centers?

In two words: none to be had!

No organization. As of March 2022, more than one million people were receiving the citizenship income with an average amount of 581 euros per month.
Data in hand, the situation worsens both as the amount received and the number of people receiving the RoC from the north to the south.

Job centers are supposed to guarantee the famous 3 job offers, after which the income is taken away…. Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever talked to anyone whose Citizenship Income was taken away because they were sent 3 rejected job offers; in most cases, after months of sustenance they are still waiting for the first call.

As I said at the beginning of the article, it is only fair to put ourselves in the shoes of a person who is out of work at 50…. It is difficult for young people to find work, let alone a 50-year-old man! He will receive his NASpI when looking for work and at the end of this he will be forced to apply for citizenship income. If this person is actively looking for work and cannot find it with all his efforts, it is right and sacrosanct that he be helped by the state, we are not animals! A fellow countryman of ours in difficulty MUST BE HELPED! And this I do not say this out of a form of populism, but because as a person who when he could help did so, I firmly believe it. But at the same time it is not possible to continue feeding, for a small part fortunately, a livelihood system that is taken for the famous “Tourist Forever” scratch card.

The problem is in the structuring

My reasoning is very simple. If an Italian citizen receives citizenship income and is therefore paid by Italians, it means that he or she works for the state and should therefore be in the service of the community. There is a job sector that frames this: “Socially useful work.” Keeping the streets clean, taking care of municipal greenery, maintaining parks, and many other services that come in handy for the community and that, due to lack of funds, are being put on the back burner today. On this topic then a parenthesis should be opened related to the civic education of individual citizens who litter, but this is not the place to discuss it.

Dedicating people receiving citizenship income to socially useful work is not only beneficial, but also justifies an income according to the aforementioned saying that “work ennobles man.”

This approach would prove to be an excellent deterrent to the phantom “forever tourists” and would make the citizenship income recipient actively seek new employment. Of course, working hours should be congruent with the income received. Even a few hours a day would suffice.

The responsibilities of entrepreneurs

So far we have analyzed the problems from the perspective of income earners, let’s also go over the wizards seen and reviewed on the entrepreneurial front.

First among them. Offering underpaid jobs bordering on “caporalato.” If an entrepreneur offers 700 euros for a full-time position as a Barista, a citizenship income recipient at 680 euros a month is bound to say, “No, thanks! I’ll stay home,” and I would add. He would do WELL!

Reform for the RoC was to be followed by inspections of the pay parts so that they were congruent with the employee’s classification.

What “seems to elude” the great economists who govern us is that a country’s economy is not manifested solely by the amount of currency circulating, but more importantly by the speed with which this currency changes hands.

According to the “Fordism” current, increasing wages to employees corresponds to an increase in receipts for businesses. It sounds like a platitude, but if a worker has greater economic capacity, he or she is highly likely to put more money into circulation, fueling the economic flow and thus the cash holdings of businesses.

In Italy, except for the energy situation we are experiencing, with increases in primary energy sources identifiable mainly in gas and electricity of 500%, it is becoming really very difficult to do business.
We Italians are very lucky. Geographically we are a child within the cradle of Europe, with a mild climate surrounded by “gentle” seas. We have the largest variety of agronomic products in the world, and we could serenely sustain ourselves both energetically and productively. The problem is that for mostly political causes we are forced to buy electricity, gas and products from abroad, many of which are of far inferior quality to what we produce here only because there is an agreement made by others without our being able to intervene in any way.

From the perspective of some entrepreneurs, it is impossible to give higher salaries because there is no economic cash flow to guarantee a year-end operating profit. Businesses are literally being bled dry by taxes and the cost of raw materials and energy sources; therefore, if anything, the fault lies not so much with the entrepreneurs themselves as with a system that forces entrepreneurs to make below-cost job proposals to try to make ends meet.

Different discussion is for those who have good cash liquidity but exploit the situation in their favor…. These are the classic “furbetti del quartierino,” i.e., those who offer off-the-books jobs to those receiving citizenship income. I don’t think there is even a need to comment.

Conclusions

Continuing to pay salaries without getting anything in return is no longer possible, and this is an objective thing given the accumulated economic debt that is currently supposed to be around 2600 billion euros. Reforms must be made and they must be made immediately because at this rate the situation will continue to worsen and I dare not imagine in what condition we will ever be able to leave this Italy to our children.

[starbox]

L'articolo Citizenship Income – Considerations proviene da RENOR & Partners S.r.l..

The facts

Reading an article in Corriere della Sera titled “Smart working, in Italy slows down while in EU it increases: here’s why,” data were reported on the number of workers in smart working in Italy and the rest of Europe.

In the post-pandemic only 2.9 million workers are in smart working compared to the potential 8 million workers who perform tasks that could be done remotely, or about 37 percent. The number is declining: how can we be surprised I say?

The pandemic from Covid has been a kind of “test case” for this working mode dictated by a simple business need: “rather than closing the company, I prefer to continue working by enabling people to work from home.” Of course, the smart working mode cannot apply to all work sectors. Imagine the restaurant industry. Certainly a waiter cannot work from home. Many other sectors, however, such as offices, could safely work from anywhere in the world if the subject is paperwork, software development or other activities independent of showing up at a location.

If Italy is lagging behind, it is because something probably didn’t work on the test bench, and asking “what” may not have worked properly brings to mind some geographic reasons, some organizational reasons, and some reasons that go along with data regarding the Digital Divide. In an Openpolis article you can see a graph showing the percentage of households covered by Internet service for each region of the nations of Europe. Italy, especially in the center-south is among the last next to Romania and Greece. This might already be an indicator, but I believe that the motivation should not be sought here, because probably a company that proposes smart working to employees does so aware that its employees have an internet connection or that, those who do not, take the opportunity of saving on travel expenses, to invest on an internet connection even mobile. No. I believe that the real problem should be sought in other…

What may be the factors?

Productivity

An entrepreneur who retraces his steps and decides to bring workers back into the office does so because he realized that the smart working opportunity was not being taken up by employees. He does so because he realized that working in smart working was not being met, or the numbers that were being made by being present in the company were not being made. Whose fault is it? This time it must be said: the worker’s. Because if a worker fails to reap the benefits of smart work where he or she no longer has to spend an average of 200 euros a month on fuel to travel to work resulting in the protection of the ecosystem (money that stays in his or her pocket), where he or she can sleep an average of half an hour to an hour longer in the morning, and where he or she no longer has to deal with traffic on the way home from work, then it is good to retrace his or her steps.

What other reasons could there be?
An entrepreneur has to think about business productivity, and only a moron would go back observing an increase in productivity with the mode in smart!

But can it only be the employee’s fault? In part it could also be the fault of the entrepreneur!

Lack of tools for monitoring

If productivity is the issue, it could be solved with some monitoring…. However, entrepreneurs are often uninformed about expendable technologies for facilitating smart working and how these technologies can help them check their employees’ performance in real time. Smart working cannot be improvised. It is a terrain that must be carefully prepared to make it actually productive; because it should be emphasized, smart working if done right can make a company produce much more!

Politics and bureaucracy behind smart working

Italy is an over-regulated country. Almost no other country in Europe has a legislative system equal to Italy’s. This article by “Truenumb3rs” shows how we went from 20th to third last in the OECD rankings.

Is Politics to blame? Definitely, but I think it is actually a promiscuous responsibility: partly of Politics, partly of the Italians. Laws are made when there is a need to regulate, and the need arises at the point when someone takes improper actions in a still unregulated terrain, ergo, at that point it must be regulated.

It would take some common sense

I can think of the once unregulated, now over-regulated drones as an example.
When the first drones came out, there were no restrictions on use, anyone could buy a commercial drone weighing 2.5Kg and start flying. Common sense should tell people that a drone flying at a height of 300mt if for any reason, such as due to a malfunction, were to fall on a person’s head, it could kill them. Therefore, if drones are foolishly flown at high altitude in the historic centers of Italy’s largest metropolises, it is clear that the government should put regulations and penalties on the table for those who do not comply. So it was that from the first violations of common-sense rules, regulations on the use of drones were passed that include holding courses and exams to acquire a license to fly Remotely Piloted Aircraft (APR), drone insurance and in cases of critical operations requests for flight permits from ENAC.

As far as Smart Working is concerned, the issue is similar, so much so that from September new regulations will be created to apply to Smart Working contracts. This represents a further handbrake on the development of this mode of work.

The protests

Italians also exhibit truly strange, indeed, dare I say paradoxical behavior. Thousands of people pour into the squares for a soccer team but remain totally indifferent in the face of laws that are going to profoundly alter and mark their way of life. There would be much food for thought here as well.

This behavior is not seen in other countries such as France where it is always the workers who take to the streets. Is this then a lack of organization orintent?

Even geography does not help us

Italy is called the “beautiful country,” we have a unique geography that does not induce citizens to focus solely on work. We have hundreds of thousands of attractions, we are totally surrounded by the sea, we have perhaps the best cuisine in the world, an excellent climate mitigated by the “good sea,” we are geographically like a baby in the cradle. We live in an ecosystem that provides many distractions compared to a country where there is no better way to “kill time” by working.

Cultural degree

Let us remember that Italy used to represent “the cradle of Culture.” A total decline is objective, demonstrable through the closing of theaters, the closing of orchestras, poor investment in universities and research, and, in general, the “disappearance of beauty.” A country where the level of culture drops precipitously is a country increasingly enslaved by the system, unable to understand and comprehend, and therefore represented by people who need leaders to rely on who create laws that are difficult for them to understand.

Common sense often stems precisely from culture….

Smart working could be a solution to so many problems related to pollution, to the quality of life of the individual that will see more and more blurring in Italy because of, let’s face it, mostly the Italians themselves, who have not been able to apply the norms of common sense even in a context that is totally in their favor…

[starbox]

L'articolo Smart working: yes or no? proviene da RENOR & Partners S.r.l..