Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Yes, but there's reason to believe this time it's different. New technologies and new businesses are not labour-intensive. You only need so many software developers to keep them afloat. Kodak once employed 150,00 people. When Instragram was bought out, it employed less than 20. Google has a valuation bigger than IBM's ever was, and employs a tiny fraction of the number of people IBM employed at its peak. Even in professions like legal, accounting, and medicine, grunt-work is being automated. Five developers can create a product that puts thousands or tens of thousands of out of work.
So what do people transition to? Services? Are our grandchildren all going to be personal trainers and sommeliers? The question there is who's going to have the money for those services if 70 per cent of people are unnecessary to the economy? Maybe each mega-rich innovator and venture capitalist will employ hundreds of lackeys to serve his every need. Doesn't sound like an especially appealing future.
|
“I must study Politics and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematics and Philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.”
John Adams
I once gave this quote to my boss to attach to his morning client email (as I do everyday). He hated it lol.