4 ms·

Good point, but don't ignore the opportunity created on a continuous basis because of these "Uscan machine" scenarios. The extra value created here can be trad

Good point, but don't ignore the opportunity created on a continuous basis because of these "Uscan machine" scenarios. The extra value created here can be traded for things that would have previously been unattainable, which in turn grows other industries and markets. A good example is the relatively recently materialized cell phone industry, which was viewed as a luxury not but 15 years ago, and is now practically ubiquitous. This has added $40-$100/mo to the average functional adults expenditures. While it may have replaced the $50/mo spent on the home phone line, you're replacing that with $40-$100/mo for each person in the home. Mobile phones increase our productivity by saving time and nowadays allow us to make more informed decisions on the spot. This example continues because there was a fundamental shift in the type of labor employed by these mobile phone companies. In the early days of the industry, specialized salespeople pulled large salaries selling expensive phones and highly trained technical people answered technical support calls. Now that costs have dropped massively and reliability has drastically improved, these people have been replaced by relatively low wage employees (customer service reps and salespeople), and opportunity has opened at the "bottom." I do agree that we waste a ridiculous amount of our capital on societal "overhead" that could otherwise be put to good use.

Retric 17y ago
Mobile phone infrastructure costs less to deploy than landlines. It's true that high end handsets are more expensive, but for many people they are also replacing a camera, PDA, MP3 player, USB stick, and Gameboy. It's also true that we have been employing about the same number of people for a long time, but much of this is simply people reducing their labor rate until people will employ them again. I like many people on HN are at the extreme edge of the bell curve and can easily find work. My point is simply that the need for a highly skilled workforce seems to be shrinking. Starbucks could probably replace 1/2 their workforce with automation and produce better coffee. They don't do this for several reasons, but mostly because there is such little demand for their workers.

Retric 17y ago

Mobile phone infrastructure costs less to deploy than landlines. It's true that high end handsets are more expensive, but for many people they are also replacing a camera, PDA, MP3 player, USB stick, and Gameboy. It's also true that we have been employing about the same number of people for a long time, but much of this is simply people reducing their labor rate until people will employ them again. I like many people on HN are at the extreme edge of the bell curve and can easily find work. My point is simply that the need for a highly skilled workforce seems to be shrinking. Starbucks could probably replace 1/2 their workforce with automation and produce better coffee. They don't do this for several reasons, but mostly because there is such little demand for their workers.