3 ms·
He's not the first to make this claim and I question whether it is so clear cut. For instance, it seems very likely that some of those 40 million jobs created b
by nnutter 17y ago
He's not the first to make this claim and I question whether it is so clear cut. For instance, it seems very likely that some of those 40 million jobs created by start-ups had an effect on established business. Either through competition for growth or even competition for existing market space.
- thwarted 17y agoObviously the people who work in those jobs need to come from somewhere. Are you implying that competition isn't a desirable outcome?
- queensnake 17y agoSlack and inefficiency keeps people employed and spreads the wealth. Until we've got Utopian redistribution, every technical improvement puts someone out of work. Like, say, travel agents. What do people like that do now?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- rictic 17y agoThat's silly, zero sum thinking. Unless the market for a good is saturated (everyone who would buy it will), making the production process more efficient creates both wealth and (often) new jobs as the producing company can now grow. As an example, imagine someone develops a bit of tech that improves software development by 100%. Would a dev shop with this tech fire half their programmers, or would they expand their speed and scope and grow faster as a result?