5 ms·

That's really not the author's point. I think this quote illustrates his point better: "Online shopping came along in the 1990s but retailers struggled to adap

by hliyan 9y ago

That's really not the author's point. I think this quote illustrates his point better: "Online shopping came along in the 1990s but retailers struggled to adapt business processes to the internet. They needed to build complementary infrastructure such as fulfillment centers, and, the authors note, customers had to adapt their habits, as well." The lag between commercialization and widespread adoption is wider than we think.

heisenbergs 9y ago
Lag is probably the wrong word. It's a misconception that adoption should be instant. It took a good 50 years for the electric motor to supplant the steam engine, despite it being superior in virtually every way. Tech adoption takes time, given that many things need to be re-learnt/engineered. It's why i'm positive that there won't be swathes of unemployeed people due to tech. It will happen gradually, as it has always been, and people will have to be shifted into different and more productive employment types. It has always happened this way, and will likely continue to do so.
- hateduser2 9y ago
  I don’t think “it’s always happened this way so it probably will continue “ (although you explain this further) is a very sophisticated or for that matter accurate analysis. There’s the status quo and then there are major events that upend it. If anything could ever upend the status who like this, it’s tech. It’s like business cycles.. usually things are fine but they aren’t always fine.
- starlust2 9y ago
  Converting a user operated machine from a steam engine to electric engine doesn't remove the user. Converting to a computer operated or assisted machine does.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    If the electric engine can produce the same things ten times faster, you've just removed nine-tenths of the users. Sure, someone is still around, but then again, automatic factories still have some people supervising them - just much fewer.
    - mjburgess 9y ago
      Increasing worker productivity has always lead to fulfilling larger a demand. What is missing from all these discussions is that human wanting is essential infinite. The more productive you can be at making something, the more it will be taken for granted and a new thing wanted. Demand is infinite. Work is created to supply it. There is no amount of labour that will ever exhaust it. All automation does is increase the space of "taken for granted products". The infinite space of potential products/services for human beings to supply still exists. 80% of the UK economy is already services from people to other people.
      - smaddox 9y ago
        Human wanting and economic demand are not identical. In order for human wanting to turn into economic demand, those who want need to have money (in a capitalistic society). If there are limited numbers of jobs and limited forms of need/want-based income redistribution, then demand is limited.
      - djrobstep 9y ago
        This ignores diminishing returns of additional labour and consumption. If we reach the happy situation where robots are providing us with the things we need for a good life almost automatically, why would we continue to work ourselves to the bone for additional goods and services that won't increase our happiness much? Most people would rather just work less. In fact, our current level of economic output is enough to give every household a comfortable life, even if we worked substantially less. Unfortunately the system is structured to maximize labour time, keep us economically insecure, and use us all as grist for the capitalist mill, rather than maximizing leisure time and quality of life.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  As long as there are more productive employment types available. Anyway, I disagree. I think the sheer speed of the change will create a disaster much sooner than automation quality will make humans obsolete. It took more than a century for the steam engine to replace animal engines around the world, then the electric engine replaced it in half a century. Things are accelerating, and are already much faster than by that time.
  - Chathamization 9y ago
    Productivity growth has actually been relatively low recently[1]. There doesn't seem to be a trend towards acceleration. [1] https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
- methodin 9y ago
  It seems the world today the timing is entirely based on the country. In the U.S. the time it took for regular mobile phones to be supplanted by smartphones is ridiculously small yet the same cannot be said for many countries in the world. It seems to me that countries slow to make progress in tech will be the victims of it initially. It won't take that long to do so once the economic and logistical aspects of are ironclad.
lucidguppy 9y ago
If Sears and Service Merchandise had simply held out for a couple of years and put up a web store front - the Dow would look a little different today. Customers had adapted in the late 80's to something like Amazon (only problem was waiting for a few minutes after checkout) - but then they adapted to big box stores (made possible by big banks and supply chain software) - which ended up being a huge diversion of resources in the late 90's early 00's. The empty husks of retail are a testament to that.
- sixtypoundhound 9y ago
  Hmm... that presumes sears (the organization) can change fast enough to identify and embrace the right business model. There's more than a website to running a successful e-commerce business. Internal culture at Google / Amazon, especially during the growth phase, was likely very different than your typical Fortune 500.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- DrScump 9y ago
  It's not clear to me why Service Merchandise (and its predecessors like Best Products, Consumers Distributing, and Unity Buying Service) all failed back then. They certainly couldn't compete now with the economies of scale of Walmart or Amazon. It's odd that online grocery shopping is so huge now given Webvan's crash and burn in that space not all that long ago.

by hliyan 9y ago

heisenbergs 9y ago

Lag is probably the wrong word. It's a misconception that adoption should be instant. It took a good 50 years for the electric motor to supplant the steam engine, despite it being superior in virtually every way. Tech adoption takes time, given that many things need to be re-learnt/engineered. It's why i'm positive that there won't be swathes of unemployeed people due to tech. It will happen gradually, as it has always been, and people will have to be shifted into different and more productive employment types. It has always happened this way, and will likely continue to do so.

hateduser2 9y ago
I don’t think “it’s always happened this way so it probably will continue “ (although you explain this further) is a very sophisticated or for that matter accurate analysis. There’s the status quo and then there are major events that upend it. If anything could ever upend the status who like this, it’s tech. It’s like business cycles.. usually things are fine but they aren’t always fine.
starlust2 9y ago
Converting a user operated machine from a steam engine to electric engine doesn't remove the user. Converting to a computer operated or assisted machine does.
- icebraining 9y ago
  If the electric engine can produce the same things ten times faster, you've just removed nine-tenths of the users. Sure, someone is still around, but then again, automatic factories still have some people supervising them - just much fewer.
  - mjburgess 9y ago
    Increasing worker productivity has always lead to fulfilling larger a demand. What is missing from all these discussions is that human wanting is essential infinite. The more productive you can be at making something, the more it will be taken for granted and a new thing wanted. Demand is infinite. Work is created to supply it. There is no amount of labour that will ever exhaust it. All automation does is increase the space of "taken for granted products". The infinite space of potential products/services for human beings to supply still exists. 80% of the UK economy is already services from people to other people.
    - smaddox 9y ago
      Human wanting and economic demand are not identical. In order for human wanting to turn into economic demand, those who want need to have money (in a capitalistic society). If there are limited numbers of jobs and limited forms of need/want-based income redistribution, then demand is limited.
    - djrobstep 9y ago
      This ignores diminishing returns of additional labour and consumption. If we reach the happy situation where robots are providing us with the things we need for a good life almost automatically, why would we continue to work ourselves to the bone for additional goods and services that won't increase our happiness much? Most people would rather just work less. In fact, our current level of economic output is enough to give every household a comfortable life, even if we worked substantially less. Unfortunately the system is structured to maximize labour time, keep us economically insecure, and use us all as grist for the capitalist mill, rather than maximizing leisure time and quality of life.
marcosdumay 9y ago
As long as there are more productive employment types available. Anyway, I disagree. I think the sheer speed of the change will create a disaster much sooner than automation quality will make humans obsolete. It took more than a century for the steam engine to replace animal engines around the world, then the electric engine replaced it in half a century. Things are accelerating, and are already much faster than by that time.
- Chathamization 9y ago
  Productivity growth has actually been relatively low recently[1]. There doesn't seem to be a trend towards acceleration. [1] https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm https://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
methodin 9y ago
It seems the world today the timing is entirely based on the country. In the U.S. the time it took for regular mobile phones to be supplanted by smartphones is ridiculously small yet the same cannot be said for many countries in the world. It seems to me that countries slow to make progress in tech will be the victims of it initially. It won't take that long to do so once the economic and logistical aspects of are ironclad.

lucidguppy 9y ago

If Sears and Service Merchandise had simply held out for a couple of years and put up a web store front - the Dow would look a little different today. Customers had adapted in the late 80's to something like Amazon (only problem was waiting for a few minutes after checkout) - but then they adapted to big box stores (made possible by big banks and supply chain software) - which ended up being a huge diversion of resources in the late 90's early 00's. The empty husks of retail are a testament to that.

sixtypoundhound 9y ago
Hmm... that presumes sears (the organization) can change fast enough to identify and embrace the right business model. There's more than a website to running a successful e-commerce business. Internal culture at Google / Amazon, especially during the growth phase, was likely very different than your typical Fortune 500.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
DrScump 9y ago
It's not clear to me why Service Merchandise (and its predecessors like Best Products, Consumers Distributing, and Unity Buying Service) all failed back then. They certainly couldn't compete now with the economies of scale of Walmart or Amazon. It's odd that online grocery shopping is so huge now given Webvan's crash and burn in that space not all that long ago.