4 ms·

>'technology gone done taken our jerbs' followed by: >I sometimes daydream about how big you could grow a company (in revenues) without ever having more than

by pyoung 13y ago

>'technology gone done taken our jerbs' followed by: >I sometimes daydream about how big you could grow a company (in revenues) without ever having more than ten people. Do you not see the contradiction there?

Moto7451 13y ago
Why is there a contradiction? Sounds more like a formula for a lot of small to medium sized businesses being started. If there were no Big-COs that provide thousands of jobs, people wouldn't roll over and decide not to work. On the contrary, it's likely more people would form their own business out of necessity. Now, would this be better for the US economy in general? Maybe. Maybe not. When I was in college I spent a stint as a Political Science major (focusing in IR). When learning about Asia I remember a lot of discussion about Taiwan's economy being successful in part because of their strong small to medium sized businesses. Taiwan's government seems to be a fan of this idea as well: http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=127151&CtNode=429 http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=127151&CtNode=429
kelnos 13y ago
Not necessarily. 100 companies each with 10 people may net more money per company than 1 company with 1000 people.
brc 13y ago
No, definitely not. A company with big revenues and a small staff means a very productive company - someone delivering lots of value for very little work. Whenever you have a productivity multiplier working away, jobs are being created. The jobs might not necessarily be for the company, but the productivity benefits show up somewhere. It's easy to employ people - just pay lots of people to do low productivity or negative productivity jobs. But to make a better society with better jobs, you need productivity to go up. This requires people to lose their current (less productive) jobs, but the forces created when this happens always create more jobs somewhere. Case in point....before Henry Ford automates his production line, cars are built by hand slowly. It is a low productivity industry. He automates, and builds many more cars, for much higher revenue per person, than before. The price of the car drops as a result. More people can now afford cars, which means lots more people can use this new tool to do their job more productively. Eventually all this increase in productivity increases employment. There are specific cases of unemployment (coachbuilders, manure collectors) but there is a rise in general employment.
- pyoung 13y ago
  Taking your example a step further (and subsequently bringing it into a more modern context), what happens to those jobs when Google (or someone) builds a mass production driver-less car? Sure, a few thousand engineers will be employed, but that's barely going to put a dent in the millions of taxi/truck/delivery drivers that now find themselves out of work. This is a matter of opinion, as none of us can predict the future, but I believe that one of the purposes and goals of technology is to replace and reduce the drudgery of human labor. If I was a VC, I would be investing in almost any labor-replacing tech startup that came across my desk because the market for the tech has already been validated (companies paying for the labor) and you are bringing a more efficient solution to that market. You believe that this process somehow results in more jobs. I believe, baring massive changes in the education and social infrastructures, that this process inevitably leads to fewer jobs.
  - brc 13y ago
    >what happens to those jobs when Google (or someone) builds a mass production driver-less car? Lots of people will no longer be employed in low-productivity jobs of driving vehicles. That is exactly what will happen. >as none of us can predict the future Correct. And Henry ford didn't foresee Pizza delivery. >You believe that this process somehow results in more jobs The process creates higher productivity. Higher productivity leads to higher living standards and more jobs in aggregate, though not for the affected workers. > I believe, baring massive changes in the education and social infrastructures, that this process inevitably leads to fewer jobs. For this to be true, you must explain why this time it is different. It's not the fact that a few thousand engineers replace millions of drivers. It's the fact that the increased productivity drives down the cost of things. The increased productivity also releases human capital and actual capital to pursue new things and create new jobs. This leads to new jobs in entirely new industries. It's comment to lament and say 'what are these new industries going to be?'. But as already stated - nobody can see the future. We don't know, but we must accept that it will happen, simply by looking at all of human history. The fashionable argument currently is that you need to reform education to make this possible, but other large-scale changes in technology have happened when people usually didn't finish high school. When a person needs to learn new skills, they generally find a way of doing so.
josephlord 13y ago
In addition to what others have said you can subcontract significant amounts of work (e.g. using SAAS systems rather than in house) supporting other companies. Of course managing significant contract will become much of the work for the ten employed people.

by pyoung 13y ago

Moto7451 13y ago

Why is there a contradiction? Sounds more like a formula for a lot of small to medium sized businesses being started. If there were no Big-COs that provide thousands of jobs, people wouldn't roll over and decide not to work. On the contrary, it's likely more people would form their own business out of necessity. Now, would this be better for the US economy in general? Maybe. Maybe not. When I was in college I spent a stint as a Political Science major (focusing in IR). When learning about Asia I remember a lot of discussion about Taiwan's economy being successful in part because of their strong small to medium sized businesses. Taiwan's government seems to be a fan of this idea as well: http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=127151&CtNode=429 http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=127151&CtNode=429

kelnos 13y ago

Not necessarily. 100 companies each with 10 people may net more money per company than 1 company with 1000 people.

brc 13y ago

No, definitely not. A company with big revenues and a small staff means a very productive company - someone delivering lots of value for very little work. Whenever you have a productivity multiplier working away, jobs are being created. The jobs might not necessarily be for the company, but the productivity benefits show up somewhere. It's easy to employ people - just pay lots of people to do low productivity or negative productivity jobs. But to make a better society with better jobs, you need productivity to go up. This requires people to lose their current (less productive) jobs, but the forces created when this happens always create more jobs somewhere. Case in point....before Henry Ford automates his production line, cars are built by hand slowly. It is a low productivity industry. He automates, and builds many more cars, for much higher revenue per person, than before. The price of the car drops as a result. More people can now afford cars, which means lots more people can use this new tool to do their job more productively. Eventually all this increase in productivity increases employment. There are specific cases of unemployment (coachbuilders, manure collectors) but there is a rise in general employment.

pyoung 13y ago
Taking your example a step further (and subsequently bringing it into a more modern context), what happens to those jobs when Google (or someone) builds a mass production driver-less car? Sure, a few thousand engineers will be employed, but that's barely going to put a dent in the millions of taxi/truck/delivery drivers that now find themselves out of work. This is a matter of opinion, as none of us can predict the future, but I believe that one of the purposes and goals of technology is to replace and reduce the drudgery of human labor. If I was a VC, I would be investing in almost any labor-replacing tech startup that came across my desk because the market for the tech has already been validated (companies paying for the labor) and you are bringing a more efficient solution to that market. You believe that this process somehow results in more jobs. I believe, baring massive changes in the education and social infrastructures, that this process inevitably leads to fewer jobs.
- brc 13y ago
  >what happens to those jobs when Google (or someone) builds a mass production driver-less car? Lots of people will no longer be employed in low-productivity jobs of driving vehicles. That is exactly what will happen. >as none of us can predict the future Correct. And Henry ford didn't foresee Pizza delivery. >You believe that this process somehow results in more jobs The process creates higher productivity. Higher productivity leads to higher living standards and more jobs in aggregate, though not for the affected workers. > I believe, baring massive changes in the education and social infrastructures, that this process inevitably leads to fewer jobs. For this to be true, you must explain why this time it is different. It's not the fact that a few thousand engineers replace millions of drivers. It's the fact that the increased productivity drives down the cost of things. The increased productivity also releases human capital and actual capital to pursue new things and create new jobs. This leads to new jobs in entirely new industries. It's comment to lament and say 'what are these new industries going to be?'. But as already stated - nobody can see the future. We don't know, but we must accept that it will happen, simply by looking at all of human history. The fashionable argument currently is that you need to reform education to make this possible, but other large-scale changes in technology have happened when people usually didn't finish high school. When a person needs to learn new skills, they generally find a way of doing so.

josephlord 13y ago

In addition to what others have said you can subcontract significant amounts of work (e.g. using SAAS systems rather than in house) supporting other companies. Of course managing significant contract will become much of the work for the ten employed people.