4 ms·

Destroying jobs with technology is one of the primary ways we've improved productivity over the past half century. I understand not everyone thinks that's a net

by Danieru 12y ago

Destroying jobs with technology is one of the primary ways we've improved productivity over the past half century. I understand not everyone thinks that's a net positive, but if you're one of those people then you shouldn't try to create productivity software. At the macro unless your name is Oracle your productivity software will reduce the number of people needed to accomplish a task. Assuming your software works of course. Patio11's main product is to replace secretaries, while improving customer retention.

fookyong 12y ago
I'd be very curious to know who actually is the end-user of patio11's software. Is it really the business owner? Or is it the salon/dentist receptionist. Because if it's the latter, then nobody lost their job - he just enabled that person to do their job better. The reason I ask is because I started my startup http://beatrixapp.com http://beatrixapp.com thinking the same thing - that the end-user would be the business owner. It turns out that only in a small number of cases is that actually true. The main segment is still social media managers, my software makes their life easier, it doesn't replace their entire job spec and I don't think it ever will.
- patio11 12y ago
  Is it really the business owner? Or is it the salon/dentist receptionist. Yes.
- lazylizard 12y ago
  productivity is the enemy of employment (by definition?). until man comes to terms with some basic income scheme or something.
  - loumf 12y ago
    I'd say, in general, yes, but not by definition. One example is that you need a rare expert to do something and there are no extra unemployed experts available to you, but you have more work. If you make the ones you have more productive, you don't reduce employment. It is also true if there is a large fixed cost per employed person. For example, a very expensive machine. So, you have work for another person, but can't afford the extra machine. Making the people you have more productive also does not reduce employment. It could increase employment if profit per person makes the machine more affordable, and then you can hire someone.

by Danieru 12y ago

fookyong 12y ago

I'd be very curious to know who actually is the end-user of patio11's software. Is it really the business owner? Or is it the salon/dentist receptionist. Because if it's the latter, then nobody lost their job - he just enabled that person to do their job better. The reason I ask is because I started my startup http://beatrixapp.com http://beatrixapp.com thinking the same thing - that the end-user would be the business owner. It turns out that only in a small number of cases is that actually true. The main segment is still social media managers, my software makes their life easier, it doesn't replace their entire job spec and I don't think it ever will.

patio11 12y ago
Is it really the business owner? Or is it the salon/dentist receptionist. Yes.
lazylizard 12y ago
productivity is the enemy of employment (by definition?). until man comes to terms with some basic income scheme or something.
- loumf 12y ago
  I'd say, in general, yes, but not by definition. One example is that you need a rare expert to do something and there are no extra unemployed experts available to you, but you have more work. If you make the ones you have more productive, you don't reduce employment. It is also true if there is a large fixed cost per employed person. For example, a very expensive machine. So, you have work for another person, but can't afford the extra machine. Making the people you have more productive also does not reduce employment. It could increase employment if profit per person makes the machine more affordable, and then you can hire someone.