Jim,
As far as productivity. The main proponent of the ‘growth is going into more and more ‘trivial things’ or leveling off’ is Peter Theil. Marc Andreeson has taken the other side. They debate on You Tube around this.
See:
( I actually found Marc Andreeson’s arguments a little more compelling here as I recall - neither was great though).
I agree that ‘growth’ is a good goal (within reason, and ideally in productive sectors of society). But, there will need to be some rethinking of the basic social contract in many countries and globally - whether on the left or the right.
It’s not really growth that’s the whole of the issue, it’s the rate of the change and the ‘time needed to retool skills’ and get hired. As long as there are enough ‘young people’ with tech skills coming in and new tech jobs, an economy can keep growing - but the more instability created and pockets of unemployment and underemployment, the harder it gets to hold that society together. Look at cities or demographics where employment has been low for decades and you will see major problems - where it becomes entrenched and hard to escape.
Papers are those like the attachment. (the oft-sited Oxford paper).
There are many others. I also work with many entrepreneurs in tech companies weekly. See other comments like this:
Here is a pro-con listing by Pew (more or less jobs):
Yes, technology will also create new jobs - like mechanics servicing the robo-cashiers that are replacing some % of the staff at supermarkets and movie ticket lines. But - having looked at this, I think there will be huge pockets of social disruption and instability. There will be large swaths of older workers who can’t ‘transition’ into something new. When there is / are large amounts of economic instability, people start to call (maybe rightly) for protections and political instability grows.
Large sections of Philadelphia (where I lived for 12 years) and Detroit and the industrial northeast have never recovered from the loss of manufacturing jobs. But in total, these losses for the US were fairly small. Nevertheless, for the neighborhoods hit hardest, they were devastating. Poverty, crime and failing schools have been entrenched for many, many decades. When these massive changes hit regional economies and much larger social groups, there is likely to be much more societal level volatility and pressure. The initial ‘call’ will be for much higher taxes on the ‘rich’ and other legislation. But the rich are highly mobile and at least equally very well connected politically. They can leave the city, state or even country, and they can and will fight back.
Or look at San Francisco and the tensions between the ‘natives’ and the ‘silicon valley immigrants.’ In many cases, the natives are simply being displaced do to ‘inflation’ from rising rents, cost of living, etc. They are moving to Portland, Austin, AZ, etc. But when the amount of displacement grows, so does the instability.
So, my argument is not that that ‘investors’ will do badly. For those at the ‘top’, these may be the “best” decades in history. There will be great opp’s for investments and players in VC and early stage tech. There will be great opp’s for entrepreneurs. But for those ‘at the bottom’ and the ‘middle’, they will face some of their toughest decades in a long time, likely since the 1930’s. Especially for people in America who have had a relatively easy run since 1950. There are two major forces to fight now - ‘The world is flat’ and the forces of cheap global human labor and ‘technology and automation.’ There are also likely potential rising environmental challenges - and growing instability in terms of storms, etc - and rising dangers from non-state actors who can access more and more powerful WMD’s and whose ideologies grow in pockets where there is economic displacement and lack of opp’s.
The whole ‘gig economy’ is touted as a blessing, and may be for some, but it also looks to me like a stripping away of the labor movement and unions that took decades to build - and had many flaws (don’t get me started on the problems in education that the teacher’s unions cover up and prevent people from fixing). But the labor movement also serves a necessary purpose and only arose because unfettered capitalism tends to abuse workers.
I am still a guarded optimist overall and believe in the power of people. But, I do think we are facing major strains that are new and unique and not just ‘business as usual’ - but these will play out over decades, not weeks or months or years.
Brexit is part of the earliest innings (maybe even the warm up) to all this.
But I hope I’m wrong.
@Steve
I have little idea about the problems of global debt right now. It really will likely depend on economic growth rates. If they flat-line or crater, problems will likely be much larger. At some point, do have to expect some real, significant levels of global inflation. But, I’ve been thinking that for 8 years and it’s still not coming due to low money velocity. So, who knows when? I am still not a real holder of TIPS, gold or real estate. Maybe I should be, but not doing it really for a variety of reasons.
Best,
Tom
The_Future_of_Employment(2).pdf (1.09 MB)