[jbstack]

You want it, but then you closed by explaining exactly why you shouldn't want it. Plus, the new baseline isn't neutral (as in, everyone is the same again). If humans can now do 10x the work as before, the employer doesn't need the same number of humans to carry out its work. So the new baseline is actually "let's keep 1 employee and fire the other 9", unless the business can find a way to suddenly expand 10x so that it needs 10x as much work done.

[TeMPOraL]

> So the new baseline is actually "let's keep 1 employee and fire the other 9", unless the business can find a way to suddenly expand 10x so that it needs 10x as much work done.

If they have any surplus of money (or loans) they'll try, so those 9 employees may end up becoming team leads or middle management, trying to start new initiatives to get the 10x expansion (and 100x improvement).

The market isn't anywhere near efficient enough to directly translate productivity improvements into labor reductions. Thankfully, because everything that's nice and hopeful and human lives within the market inefficiency; a fully efficient market would be a hell worse than any writer or preacher ever imagined.

[sikewj]

lol that has nothing to do with market efficiency.

I’ve seen a number of your posts where you talk about topics you clearly are not all that well versed in, with such confidence when you’re plain wrong.

[TeMPOraL]

Of course it does have to do with market efficiency, of which the inertia and surplus within companies (especially large ones) is a part.

> I’ve seen a number of your posts where you talk about topics you clearly are not all that well versed in, with such confidence when you’re plain wrong.

I'm sure it's true. However, since you brought it up, can you be more specific and name three?

[LinXitoW]

Yes, but in the long run, the market expects growth and innovation, not just doing the same thing with fewer workers. Especially when every other company can just buy the exact same advantage for the same price.