Is Digital Technology Destroying The Middle Class?

ISBN: 1451654979

Who Owns The Future is a book that describes how advancing computer technology is centralizing power and wealth into the hands of those who own a network that has the comparative information advantage of having millions of its users essentially work for free. Every time you use Facebook or Google, you provide the company with valuable information that helps it increase its revenues while you forgo payment in exchange for receiving validation, executing searches, or having a place to store your photos. The author explains this more clearly:

In the past, power and influence were gained by controlling something that people needed, such as oil or transportation routes. Now to be powerful can mean having information superiority, as computed by the most effective computer on a network. In most cases, this means the biggest and most connected computer…

[…]

The only way to sell a loss of freedom, so that people will accept it voluntarily, is by making it look like a great bargain at first. Consumers were offered free stuff (such as web searches and social networking) in exchange for acquiescing to being spied upon. The only power a consumer has is to look for a better deal. The only way to say no to that deal is to transcend the role of consumer once in a while.

To be free is to have a zone around you that is private, where you can be with your own thoughts, your own experiments, for a time, between confrontations with the larger world. When you are wearing sensors on your body all the time, such as the GPS and camera on your smartphone, and constantly piping data to a megacomputer owned by a corporation that is paid by “advertisers” to subtly manipulate you by tweaking the options immediately available to you, you gradually become less free.

[…]

Instagram isn’t worth a billion dollars just because those thirteen employees are extraordinary. Instead, its value comes from the millions of users who contribute to the network without being paid for it. Networks need a great number of people to participate in them to generate significant value. But when they have them, only a small number of people get paid. That has the net effect of centralizing wealth and limiting overall economic growth.

The author, Jaron Lanier, asserts that the digital economy is destroying the middle class, and that we may have passed the point where increasing technology increases our standard of living. Everyone has access to photography in their pocket, but now what a few dozen people can do while employed at Instagram has replaced over a hundred thousand middle class jobs at Kodak while cheap labor in Asian factories construct the camera sensors.

The winner-take-all distribution we see in the internet world occurs in dating too. Elite men can now broadcast their value to larger pools of women using dating sites and internet apps, giving them access to women who would have not been able to meet these men in the past. The men who are not elite, like a Kodak employee, will find himself with no options. The non-elite men who don’t go through great pains to increase their value will simply not procreate, because today’s woman has been trained to score the most valuable man she could possibly get through extended experimentation that may last well over a decade, now with the aid of technology.

The fatal conundrum of a hyperefficient market optimized to yield star-system results is that it will not create enough of a middle class to support a real market dynamic. A market economy cannot thrive absent the well-being of average people, even in a gilded age. Gilding cannot float. It must reside on a substrate. Factories must have multitudes of customers. Banks must have multitudes of reliable borrowers.

[…]

The peasant’s dilemma is that there’s no buffer. A musician who is sick or old, or who has a sick kid, cannot perform and cannot earn. A few musicians, a very tiny number indeed, will do well, but even the most successful real-time-only careers can fall apart suddenly because of a spate of bad luck. Real life cannot avoid those spates, so eventually almost everyone living a real-time economic life falls on hard times.

This winner-take-all phenomenon is beginning to dominate every facet of human life as digital technology breaks down the barriers and levees that sustained the middle class (e.g., unions, academic tenure, taxi medallions, business licenses, etc), however inefficient they were.

If network technology is supposed to be so good for everyone, why has the developed world suffered so much just as the technology has become widespread? Why was there so much economic pain at once all over the developed world just as computer networking dug in to every aspect of human activity, in the early 21st century? Was it a coincidence?

[…]

…the Siren Servers [Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc.] channel much of the productivity of ordinary people into an informal economy of barter and reputation, while concentrating the extracted old-fashioned wealth for themselves. All activity that takes place over digital networks becomes subject to arbitrage , in the sense that risk is routed to whoever suffers lesser computation resources.

[…]

The primary business of digital networking has come to be the creation of ultrasecret mega-dossiers about what others are doing, and using this information to concentrate money and power. It doesn’t matter whether the concentration is called a social network, an insurance company, a derivatives fund, a search engine, or an online store. It’s all fundamentally the same. Whatever the intent might have been , the result is a wielding of digital technology against the future of the middle class.

[…]

Great fortunes are being made on shrinking the economy instead of growing it. It’s not a result of some evil scheme, but a side effect of an idiotic elevation of the fantasy that technology is getting smart and standing on its own, without people.

[…]

It seems as though online services are bringing bargains to everyone, and yet wealth disparity is increasing while social mobility is decreasing. If everyone were getting better options, wouldn’t everyone be doing better as well?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Whatever benefit we get from technology now will have a cost, either upon ourselves or others:

The initial benefits don’t remotely balance the long-term degradations. Initially you made some money day trading or getting an insanely easy loan, or saved some money couch-surfing or by using coupons from an Internet site, but then came the pink slip, the eviction notice, and the halving of your savings when the market drooped. Or you loved getting music for free, but then realized that you couldn’t pursue a music career yourself because there were hardly any middle-class, secure jobs left in what was once the music industry. Maybe you loved the supercheap prices at your favorite store, but then noticed that the factory you might have worked for closed up for good.

[…]

In what sense is becoming dependent on private spy agencies crossed with ad agencies, which are licensed by us to spy on all of us all the time in order to accumulate billions of dollars by manipulating what’s put in front of us over supposedly open and public networks, a way of defeating elites? And yet that is precisely what the “free” model has meant.

[…]

The CEOs will gather at the golf resort and talk about a core financial problem: In the long term the economy will start to shrink if they keep on making it “efficient” only from the point of view of central servers. At the end of that line there will eventually be too little economy to support even CEOs. How about instead growing the economy?

Technological efficiencies slightly lower the cost for all but put a significant percentage out of jobs. In the past, new technology would create as many jobs as it destroyed while improving everyone’s standard of living, but are we seeing that now with the internet? It’s great that everyone can afford an iphone which contains a camera and internet access, but is that going to put food on the table and contribute to the economy? Silicon Valley is doing well, but how about everyone else?

The wide adoption of transformative connecting technology should create a middle-class wealth boom, as happened when the Interstate Highway System gave rise to a world of new jobs in transportation and tourism, for instance , and generally widened commercial prospects. Instead we’ve seen recession, unemployment, and austerity.

There’s also the privacy issue—our information is being used as currency by the technological elite.

A related trend of our times is that troves of dossiers on the private lives and inner beings of ordinary people, collected over digital networks, are packaged into a new private form of elite money. The actual data in these troves need not be valid. In fact, it might be better that it is not valid, for actual knowledge brings liabilities. But the pretense that we have a bundle of other people’s secrets is functioning like fine modern art. It is a new kind of security that the rich trade in, and the value is naturally driven up. It becomes a giant-scale levee inaccessible to ordinary people.

[…]

Big human data, that vase-shaped gap, is the arbiter of influence and power in our times. Finance is no longer about the case-by-case judgment of financiers, but about how good they are at locking in the best big-data scientists and technologists into exclusive contracts.

Inadvertently, this book tells you how to make money in the digital age: become a siren server. Construct a service people want to use for free, register users, collect their information, analyze their usage, and then provide them with ultra-targeted advertising.

Lanier’s solution to this problem is for companies to pay its users if the information it gets from them is providing the company with revenue. Since Google makes money when you use its products, they should actually pay you every time you do a search. Facebook should pay you if liking several pages improves their algorithm that targets users with ads. Youtube’s system is close to what Lanier proposes, since through their partner program you get paid for views on videos that you upload.

In a humanistic information economy, as people age, they will collect royalties on value they brought into the world when they were younger.

[…]

The proposal here is not redistributionist or socialist. Royalties based on creative contributions from a whole lifetime would always be flowing freshly. It would be wealth earned, not entitlement.

Thanks to this book I have finally realized what a “disruptive” technology is—it’s simply a technology that destroys more jobs than it creates, concentrating wealth and power in a few hands, invariably located in Silicon Valley, under the guise of efficiency and ease.

This book has powerful ideas but loses gas after the first half and simply repeats concepts. It seemed like the first 100 pages was the book proposal and then the rest was an afterthought to fill up space. Nonetheless, the insights it provides is powerful and has changed how I see the technological “progress” that is being forced upon us all. It gets a recommendation from me.

This book review was originally published by me on Return Of Kings.

Read More: “Who Owns The Future” on Amazon

Related Posts For You

newest oldest most voted
TJ
Guest
TJ
Offline

If you want to avoid Google ad tracking, use a search engine like Duck Duck Go that does not track users.

Claire Moses
Guest
Claire Moses
Offline

∎∎∎∎∎∎❉❊❶❷❸It’s very Easy with google and rooshv < my buddy's step-mother makes $74 hourly on the computer . She has been without a job for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $14216 just working on the computer for a few hours.

official website ===—->-> SEE MORE DETAIL

Margaret Boykin
Guest
Margaret Boykin
Offline

∎✈✈✈✈✈It’s very Easy with google and rooshv < my buddy's step-mother makes $74 hourly on the computer . She has been without a job for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $14216 just working on the computer for a few hours.

official website ===►►►►►► SEE MORE DETAIL

Brad Linder
Guest
Brad Linder
Offline

Enjoy holly days rooshv … ➨➨➨ kEEP READING

Gokus-penson
Guest
Gokus-penson
Offline

How to increas our Acount balance with rooshv … kEEP READING

incognitoperson
Guest
incognitoperson
Offline

Must procreate

Joe Shanley
Guest
Joe Shanley
Offline

Capital idea.

Leads
Guest
Leads
Offline

This is a Tsunami that simply cannot be stopped. Time to get on the winning side of the glass, or get steamrolled by someone who did.

Fenetre
Guest
Fenetre
Offline

Roosh, this author has given himself away with the timely mention of the “coincidence” of the financial crises and the technological boom, as well as the use of the word “austerity”.

This technology is indeed disruptive, and in an economy where there is a sound monetary system, the job losses would be quickly made up by job gains in other areas of the economy. In the same way, as the motor car took over, many people lost jobs in stables, and wagon makers, etc.
Whereas that capital went from local horse-and-cart manufacturers, to local motorcar factories, the capital now travels internationally. There is a huge boom happening, but it is leaving the maladapted economies behind. The people with the relevant technological skills are most in demand and the jobs are desperately needed there.
Of course, the author fails probably fails to mention how recent Western generations have most likely been living off the savings of the past, and have failed to move with the times. Western countries consume, and do not produce. Western peoples expect a living to be handed to them. All the other hallmarks of degeneracy have been too well documented by your good self.

Another factor probably not discussed is the devaluation of the people’s money. The aforementioned musician would have likely saved for a rainy day, and if bad luck came along he could use his savings before transitioning into another occupation.
How can people save nowadays? The value of their savings decreases annually thanks to government monetaristion of debt and ensuing inflation.

The impression the author gives is that nobody should have to think for themselves, and that jobs should be handed to people. Western nations have been festering for years and the bandages are only now starting to be removed. It should come as no surprise that there are fewer and fewer jobs available in places where nothing (of intrinsic value) is being produced.

pinetree
Guest
pinetree
Offline

Wrong!! Extreme wealth concentration is the real problem that disrupts efficient economic transformation. The minority elite rich are now using digital media to further concentrate wealth and eliminate jobs. The real creators of jobs are by demand by the middle class – and has always been. Most people are decent and want to work. You might want to check out this banned Ted Talk — by a wealthy entrepreneur : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

Fenetre
Guest
Fenetre
Offline

It’s hard to know where to start with this Ted Talk. It’s basically Krugman/Keynesianism. He puts the spending of the consumer at the start of the story, but where do the consumers get their money? How can the Middle Class create demand if they don’t have jobs to provide the money to pay for these demands?

His premise that high taxes on productive people leads to more job creation is patently absurd.

Rich people don’t just put their money under the mattress. They place it in banks, or institutions that lend the money to others to grow their businesses, etc.
Why are these people rich? Some political connections for sure. But overall, these are people who are innovative and smart, and they have been able to take advantage of the rapidly changing environment.
But maybe there are fewer relatively rich than before because there are less smart people nowadays? Most people are lazy and like to blame successful people for their failures.
It’s no secret that declining productivity and the cost of doing business in the US has led to less demand for American workers.

pinetree
Guest
pinetree
Offline

You are so wrong when you say people are lazy and like to blame the rich. It is also offensive, The fact is most people are decent and want desperately to work — as it is in human nature that productivity gives content and happiness.. The fact is most of the elite got rich by wealth transfer not wealth creation. Real wealth creation has mostly come from small to mid size businesses. The owners make a good pay check but are by no means rich. Most American workers do not want to be rich – but a reasonable job with a reasonable paycheck. You also fail to understand that the real health of an economy is not how much it produces — but how much it circulates. Just like how blood circulates in a body for it to be healthy. The rich concentrate wealth meaning restrict blood flow — most by wealth transfer. I am sure you will have a rebuttal. But it is quite astonishing the right wing fanaticism that continues to blame the poor and middle class.

Fenetre
Guest
Fenetre
Offline

I have made my points which you have brushed aside.
You ought to firstly examine yourself before you accuse others of fanaticism. I do understand Roosh has already banned you from his forum.
No smoke without fire as they say.

bucky
Guest
bucky
Offline

pinetree says: “The fact is most people are decent and want desperately to work”

i’m with you on this one, fenetre. while you certainly do meet motivated people who want to work in the US, they seem like the exception to me, not the rule. i’m a fit guy with a good job. i’ve lived overseas many times, and i know several foreign languages. i don’t claim to be a great PUA, but more often than not i have at least one beautiful woman in my life. once in a while another guy will comment enviously on one of those things. as a younger, more idealistic man, i used to enthusiastically offer advice. i don’t any more because i’ve long since realized that they almost invariably stop listening when i get to the part about how achieving anything of value requires discipline and hard work.

"guest"
Guest
"guest"
Offline

“achieving anything of value requires discipline and hard work”

Damn straight. A lot of both.

pinetree
Guest
pinetree
Offline

Bro, just for a moment, take a deep breath and go into a calm meditative state. Then watch another TED talk by the enormously wealthy commodity broker Paul Tudor Jones –
https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_tudor_jones_ii_why_we_need_to_rethink_capitalism?language=en
US capitalism is in dangerous shambles bc of wealth inequality. If that is not rectified then the whole sinks. You are definitely an intelligent writer and thinker. No reason to over complicate matters. The bottom line is extreme wealth inequality in the US is going to sink the ship. This is my last reply. There are more important things to do then engage in going no where debates on internet forums. May you find peace and happiness.

pinetree
Guest
pinetree
Offline

The rich do not create value, they exploit it. The real creators of value are usually the small scale business sector who genuinely compete. The rich and elite (in the form of wealthy corporations) are the biggest socialists – they do not compete but cooperate with each other — and run to the govt for a bail out when they lose money – and they pay hardly any tax. There has been a mass transfer of wealth by the elite which put govt in enormous debt. No value was created but wealth was transferred — govt debt (means the wealth of the middle and lower class) was transferred to the elite. Yet there are so many brain washed right wing fanatics –mostly male — who fail to see the correlation.

Henz
Guest
Henz
Offline

That’s retarded.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

Corporatism and fractional reserve banking are the bane of society.

Giorgi
Guest
Giorgi
Offline

Agreed. This is typical “it is not Faaairrrrrr!” talk from some liberal marxist hack. Being paid by Google or Yahoo for a search?! Are you nuts? I am no economic expert, but this will skyrocket the companies’ expanses, followed by the rise of prices and job cuts. This is economy 101!
As of now, digital technologies and digital market is the only thing that is remotely advancing at this point, while heavy industry, space exploration and energy are stagnating at the level of 1980s. If we do what this moron says, it will halt even this little progress we barely managed to achieve in 21st century with iphones and google.

Daniel Pedersen
Guest
Daniel Pedersen
Offline

Whats your blog called? That was profound

pinetree
Guest
pinetree
Offline

Roosh Bro, though you banned me from your forum a while back (not entirely your fault)– I have to say I am becoming a big fan of your writing. You simplify and clearly explain complicating ideas. Keep up the good work bro. I look forward in attending your talk when you visit TO.

FirstLine
Guest
FirstLine
Offline

Yes and no. Increased exposure to media content is what is ruining our minds. More and more people suffering from depression. And health officials still don’t have solution to help out folks. The human brain can endure so much until it falls into madness.

Reeturn Of Pogrom
Guest
Reeturn Of Pogrom
Offline

….orr into the hands of Jewmosis :))

TyKo Steamboat
Guest
TyKo Steamboat
Offline

you’re a fag

TheK
Guest
TheK
Offline

Reading the writings of guys like G.K. Chesterton has shown me that wealth concentration is the main reason why all economies eventually fall into ruin. the only difference between capitalism and communism is who the slave master is. You can either be enslaved to the government or to a plutocracy of rich folks. What we need is a system like distributism that is designed to prevent wealth from concentrating into too few hands and to prevent the greedy from doing too much damage (i.e. too big to fail). There would still be some inequality, but it would mostly be due to differences in real talent and work ethic and not due to gaming the system and engaging in unethical behavior.

The main problem is that people eventually start believing that money has intrinsic value when it is really just a medium of exchange, thus fiat currency is born. This leads to usury, debt and inflation which all hasten the concentration of wealth. We need to focus on the stuff we need and truly improving standards of living. The fact is that the ultra rich provide almost no real value to others and are just giant parasites who suck up and waste wealth. This has always been the case since ancient times. Rome had the latifundia which are the ancient version of corporations. The concentrated wealth needs to be freed up and redistributed to those who actually do real work and render real value.

Henz
Guest
Henz
Offline

Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Your Orange Toothbrush
Guest
Your Orange Toothbrush
Offline

The evidence doesn’t back up this assertion at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/25/upshot/shrinking-middle-class.html?abt=0002&abg=0

From 1967 to 2000 the middle class shrunk in correlation with tremendous upward mobility.

From 2000 until 2013 the middle class shrunk 2% in correlation with downward mobility. Stagnant? Sure. Destroyed? Not even close. If the web is negatively disrupting employment, given a) the surge of massive web disruption and b) one of the worst financial collapses in history, why has there been only a 2% loss? Said combination should have produced a catastrophic result, no?

The U.S. (but not limited to) economy just needs time for people to migrate to the health, science, and tech industries. I’m not convinced however that we’ll get there before complete cultural deterioration and leftist ideology chokes everyone out.

Mike549
Guest
Mike549
Offline

Why should middle class Americans pursue STEM degrees when our government is importing cheap labor to fill those jobs? This seems like something nobody is talking about. Most Republican candidates want to curb illegal immigration but they say nothing about legal immigration and guest worker programs, which really demoralize our own citizens.

And like you said, at the same time, the Great and the Good are steadily destroying traditional American culture in favor of American 2.0.

Zuikurkler Yamizangthang
Guest
Zuikurkler Yamizangthang
Offline

that’s why when I get online, I make sure my time isn’t wasted. Besides coming to rooshv and returnofkings, when I do surf online I make sure it’s only stuff that I will learn or potential earning abilities like computer programming. Forget about going to youtube and watching some useless prank shows and other useless movies.

Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Guest
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Offline

Yeah…but it all goes away if there’s ever an EMP.

gordax
Guest
gordax
Offline

EMP’s don’t work because any amount of metal even tin foil can block an emp’s discharge. they simply aren’t powerful enough

Nathan
Guest
Nathan
Offline

These plans to consolidate money, power, and knowledge are the product of “Luciferians”/Satanists.

But whenever conspiracies like this are brought to light, they should be interpreted in view of the supremacy of light.

God is letting the devil do his thing, and the devil thinks he’s winning, but the Scripture is clear: “what the devil meant for evil, God uses for good.”

I agree with everything you say here Roosh–but recognize: whenever Satan has a plan, God is 10,000 steps ahead.

The WWW and other technologies are the devil’s plan to enslave the masses, but God will use it in our generation to bring the knowledge of the light to every person on the planet. Such a feat has never been possible until now.

Reeturn Of Pogrom
Guest
Reeturn Of Pogrom
Offline

NOOO, PLANS R PRODUCT OF JEWMOSIS!!!!!

Bow down altar goy or I lay your soul to waste! Respect to Jewmosis or face bann!!

Michael D'Vere
Guest
Michael D'Vere
Offline

New technology always causes problems as it causes old industries to die and then there is a time lag while new industries are created that then employ the surplus labour.

In the past new technology has often replaced unskilled work.

The new technology on the horizon will replace both unskilled and skilled work – including desk work.

Almost all driving jobs will disappear in the coming years. So will much of the manual work in warehouses and supermarkets. The coming together of robotics and artificial intelligence will cause this to happen.

But also this will have a great impact on the middle class jobs that always seemed safe. The desk jobs. The brain jobs. With AI and robotics and things like voice recognition many of the management jobs, jobs making business decisions and calculations and also many of the jobs that involved dealing with other people will also disappear.

All the counter jobs in hotels and banks and customer service points can be replaced with technology.

Those who will benefit will be those that own capital. Those that own. Whether they own shares in businesses, property, or the companies that build and operate this technology it is the owners who will reap the benefits.

One day new jobs may be created to replace those that have been lost, but with the acceleration of AI and robotics there may never be a time where society can catch up and create jobs to replace those that are lost. Almost every business function that was previously carried out by a human will be handed over to a non human.

Wealth will flow to to those that already have wealth.

Have you ever wondered why it’s still necessary to work so many hours just to live a basic life. After so many thousands of years of technical progress and improvements in productivity? It’s because the extra wealth and productivity that was created was not shared equally but very much went to those that owned the land, property and businesses.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Second-Machine-Age-Prosperity-Technologies/dp/0393239357/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1432749279&sr=8-1&keywords=the+second+machine+age

Fenetre
Guest
Fenetre
Offline

What about the role of inflation? In my opinion, the reason we have to work more than ever is because the value of the unit we’re being paid in is and has been in constant decline. This is the real factor at play here, and I cannot understand why it is not even mentioned.

silent
Guest
silent
Offline

Skimmed the article, did a Ctrl+f for “inflation” and sadly only you and another commenter (commentor?) were savvy enough to mention it. Huge oversight, but not exactly surprising.

“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”

-Henry David Thoreau

Reeturn Of Pogrom
Guest
Reeturn Of Pogrom
Offline

No, it’s women demanding nice shit from men who are willing to work long hours to appease them, along with the necessary creation of “make work” jobs (i.e., gov’t, non profit, etc) to keep people distracted that has prevented people from working less.

And another reason is that what you consider to be a “basic life” was vastly different from how people lived “basic lives” in the 19th century. A 19th century basic lifestyle would cost maybe $300 a month today. A 21st century basic lifestyle is $1500 a month.

cibo
Guest
cibo
Offline

The argument for “disruptive technology” is that while the lower profit margins will kill the old order of companies, the idea is that the new companies based on the new technology with different cost structures will make everyone richer on average. In theory at least. The Economist mentioned this issue before and the biggest winners are the: companies, consumers and entrepreneurs; and in agreement with your article, losers being the standard employee.

If more people took up the helm of entrepreneur, there is a wealth of services available to reduce the cost and effort to deliver a product to market. You yourself are able to communicate with a large audience and sell books which are able to be sent on demand at low costs through an expansive logistic network. But for the person who might have driven the truck or printed the books himself, he’s kind of fucked. And this has been the major issue of humanity lately since a study by Oxford forecasts that 40% of the labor force will be automated away.This speaks to the importance of good education/work experience, though not necessarily STEM or even college, to keep ahead of the curve.

At some point all the jobs that can be easily done by computers will be. Even with the buzz in my area about “deep learning”, machines still have issues with fuzzy data (image recognition, text meaning, handling conflicting information) . Hopefully, human’s ability to deal with fuzzy data and ability to create ideas and predictions outside and without data will keep it relevant. At the moment the best chess teams are human/computer teams for this reason.

I do worry sometimes about what the future holds though.

Luisaceo
Guest
Luisaceo
Offline

Reminds me a lot of this TEDx talk, with the difference that this guy argues that job destruction is ok. He basically describes how society would find a way of using automated technology to provide for humans without the need for us to work at all. We would have food, shelter and commodities all for free since technology would be working for us and energy will be cheaper in the future. Only a few jobs would be required and the rest of humans would be free to “play” or find fulfillment through other means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYIfeZcXA9U

Ron Last
Guest
Ron Last
Offline

I’ve owned several successful businesses, based on selling gear I invented online, as well as original content I have written that has gone viral.

Here is my take:

Because of the Internet, just about whatever original content you write or products you invent – will be stolen, copied, re-worded without attribution to the original author / inventor.

Invent or improve upon a gizmo and it is a success you can sell to others? Within months – often a few days – competitors will copy your idea and sell it for less on Amazon, Ebay, and their own websites.

Often I wonder how they can sell so cheaply. Are they taking into account expenses, taxes, upkeep? Or maybe they are not paying taxes (40%+ of business profits are taken by .gov for redistribution to those who did not earn it).

The copycats only copy your successes. You have to eat the cost of your inevitable failures (9 or 99 out 100 ideas do not work out, which costs money and time). This gives copycats a tremendous edge.

Also, inevitably most things come down to who is willing to sell for the cheapest. All well and good for the consumer – that is, until the consumer himself loses his job at the widget factory because the owner of some other factory is willing to pay slave wages so his product is cheaper than your product.

This is exactly what we are seeing. Because anyone can easily sell online, nearly everything comes down to the cheapest price. This utterly destroys small businesses by the tens of thousands because the consumer inevitably goes for the cheapest prices while unknowingly sealing his own fate as his employer downsizes or forgoes wage and cost of living increases in an attempt to stay competitive.

This article is spot on correct.

dc
Guest
dc
Offline

Let me sum it up: people are selfish.

Jeb
Guest
Jeb
Offline

You know, I recall… somewhere back in the recesses of time, that Socrates (thourgh Plato) said that women should not try to mimic men’s role, to prevent what happened in Sparta.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot… should MEN continue to mimick women’s role? They have obviously DONE IT AGAIN! (ie. take over men’s role, as they have since men have been living in caves)

Why do we have to fight over “roles?”

Let women take over the home AND the workplace.

Look at what that frees up for us! The time to philosophize, to experiment, to invent…

Let women take over the mundane.
.
Get to work, Biatches!

Men have better things to do! (Literally!)
.

Joe Shanley
Guest
Joe Shanley
Offline

Wow. I never thought about it that way.

Cat5krusher
Guest
Cat5krusher
Offline

Very good article. Something we need to know and keep in mind in the near future. The key to surviving is providing a service that cant be outsourced or downsized. The population is getting older and more multicultural. Paticularly asian and latino. Asians will be the upper class and latinos will be their servants. Provide a service that is immune to the future. It wont be long till hackers start resenting the silicon valley elites and hit them hard. Hackers will be the new mob.

Bearded Bear
Guest
Bearded Bear
Offline

The premise that current lost jobs are irreplaceable is wrong. Innovation brings unemployment, yes, but the unemployed have to move to a new area and acquire a new set of skills. Technology makes our jobs less tedious and more cerebral, and also more productive requiring less work time and more free time. The irony is: people are wasting their free time in useless apps, which is killing their own jobs and they can’t find a new job because they never learnt to do something useful. There are things like the automobile industry that emerged in the last century and created countless jobs. Similarly, there are a lot of areas in which computers are not sufficient: medicine, engineering, art, math, etc. We don’t what will be created next. However, who wants to think and work hard? No one, we are living amongst lazy idiots. They deserve to be crushed.

On the other hand, it’s true that nowadays men with higher SMV get more women because of technology and globalization, but why is it wrong? Men seek women with higher SMV and women seek men with higher SMV as well. This has always been natural. Now it’s just easier.

Reeturn Of Pogrom
Guest
Reeturn Of Pogrom
Offline

Hmm u writte and u wrong. Jewmosis never lett people work less, they finnd things on internet Jewmosis no likee. But lazee goy need be crushed. You wannt shiny shekel help kill Goy??

Kevin Lauder
Guest
Kevin Lauder
Offline

Has anyone seen the ad for Persona Synthetics? I suggest searching for it if you haven’t. It’s amusing to see how the female responses on Twitter differed from the male ones. They are illustrative of how women are subconciously treat this a threat. It makes me suspect even Western women understand what they are valued for subconciously.

A synthetic being resembling a woman might actually be superior–should it be programmed as a both a sex slave and domestic servant. Should these devices become commonplace, I could see them putting pressure on women to behave even more docile than even previous generations.

I think there are many men that would be content to forego developing their skill at game and just pay some money. Buying a product for instant gratification is going to be the preffered option in a consumer culture. There are men at such a disadvantage, that it would make rational sense for them to turn to this alternative.

TheSearchForTheFountainOfYouth
Guest
TheSearchForTheFountainOfYouth
Offline

“content to forego developing their skill at game and just pay some money”

“Game IS LABOR” You’re basically this unpaid actor, every hour you spend is time which = $

ME
Guest
ME
Offline

Technology isn’t just costing people jobs, it’s changing our very nature. People today are more connected than ever and yet far less trusting of each other and less able to converse civilly. We’re exposed to entirely too much information, so entire ideologies now must be shrunken down in to a tweet of 144 characters or less. There is a huge amount of knee jerk emotionalism and people tend to take everything personally. We also misjudge each other. We become very brave behind our keyboards and tend to treat each other like crap because there are so few consequences. So doxxing and threats become a form of bullying and social engineering and people begin to perceive each other as nothing more than two dimensional avatars and trolls.

Look at how families now try to interact, with everybody on their iphones texting someone else. That inability to relate to each other, our ever declining attention spans, and our unwillingness to treat each other as actual human beings has far reaching consequences.

TheSearchForTheFountainOfYouth
Guest
TheSearchForTheFountainOfYouth
Offline

“People today are more connected than ever and yet far less trusting of each other and less able to converse civilly. ”

The simple reason behind that is because, when you are having an offline conversation, you have to ACTUALLY be clever on the go, or you’re boring, 99% of people prefer to text because they can edit what they are saying, and take their time to think about something which would be higher quality and therefore give them an advantage in the quality of their communication skills and reflect on their character in a better way

our psychology takes the safe choice, to narrow the conversations into a format we can edit , it makes everyone like us better, if we don’t like something we said, while typing it we can proof read it before hitting “send”, we can never take back something we said though, although the advantage to talking is that usually what you say is not “saved”

make sure there is a balance or people will be surprised how boring you are lol

Reeturn Of Pogrom
Guest
Reeturn Of Pogrom
Offline

Heheheheh smile smile smile

Chic Noir
Guest
Chic Noir
Offline

Very true

jared thompson
Guest
jared thompson
Offline

Until almost every evil jew is dead, western white peoples and many others will be killed off by the bankers and their backers.

tropicalhotdognight
Guest
tropicalhotdognight
Offline

Rampin’ up the rhetoric on the way to the loony bin

Reeturn Of Pogrom
Guest
Reeturn Of Pogrom
Offline

Heheheh the loonee bin runn bye JEWMOSIS! o.0 smile

Reeturn Of Pogrom
Guest
Reeturn Of Pogrom
Offline

Uuuu will neever kill Jewmosis, like weed in garden, or herpees on your geerlfriend

WillR
Guest
WillR
Offline

This gives me an idea, what if instead of google paying people, you just make your own search engine that pays users for each search. Everyone would switch over and you would be making millions

Reeturn Of Pogrom
Guest
Reeturn Of Pogrom
Offline

Haha Jewmosis write scippt make ten millions searches every houir!! smile

Not tat I needd money…:)

Cat5krusher
Guest
Cat5krusher
Offline

Nowadays more ofte than not, a lot of technology now is not a good idea to buy. Particularly consumer electronics like phones etc. Apple is trying to make life impossible without owning an iphone. They are making deals with other companies that are part of your life to be the middle man to supposedly make your life easier. Just like what they did with Itunes and making it incompatible with other music players and other sources of music. They are trying to make everyday life incompatible without an iphone to have access to basic functions in life. Like your garage door, home security system, banking, shopping etc..

We need to be smarter about what kind of technogy we accept. Right now millions of idiots are shaping the way we live by not thinking about the big picture on how reliant we’ve become on technology. Not to even get into how customer service sucks across the board with these companies and how cheaply this shit is made where you have to constantly doing firewire upgrades or the model is no longer compatible with the latest technology so you HAVE to buy a new one.

A few months ago i quit facebook and my life has become remarkably better. No noise from S.J.W’s or constantly seeing a friends latest meal they just ate. No drama, no bombardment of negativity of whats going on in the world.

I also saw this cell phone addiction we have now as a huge social problem a long time ago. I refuse to get a smartphone. I have too much courtesy and respect for my friends to sit texting distracted and not present in the company of friends. I have an old style clamshell phone because i see the phone for what it is… a fucking phone! Not an ashhole lifestyle choice of always needing validation.

I see this epidemic of assholery everywhere I go. Couples at a table in a restaraunt both with their faces glued texting and whatever stupid shit they are doing besides being present and engaging in the basic courtesy of acknowledging their partners presence. I see these asshole when their children are with them, ignoring their kid while they check in on whatever stupid social network platform they happen to be addicted to.Taking pictures of their food and posting them.

Restaraunts have found that the epidemic of slow service is due to all these narcissists taking their time ordering while multitasking on their phones and then taking food pictures. All the while slowing the average turnover of a party at a table FORTY MINUTES longer than a present non cell phone affected party. You want to know why your food takes longer or it takes so long to get a table at a restaraunt? Blame the assholes taking their time fitting in ordering food while they check into all their social media sites,taking pics of their food and posting them.

We need to be smarter and think long and hard if new technolgy is going to be benefitial to the quality of our lives or if its going to make us another victim to proprietary enslavement.

TheSearchForTheFountainOfYouth
Guest
TheSearchForTheFountainOfYouth
Offline

“how reliant we’ve become on technology”

Argriculture is technology

Your clothes are technology(sewing Etc.)

Using your voice to make words and sounds into a communication form…. that’s technology, Writing, that is technology, A pen is a piece of technology, It has an ink cartridge in this small tube to only a small amount comes out at a time, with a ball point that rotates so the ink sticks to it

I mean… EVERYTHING is technology, We are beings who devise sophisticated branches of reasoning and build upon them to improve our survival outcomes

any sophisticated technique which constitutes sophisticated knowledge based on “Logic” is an “ology” “logy” = Logic”

technology = Technique/ Branch of knowledge “technology

Logy also comes from “knowledge” Which orignally meant Being on the

KNow” Ledge, because from a ledge standing high up you can see further away, Our language is old and many words we use were invented when people were pretty stupid, so the history of words is interesting, but underneath the history of words is the story of the entire culture.

Any kind of “logy” refers to “Logic”

-ology word-forming element indicating “branch of knowledge, science,” now the usual form of -logy. Originally used c. 1800

One could argue that the body is “technology” evolutionary bio-technology, a complicated technology

Technology is just a materialist reproduction of biology, A computer is our attempt to build super-consciousness, and we succeeded in terms of speed, storage, and everything else, to the point these computers can now build detailed worlds, like a portal into any experience

TheSearchForTheFountainOfYouth
Guest
TheSearchForTheFountainOfYouth
Offline

“I also saw this cell phone addiction we have now as a huge social problem a long time ago. ”

Yes, phones are annoying that is why retinal holographic lenses are the next option/step to solve it, Hands free so you’re not looking at this tiny square in your hand or your pocket that you lose

Not only do these retinal lenses augment reality, but they also serve as glasses and improve your vision, further than improving vision, they will have very good magnification capabilities, so you can simply zoom in and out, ETC, blink your eye to take a picture, ETC blink twice for another function… Tap the side of your eyebrow for a different function… You get the idea.. it will have a tiny camera in it so you can use hand gestures as another way of interfacing with it,

This is the future, Cellphones will look stupid 5 years from now

these lenses will also have hacks and mods where you can change the way people and reality looks with a simple “aPP or download” so we’ll have these lenses that can change the “skin” of life

Reeturn Of Pogrom
Guest
Reeturn Of Pogrom
Offline

Dey Unabomber sed same thing. You want jail leek him, bigmouth Goy??

skillet
Guest
skillet
Offline

I am experimenting with the Robinson Crusoe approach. Have a long way to go, but those urban homesteaders in San Diego are an ideal I have set for myself.

Using ultra-primitive abandoned skills and enhanced scavenger skills to be less reliant on monetary purchases.

First phase is easy. Just stop buying chemicals and fertilizer for lawn and just leave grass clippings to fertilize lawn. That is the beginning. But the paradigm shif can be refined to the point that you are growing must of your food. Then processing using skills of your grandparents.

The urban homesteadersw have pushed that to the ultimate level where they even make their own fuel.

Intelligent families of old used multiple talents in the edification of a homestead. I do not forsee myself in the near future being able to forgo working outside the home.

However, it each homestead had its own operation of sorts, it would be good. For example, I can put my son to work while he is home from college picking beans, squash, blueberries, feeding chickens.

He still has his sanwich shop jobs. But if people can use their hobbies to construct, it is a plus.

A buddy of mine sews holes in socks or knits as he watches TV.

The key is a personal philosophy where you are not a spectator consumer in life. Contributing to another person’s gig by being a slug.

Titan000
Guest
Titan000
Offline

The aristocracy of the nerd.

angela
Guest
angela
Offline

????????? rooshv====== —->SEE INFO< <<<< >
?????????

Artirles
Guest
Artirles
Offline

< col Hiiiiiii Friends…''——–.''???? ?++dailysnark++Jeremiah . you think Herbert `s storry is super… last tuesday I bought a great Porsche 911 since I been earnin $9845 this – four weeks past and even more than ten grand lass-month . it's actualy my favourite work I've ever done . I began this nine months/ago and right away earned more than $71, per hour . Get More Info < Find More='' ……..''

????????????????????????????????????????????????????t

Artirles
Guest
Artirles
Offline

< col Hiiiiiii Friends…''——–.''???? ?++dailysnark++Jeremiah . you think Herbert `s storry is super… last tuesday I bought a great Porsche 911 since I been earnin $9845 this – four weeks past and even more than ten grand lass-month . it's actualy my favourite work I've ever done . I began this nine months/ago and right away earned more than $71, per hour . Get More Info < Find More='' ……..''

????????????????????????????????????????????????????r

Taegan Goddard
Guest
Taegan Goddard
Offline

How to earn money with rooshv… kEEP READING

albeta
Guest
albeta
Offline

ooookay so I’ve been dating this guy for over four months now. BEFORE I START MY STORY. im not looking for advice. just advicing you.

so I honestly love being with him. he makes me feel hot and special and wanted and honestly his smile lights up my life. my heart still skips a beat whenever I see him. I still get butterflies when he touches me.

I love him. and he loves me.

recently he’s been starting to be distant. and it’s fine; I let him have his space. until last month he started talking about wanting to break up.

I was very upset. I called my friends and I was crying and all that jazz.

I went to visit one of my friends, who happens to live near the guy. on my way to her house, I ran into my boyfriend. we sat down and talked for a while. he doesn’t know what he wants. I cried. ahe said that he wants a break because he feels so much pressure to be good at a relationship. he also wonders if sometimes that he might also be happier single. but then he says hes with me and he laughs and he’s happy and he doesn’t know.

so towards the end of the conversation I suggested that if a relationship is like a house, and a lightbulb burns out, we don’t burn the house down. we fix the light bulb.

(prior to this conversation he only saw 2 options- ending it or staying together) he chose ending it, i talked to my friend about it and he gave me a contact email for me to ask for help and i did, in contacted the love doctor and he told me what to do and when i did it, he prayed for me and my biyfriend came back begging me that he was with another woman who did a spell on him that made him leave me annd i should take him back. i had to choice, i had to take him. all thanks to The love doctor who helped me. his email is [email protected] if you have any problem in your marriage or relationship please do well to contact him he is the best.

Poted1932
Guest
Poted1932
Offline

< ✜✱✪✪✲✜ +rooshv +*********….. < Now Go R­e­­a­d M­o­r­e

38

FrederickBPerez
Guest
FrederickBPerez
Offline

Your first choice shanghaiist Find Here

Onsere1985
Guest
Onsere1985
Offline

< ✜✱✪✪✲✜ +rooshv+*********….. < Now Go R­e­­a­d M­o­r­e

7

Eduardo
Guest
Eduardo
Offline

This article has more leftism than expected from you. Thinking of networks paying everyone is as absurd as communism or unconditionally basic income, it simply does not fit the bill, or even if it fitted, the consequences would be nasty. Also, the article talked a lot about employment, without mentioning a simple unemployment rate or comparison along the years. These networks capture only a tiny percent of the value they provide. Do you think you could have lived all these years selling your books without searchers doing searches? I know that I couldn’t have lived the way I lived the last years without social networks and app stores. And so does millions of people. Thousands of Instagram users worldwide are getting money for posting products in their timelines, of course the creators get paid, not content consumers. Thousands of business world wide could spread their business, getting touch with clients and engage them through Facebook pages, generating billions or trillions of “invisible” money. And the list goes on and on and on. The music industry is nowhere were it was, but of course if you want economy to be static, then you are a leftist.

Fooper
Guest
Fooper
Offline

< ?????? +rooshv +*********….. < Now Go R­e­­a­d M­o­r­e

36

Tony Trucano
Guest

Do upper class people use the internet as often as the middle and lower class?

M
Guest
M
Offline

I wrote my final year project on this topic focusing on the political and economic dangers it will bring. I need to polish it up and share it online.