Great article but I have 2 issues I’d like to raise.
Firstly, wtf does “IOT” stand for?
I mean sure, to you the answer is obvious because you’re an expert in the field. For people like myself who came here to find out more it’s a tad disappointing :/
Secondly, isn’t the potential threat from ‘IOT’ that it will create a systemic loss of jobs?
In other words it may create a situation in which the new jobs it creates are also taken by machines, not humans.
Advances in technology and changes in the structure of the market have lead to largescale job losses before, sure. And in the past manual labourers (for example) who lost their jobs as corn harvesters could move on and become manual labourers who mine coal.
But what if machines take away all the manual labour jobs?
This would be a systemic loss of jobs.
Innovation and entrepreneurship would not solve this problem, because any new low-skill jobs that are created would also be taken by machines, not humans.
Plus, we may get to a stage where it takes longer to train a human to do a high skills job than it takes a tech department to create a machine that can do the same job.
‘IOT’ may end up taking away jobs, then spawning innovations that create new jobs, and then taking those jobs as well.
Fortunately, there is already a solution: a universal basic income, funded by a very high top tax rate on those who make trillions on the backs of these new innovations.
And that is not a bad world. In fact in many ways it’s a better one than the one we have now.