The Mighty Have Fallen

The 1st article of the 8-week series on how blockchain and Solana Pay can offer an alternative economy because I believe everyone has their higher calling.

Hello, everyone!

This post is the first of a series consisting of 8 weekly Medium posts about the nadir point of the job market and how blockchain offers a different viewpoint to improve the world.

Big shoutout to Solana Superteam UK which enables this research. The timeline, should you wish to see how the huge topic is broken down, is as follows.

Let’s start.

It is said that there are two topics that will affect your life irrespective of your attention to them: money and health [1]. And what is covered in this week’s article relates to both, one more direct than the other: jobs.

It is discouraging to open LinkedIn to read another “last day” post and involuntary “Open to Work” photo badge.

Based on this reference [2], the number of lost jobs in the tech sector in 2023 alone is a staggering over 220,000.

Would we want to keep the massive brainwashing of the capitalistic economy where earning a single income is the sole lifestyle sustainer? The American’s (or it can be any country in the world, truthfully) dream of the old idea that has been too ingrained in our society is obsolete. However, the damage has been done. Similar to uprooting an oak tree that’s been growing for decades, it requires a massive undertaking to change the mindset at the collective level.

However, you felt that it was due to happen. The “tuition fee” of the learning that this mindset no longer serves us has been ramping up to be paid, starting from the pandemic.

What good might it have, the pandemic, you ask?

It’s not about the dalgona coffee or sourdough starters, or the game of Fortnight. It’s about purging the idea from the planet about the capitalistic way of working to earn money to support our living.

I used to want to put the word “unrelated” before starting the next sentence, but upon second thought, everything is related, each system communicates with each other.

The collective consciousness on this earth has sensed that the hyper-masculine way to achieve things, the rushing, chasing, and overall grinding giving birth to the hustling culture is damaging. Have you noticed that there is an underlying current yearning for changes lately? For example, more people are aspiring to spend the time doing what they love or simply the work of choice, or the rising awareness that there’s something more to life than just waking up — working — collecting a paycheck — going home — rinse and repeat?

Perhaps, it started with the global pandemic that forced us to mainly stay home. We realised there was more to human interaction at home, the people who have always been in touch with us physically but we neglected because we were busy elsewhere. We realised that nature walk stimulated our brain cells more than sitting in our sad, gloomy cubicles for hours on end, ranging from five days a week to every day.

From Decentralised to Centralised Economy

It’s an oversimplification if we think that a centralised economy only refers to the socialist governments in history. No, what we want to observe is the centralised in regards to the existence of corporations, given their decision-making is centralised.

Corporations are the law or sovereignty operating within the de jure law, or countries/governments. This is because once you join a company as a worker, you’re bound to follow the rules and decisions of the local governments in the company, be it your management or even shareholders. And although the de jure law has some degree of intervention over the conduct within a company, the capitalistic outlook wins, in a way that we know the governments had little to say about the massive layoffs.

The economy in the pre-industrial era was relatively decentralised, working in siloes of family or village businesses, sometimes in cooperation. The dawn of industrialisation brought forward the big companies which amassed individuals from the villages, concentrating in the cities in urbanisation movements. As a result, young people left their family homes and towns, flooding the cities to earn better and stable wages (as opposed to the cyclical farm crops, for example), pursuing the dreams of getting more, buying more, and rising to the top. The children they raised also saw an increase in life quality, with youth becoming more educated than their parents or grandparents.

At the top, the wind flew in favour of the private companies and governments, which saw making profits in a laissez-faire economy achieve the nation’s prosperity dreams.

I leave this simple diagram here to give a hint of what I propose as a little yet impactful solution, elaborated in the coming weeks.

(I made the simple diagram with Excalidraw)

The Capitalistic Model

I read the Think and Grow Rich book, authored by Napoleon Hill. The book was first published in 1937, so the copy that my friend bought and I borrowed was the new edition, while still keeping the original words. In several chapters, Hill praised the American capitalistic model. It was relatively sound considering the nuance and context where the book was written.

The world was in the middle of The Great Depression which eventually led to World War II [3]. Although there was no single cause pinpointed for it, experts believed it was the perfect storm of multiple factors, ranging from the crash of the stock market in 1929 (Hill’s book recounted a few stories of the investors at the end of their ropes when their stocks were worthless) to the massive bank runs.

When life pushes a pendulum to one end, it is only natural to swing towards the other end. From the deepest pit of economic crisis, it is only humane to want to strive for extreme richness, an example of overfitting or overcorrection which taints the human psyche. Loss aversion psychology, anyone?

Moreover, the history of the United States as a nation, which was briefly recounted by Hill to motivate his readers in the spirit of pursuit of richness, makes it logical and sensible that building nationwide wealth was the obvious goal the founding fathers had, and the spirit had been living on. The essence of the pursuit was to reach financial freedom, instead of channelling the wealth back to the British overlords, and to gain a footing as a new nation that could ensure the welfare of all her citizens.

The noble endeavour, also crafted with the imbued sense of spirituality, yielded tangible indicators as showcased in a certain chapter, where a family of modest income could enjoy different items from all over the US and even other countries (tea from China). This is the valid reason for Hill to sing his praises upon capitalism and what motivated him to write down the actionable steps spanning different chapters with one sole purpose: to accumulate wealth — to be rich. Hence, the book title.

Is it wrong to be pursuing wealth? Obviously, not. As mentioned by Hill, by the spirit of pursuing wealth, to accumulate capital, men and women in the past era worked hard in the assembly line or the management, allowing the goods and services to reach the farthest end of the customers, benefitting everyone and keeping the economy brimming with opportunities. A nation that was growing.

So, how did it fail us? When did it turn from the capitalistic economy benefitting us to turning people on the streets, jobless and homeless as being on the short end of the stick?

Late-Stage Capitalism

Although it’s more of a buzzword than a scientific term, late-stage capitalism has been featured as the headline for many articles.

It implies the difference between the capitalism intended to restore and revive the Americans post-Great Depression.

However, we know that there’s no panacea, especially for something as complex and human as our financial system. What used to work in a certain period might not work anymore when replicated or extrapolated.

The summary below is taken from [1].

As World War II ended, the soldiers returned to the US. The Fed and president decided to lower the interest rates, giving rise to the era of consumerism. With lower interest rates, borrowing became cheaper, and companies flourished to replace exports temporarily. It makes sense because the largest economies to receive their exports (Europe and Japan) also faced ruins after the war. The war veterans stepped back into work. With work and stable income, there entailed bigger aspirations in life, such as starting a family. The mortgage was affordable to service. Borrowing money became a common practice. Houses were refurbished bigger, and the median income was higher.

However, as the US entered the new era of Reaganomics, it was altogether a new economy. The discrepancy in the median income growth between the top 1% and the 99% was > 70%. People were richer than before, but the inflated prices also made their increasing wages afford less than before.

We don’t need to rehash what happened in 2008 to see that consumerism and uncontrolled spending culture destroyed what the US (and the majority of the world who copied their strategies, adjusted them, or learned from them) applied for economic growth.

When it rains, it pours.

The greed, people’s expectations towards some living standards, the tech boom during the pandemic, and over-hiring, in particular, to cater to the rising demands, all were like individual cards in the house of cards. With one flick of a finger, everything falls.

When the going gets tough, when it comes to choosing between servicing shareholders’ dividends or maintaining employees, you know what rationally wins.

The tech sector layoffs in 2022 and 2023 provide enough evidence that focusing solely on capital accumulation is not the answer. The missing part is humanity. When we factor in that workers need jobs to earn them a salary to feed and clothe themselves and their dependents, how dehumanising it must be to lose that source of income. On the other hand, despite the subsidy or grant schemes from governments around the world, other significant issues cannot be neglected, either, such as:

• The worrying development towards a recession economy. As more people become out of work, more are willing to simplify or downsize their expenses to ensure the remaining emergency savings stretch until the next job intake. Consequently, fewer goods and services change hands.
• Residency status and homelessness. Tech companies attract top talents from abroad. For migrant workers, their journey to become expatriates in other countries to pursue better opportunities would be cut short, leaving them no choice but to move back to their home countries. The relocation process is demanding. And for people who could normally afford mortgages, they could end up on the streets if no support from relatives or friends who could house them temporarily.
• Loss of purpose feelings. Even when you’re at no risk of getting evicted from your domicile and food is still served on the table, the loss of meaningful work impinges on a looming psychological issue of lowering self-esteem. When it negatively impacts one’s dignity, this is a sign to evaluate how our society works.

Now, if you think that this motivates people to elbow competitors left, right, and centre, you’re only partially wrong. Gen Z, the newest batch of workers in the job market, have a different outlook about this. With the financial downfall in sight, their approach towards employment and personal finance is the radical opposite: opting for less hustle, aiming for the “soft life” culture [4] (side note: as a millennial, I’m also an advocate of this subculture, my Substack is about the slow living and feminine leadership). The defeatist, nihilist view of life displays how pessimistic the overview of our world economy is (again, this is not just in the US, but in the thriving economies in the world). I encourage you to read this survey in case you want to feel more depressed with the overall sentiment of Gen Z, the future bearers. It says that the staggering 2 in 3 of Gen Z are not sure if they will ever have enough money to retire.

The role of AI as a threat to work

I brought up AI in this post as it’s a common factor which heightened everyone’s anxiety, ranging from the workers whose jobs are prone to automation to creatives who spend significantly more time producing their crafts. A few clicks on the apps would generate the results, rendering human workers useless.

AI is the buzzword and the nightmare of the workers. Or, is AI just another scapegoat in the failure to maintain job stability throughout the development of the tech era?

Are we the Luddites here?

Let’s see the example of my postgraduate philosophy class final essay about automation, which is only the smaller scope of AI that can impact work. According to a PwC report, the risk of automation replacing ~30% of occupations by the mid-2030s [5] makes it critical to comprehend the scope of this replacement.

Critically reading the journals, this paper by Autor [6] argues that similarly in the past, jobs only transformed, instead of reduced. The argument draws a similarity between the growth of automobiles that phased out horse-related occupations but opened opportunities for vehicle-related jobs and AI threat in our modern era. The section of the paper drives the point further by quoting the report about the Blue-Ribbon National Commission, panelled by President Lyndon Johnson (the 36th president of the US), that the key takeaway of the assessment on automation in the 1970s is that technological disruption only eliminates jobs, not work.

The paper proposes that the media overstate the problem while ignoring the advantages of automation as automation has not eradicated a majority of jobs in the past. Intrinsically, Autor’s (the author of the paper) view is optimistic, meaning the net number of jobs is preserved. However, my view is that although automation may not reduce the number of jobs, the distribution problem of the jobs is still a problem as it will benefit only a few and put the rest of the workers at a disadvantage.

Let’s discuss whether this understanding should put our job-related anxiety at rest.

Automation is integrated into our daily life without us being overly aware of it. Ranging from the email schedulers to our monthly direct debit billing, automation is set up to offload the burden of decision-making, freeing up resources to do more important tasks. Automation can generally be accepted by modern society, although in some cases, like this software developer whose automation keeps their employer in the dark only for their personal agenda [7], it amasses conflicting views of the internet users. In a similar fashion, a firm creating an AI model [8] for whatever reasons, writers generating AI images from their DALL-E accounts to spice up their posts, or founders utilising AI prompts to create a business pitch deck that’s succinct and pleasing to the eye, are no different than the use case of garnering the benefits of AI.

In the era of AI, the upscaling of automation may be sensitive and undesirable as it substitutes human labour and pools the capital into the technology owners. The labourers’ anxiety is spiked with how they can feed themselves and their families when stripped of their income. Autor argues that automation will not be entirely transformative at lightning speed. The first reason is that the current automated systems still need human intervention to regularise the environment, allowing such automation to work under specific constraints. Robots in the assembly line can only do specific tasks, for instance, chopping the components from the mould or glueing several parts together. Autor’s second reason is based on Polanyi’s paradox which is far to overcome, even with machine learning algorithms. Note: Polanyi’s paradox refers to the set of tasks that we as humans only understand tacitly, for example, those tasks requiring flexibility and common sense. These are difficult to automate because they are not straightforward.

The engineers can only set the ground rule and allow the software package to “learn” from a large dataset. Meanwhile, the software itself is, arguably, without the comprehension we have as humans for our jobs. Therefore, Autor’s arguments conclude that the problem lies in the distribution of jobs, not the lack of them.

Nevertheless, the distribution problem is still a problem to worry about, which I will elaborate on. Although the actual number of jobs does not significantly decrease, the variance of the available jobs will be lower. This phenomenon is called job polarization, and it limits the potential for having meaningful work.

1. Job polarization problem

Automation creates job polarization, the key component of the distribution problem that is starkly shown in Autor’s paper. Indeed, the more dangerous and physically taxing jobs are replaced by automation, resulting in higher productivity, such as in agriculture in the U.S. However, aggregate employment is not necessarily wiped out despite this historical automation. Autor explains that this automation replaces routine or codifiable tasks, which are tasks that are characterised by human logic algorithms that are easily coded into any computer program. Two types of tasks are still challenging to code, namely the “abstract” and “manual” tasks. The abstract tasks require analytical skills and inductive reasoning gained from high education levels and mastery in the field, such as in managerial and professional jobs. The manual tasks require manual dexterity, human compassion, and communication skills, such as in service jobs and assistance.

Consequentially, job polarization arises from these two ends of the occupational skills spectrum. The middle part of the spectrum, populated by the jobs dominated by codifiable tasks, is at the highest risk of automation, as mentioned in the PwC report. For example, the financial services sector’s jobs are vulnerable because the algorithms can perform faster analyses.

In my view, job polarization poses a serious problem of significantly reducing the freedom to pursue career choices. In the Kantian view of dignity, a human’s dignity is an intrinsic property as a moral being, contained in ourselves because of our unique existence and autonomy. Thus, work is valuable since it is a duty to oneself to provide independence and wealth to fulfil human needs. In this ethical view, work is a personal fulfilment and gives one a sense of identity. Taking it further, many view their work as a “calling”, a key component for self-actualisation. With meaningful work allowing a person to achieve dignity, removing the right to choose may reduce workers into mere tools used by the capital owners to continue a business endeavour, which is deemed disrespectful. Bowie [9] highlights the conditions of meaningful work according to Kantian theory. One of the conditions is that jobs must provide the workers with the freedom to choose the type of work while allowing them autonomy in their tasks. Therefore, job polarization is a threat towards meaningful work.

The following elaboration shows how job polarization limits the workers’ freedom to choose.

Firstly, it forces middle professionals either to upgrade their education or slowly become the victims of automation. Those who cannot upgrade must move to the lower end of their occupational skills. These workers must constantly wrestle with the scarcity problem, perpetuating the rat race. The job search process becomes an extreme zero-sum game where the labourers who possess lesser skills in abstract tasks do not have a choice to stay in the middle-professional levels but to be demoted instead to the lower range of skills. These workers are at risk of working in a job that leaves them overqualified and underpaid, and they lose the opportunities to find satisfaction and meaningful work.

The statistics about the worldwide percentage of tertiary level education is only ~40% for males and females in 2020. The spread is even less equal country by country, with the poorer countries having even less than 1% of their population having a tertiary degree [10], [11]. Combined with the job polarization, it also concurs with the finding of PwC data that educated workers see increasing vulnerability in the long run.

But in the broader sense of types of work, which does not always involve a certain level of education, why would you want people to switch careers if the alternatives are not suitable for their calling?

How could you expect a writer to switch careers if writing is their soul work?

How could you expect a musician to stop creating their music?

Secondly, as described in the tertiary level education statistics, worldwide inequality can cause a problem of influx of workers from abroad. As the expertise distribution is more fluid with the remote working or the easiness of the relocation process, the higher degree-holders in high demand can provide ample supply internationally. Therefore, the domestic labour market will suffer if dominated by the lower degree-holders. Analogous to the decrease in the employment share of the manufacturing industries, as shown in Autor’s paper about China’s impact on the U.S. workers, the distribution problem for the abstract tasks jobs will be concentrated in the countries with fewer higher degree-holders. Assuming the same number of jobs, domestic workers with low qualifications can only work the manual tasks.

As the final argument in this job polarization section, the increasing penetration of AI seeks to lower its cost in the long-term utilisation, enabling it to be applicable for lower capital businesses. As opposed to the current landscape in which only capital-intensive technology companies utilise AI, there is a growing interest in allowing small and medium enterprises to enjoy commercial benefits from the rapid development of AI [12], [13]. Despite lowering costs due to the more efficient process, AI proliferation aggravates worker absorption in this sector. For example, the video shows that AI can help determine fabric quality, a task that requires judgment according to Polanyi’s paradox. In SMEs where the scope of work is fluid and the managerial hierarchy is condensed, AI intervention may reduce the scope even at the upper management level. This means that the complementing usage of AI may significantly reduce the variance between manual tasks and parts of abstract tasks, reducing the scope of choices for the workers.

To summarise this section, job polarization causes a problem of limiting career choices and replacing workers worldwide with low degree-holders at a disadvantage. The lower cost of AI implementation may also broaden its impact from only the middle spectrum of occupational skills to include manual or even parts of abstract tasks.

2. Unequal wage increase

Worsening the matter for the workers in the manual tasks end of the spectrum is that job polarization does not entail wage polarization. There are two primary reasons explaining this.

Firstly, job polarization leaves the manual tasks workers with minimal improvement from the growing AI usability. For example, the professions in food preparation or hair-cutting only require a little interaction with the data processing or analytics provided by the algorithms. In cleaning or housekeeping jobs with minimum or no barrier to entry for any education level, the manual tasks only require physical presence and on-site activities. This contrasts with the more abstract tasks that allow the workers to complement their analytical thinking with the help of AI in routine tasks. Therefore, only those privileged with higher education or sufficient expertise in abstract tasks may reap the benefit of the increased wages.

The augmentation of human ability in doing the work is best illustrated with the O-ring principle, as highlighted by Autor. In O-ring production, if there is any failure in the production chain, the entire process also fails. If there is an improvement in any n — 1 step of the production, then there is a value in increasing the reliability of the n step. Similarly, if we see humans as the O-rings in the modern economy, the reliability of human contribution is increased if we can improve our efficiency with the assistance of automation. The two poles of the spectrum exemplify the distinct impact of manual and abstract tasks jobs. Analytical reasoning tasks allow workers to combine human “touch” and improved efficiency. Inevitably, expert workers in abstract tasks gain better productivity, resulting in better wages.

Secondly, the influx of workers for manual jobs is elastic, while the demand for their services is inelastic. Manual tasks jobs have low entry requirements. Naturally, workers out of jobs due to the automation in the middle level find it easier to be overqualified in a job rather than apply for jobs they are underqualified. Combined with the lack of required capital to upgrade the skills, the situation pools the supply of workers for manual tasks-intensive jobs. The relatively abundant supply of manual jobs keeps their wages inelastic.

On the other hand, demand for abstract tasks rises as technology enables the population to live better and want more, such as in the wider array of products and services available today compared to a decade ago. Shifting to this level of occupational skills is challenging because of the capital and time required to achieve expertise. Therefore, there is still a gap in the overall demand for abstract-tasks jobs. This relationship suggests that professional workers bargain for higher wages, and the companies boost their remuneration offerings.

In addition, the constant race between the inflation rate rise versus the wage over the years acts as a proxy to showcase that wage polarization only serves some sectors. A recent ONS report [14] shows only professional and scientific fields benefit from wages increased above the inflation rate. This finding accords with the unequal wage polarization problem. The role of automation is more direct and thorough in jobs dominated by abstract tasks. Coupled with the contemporaneous higher demand lower supply problem, the wage increase only benefits the workers at the higher end of the spectrum. Thus, assuming the same number of jobs, automation favours workers selectively.

With job polarization that is not followed by wage polarization, workers who shift to lower-qualification jobs must adapt to the change of lifestyle and expectations. The universal or unconditional basic income (UBI) is an initiative to create a support system from the general fund to replace the income loss due to automation. This income is to compensate for the loss of earnings so that the unemployed can still provide for themselves with basic living standards.

For the purpose of this first post of the series, I argue that free money as a cushion is not the solution to repair the damage of opportunity loss. Using the view of meaningful work, it is not the income that gives meaning and identity, but work. As such, meaningful work to achieve dignity is necessary to maintain the purpose of living. However, I will elaborate on the nuance around UBI in the spirit of slow living, which I iterate in my coaching newsletter [15]. UBI is part of The Slow Fix [16] philosophy, a holistic method to approach problems, rather than siloed efforts.

Back to job polarization. Going out on a limb, I’m drawing a parallel between two conditions: the overarching difference of how we work, which was observed during the pandemic and mostly going on, and the impact of the lesser variations of work as proposed by Autor.

The COVID crisis has revolutionised how we work, albeit rather involuntarily to some managers and CEOs who are the proponent of on-site work. The rising work-from-home situation is seen as a constraint in work during the global pandemic. Workers who find meaning in types of work requiring social interaction, such as in the hospitality industry, are affected by the new normal they endure. Assuming their employers do not execute layoffs, the workers still suffer from the limited scope of work, affecting their self-actualisation. Even in the case of a financially supported furlough, the lack of meaningful work still leaves an impact on self-esteem. Moreover, prolonged exposure to low social contact with other humans is proven harmful [17]. Intuiting the analogous implication from this phenomenon, if a mere change in how we work without any reduced pay — ceteris paribus — already leads to psychological issues, then we should worry about the more massive changes in the shrinking scope of work eroded by automation.

Even though automation does not decrease the net number of jobs, it still causes a job polarization problem that limits one’s choice of work. Workers losing in the battle of keeping their old employment due to replacement by automation must suffer from working in lower occupational skills jobs, which reduce people’s dignity to only become economic tools and contribute to less meaningful work. Furthermore, this polarization results in an unequal wage increase in the spectrum of occupational skills that only favours abstract-task jobs. A guaranteed basic income as a proposed solution can compensate for the lowered earnings to sustain the living standard, but it does not address the psychological and ethical problem of opportunity loss. Therefore, we cannot overlook the degree of problems in the workforce caused by automation.

Now, from the long explanation above about job polarization and the threat of AI, we can see the underlying theme of the centralised economy and the capitalistic model. Otherwise, this post would have been about sustaining your business and less about your jobs.

In the next post, I’m going to cover the impact of poverty towards your money and health.

Losing jobs, or living with general anxiety that your sole of earning lies on a shaky foundation, does not just equate to the lower dollar amount after some time in your bank account. For many people, it equates to poverty. And when it comes to poverty (now my anxiety symptoms flare up in my body just by thinking of how fatal it is to our humanity), I’ve got loads to say.

Until next week,

Thank you for reading this far.

Some accounts to follow:

✅ Superteam UK on X

✅ Me on X

✅ My Substack

References

[1] M. Housel, The Psychology of Money, 1st ed. Harriman House Ltd, 2020.

[2] A. S. and C. Corrall, ‘A comprehensive list of 2023 & 2024 tech layoffs’, TechCrunch. Accessed: Feb. 04, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/25/tech-layoffs-2023-list/

[3] ‘Causes of the Great Depression | Britannica’. Accessed: Feb. 08, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.britannica.com/story/causes-of-the-great-depression

[4] ‘Gen Zers are turning to “radical rest,” delusional thinking, and self-indulgence as they struggle to cope with late-stage capitalism’, Fortune. Accessed: Feb. 08, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://fortune.com/2023/06/27/gen-zers-turning-to-radical-rest-delusional-thinking-self-indulgence-late-stage-capitalism-molly-barth/

[5] PricewaterhouseCoopers, ‘How will automation impact jobs?’, PwC. Accessed: Apr. 13, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics/insights/the-impact-of-automation-on-jobs.html

[6] D. H. Autor, ‘Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 3–30, 2015.

[7] K. Collins, ‘A programmer automated their data-entry job. Now the question is whether to tell their employer.’, Jun. 2017.

[8] S. Bhaimiya, ‘An agency created an AI model who earns up to $11,000 a month because it was tired of influencers “who have egos”’, Business Insider. Accessed: Feb. 07, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-influencer-aitana-clueless-agency-tech-spain-2023-11

[9] N. E. Bowie, ‘Dignity and Meaningful Work’, in The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work, R. Yeoman, C. Bailey, A. Madden, and M. Thompson, Eds., Oxford University Press, 2019, pp. 35–50. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198788232.013.2.

[10] ‘Educational attainment worldwide by gender and level’, Statista. Accessed: Apr. 13, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1212278/education-gender-gap-worldwide-by-level/

[11] M. Roser and E. Ortiz-Ospina, ‘Tertiary Education’, Our World in Data, Jul. 2013, Accessed: Apr. 13, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/tertiary-education

[12] How AI Could Empower Any Business | Andrew Ng | TED, (Oct. 13, 2022). Accessed: Apr. 13, 2023. [Online Video]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reUZRyXxUs4

[13] ‘The AI Act: help or hindrance for SMEs? | Digital Skills & Jobs Platform’. Accessed: Apr. 13, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://digital-skills-jobs.europa.eu/en/inspiration/research/ai-act-help-or-hindrance-smes

[14] ‘Professional and scientific industry the only one where pay continues to match rising prices — Office for National Statistics’. Accessed: Apr. 13, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/professionalandscientificindustrytheonlyonewherepaycontinuestomatchrisingprices/2022-11-23

[15] S. Langit, ‘The Gentle Roadmap | Sekar Langit | Substack’. Accessed: Feb. 07, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://sekarlangit.substack.com/

[16] C. Honoré, The Slow Fix, 2014th ed. William Collins, 2014.

[17] J. Teevan et al., Eds., ‘Microsoft New Future of Work Report 2022’, 2022.