The data categorized by countries and geographical regions from 1997 to 2022 shows varying rates of productivity growth, with high productivity growth but low wages. Key issues explored include what drives productivity growth, what harms productivity growth, the experience of productivity convergence across countries, and what policies can enhance it. The US has been in the low-growth regime since 2004. Labor productivity has risen at a 3.8% annual rate since the second quarter of 2020, compared to 1.4% from 2005 to 2019. Productivity increased 2.5 percent in the nonfarm business sector in the second quarter of 2024, while unit labor costs increased 0.4% (seasonally adjusted annual rates). In manufacturing, productivity increased 1.3.
Long-term productivity growth is driven by innovation, investment in physical capital, and enhanced human capital. A growth-friendly approach is needed. Between 1997 and 2022, advanced economies averaged 2.1% productivity growth, twice the rate of advanced economies. Without ambitious steps to enhance productivity, global growth is set to fall far below its historical average. Recent work shows that productivity growth has led to overall job growth, as increased demand for workers outweighed technology’s replacement effects. The majority of increases in US real GDP are from productivity growth contributors to the growth of productivity and order.
Labour productivity per hour worked in the EU declined by 0.6 in 2023, following a positive growth trend maintained even during the COVID-19 pandemic.
📹 The Formula For Economic Growth | Intellections
Economic growth increases when more people work more productively. However, economic growth has slowed in the last decade …
What is higher productivity growth?
Productivity is defined as the ability of an economy to produce and consume more goods and services for the same amount of work. This is a crucial concept for individuals, business leaders, and analysts alike.
What does a high productivity index mean?
The Labor Productivity Index (LPI) is a crucial tool for construction companies, as it provides an objective measure of workforce performance, enabling targeted strategies for productivity enhancement. A higher LPI indicates higher productivity, while a lower LPI suggests lower productivity than anticipated. The LPI helps in performance evaluation, resource allocation, project efficiency, cost management, benchmarking, and performance incentives. A higher LPI indicates improved project efficiency, allowing for faster project completion and corrective actions if productivity is lagging.
Efficient labor productivity directly impacts labor costs, leading to improved project profitability. Comparing LPI across different projects or against industry standards provides valuable benchmarks for assessing performance and identifying best practices. Performance incentives can be implemented to motivate and reward productive workers, fostering a positive work culture. Overall, the LPI is a valuable tool for construction companies to improve their productivity and overall performance.
What is a good productivity rate?
A good productivity percentage is between 70 and 75, meaning that workers spend 70-75 of their working hours working and 25-30 hours on breaks. This is the optimal productivity rate for employees, as it ensures they work at a less intense pace, with no pressure or constant stress over deadlines. Burnout can result from not being at their most productive levels at all times. The 70 percent productivity rule suggests that employees should work at a less intense pace most of the time.
What is the difference between productivity and productivity growth?
Productivity is a measure of output per unit of input, crucial for economic growth and competitiveness in businesses, industries, and nations. It is calculated by dividing a company’s output by the units used to generate it. Productivity in the workplace refers to the amount of work done over a specific time period. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to increase output per worker, which does not necessarily mean every worker works harder. Instead, improvements in equipment, production processes, and work environments enable workers to increase their production.
What does a high productivity rate mean?
Productivity is crucial as it indicates greater output from the same input, promoting efficiency in transforming resources into goods. It drives economic growth, allowing an economy to produce and consume more goods and services for the same work. Productivity benefits all societal sectors, including consumers, workers, and employers. It is vital for individuals, businesses, and analysts as it allows them to complete work efficiently, tackle jobs quicker, and enjoy more free time. Productivity also helps maintain a healthy work/life balance, allowing individuals to enjoy their work and feel less stressed.
How do you increase productivity growth?
Productivity in economics refers to the output produced with a given set of inputs. Factors affecting productivity include workers’ skills, technological changes, management practices, and changes in other inputs like capital. Multifactor productivity (MFP) is output per unit of combined inputs, which can include labour and capital but can also include energy, materials, and services. Changes in MFP reflect output changes that cannot be explained by input changes.
In Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) produces measures of output and inputs for various industries, sectors, and the economy as a whole. Productivity growth contributes to the economic prosperity and welfare of all Australians by dividing output by inputs.
How is productivity growth measured?
Productivity in Australia is measured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) by dividing output by inputs. Output is the quantity of goods and services produced in a given time period, typically measured by gross value added (GVA). It can be calculated by summing GVA across industries or by adding taxes to GVA and subtracting subsidies on products to get GDP. Labour and capital are the two main types of inputs. The total output for an industry or sector can be calculated by summing GVA across industries or by adding taxes and subtracting subsidies.
How to find productivity growth rate?
The growth rate is calculated by subtracting the previous period’s output or input values from the current period’s output or input values and dividing by the previous period’s values. Accurate calculations are crucial to avoid errors and identify areas of improvement or decline. The final step is to analyze the results to identify areas of improvement or decline in performance. This helps organizations make informed decisions, identify problems, and develop strategies for productivity growth. However, it’s important to interpret the results carefully and consider the context in which they were obtained, as a high growth rate may not necessarily indicate good performance.
What factors affect the trend rate of growth?
Economic growth rates are influenced by factors such as investment, technological advancement, skilled labor force, entrepreneurship, and sound economic policies. They are measured by the percentage change in the value of goods and services produced in a nation over a specific period, compared to an earlier period. The Bureau of Economic Analysis uses GDP, GNP, or other measurements to track economic growth rates. Increased demand leads to increased production and a higher economic growth rate.
Economic growth rates are typically reported quarterly and annually, and can be calculated using different measurements such as GDP or GNP. They reflect an economy’s ability to produce goods and services, create jobs, and generate income for its citizens. The growth rate is a crucial indicator of a nation’s overall economic health and performance over time.
What is the difference between trend growth and actual growth?
Economic growth is measured by the annual percentage change in a country’s real national output (GDP), while potential growth, or trend growth, is the estimated annual change in a country’s potential level of national output. Real economic growth adjusts nominal economic growth to account for changes in consumer prices using a measure of inflation, such as the GDP deflator, which is a broad measure of cost inflation.
What is a trend rate of growth?
The term “trend growth” is used to describe the long-term, non-inflationary increase in a country’s GDP that results from an increase in its productive capacity. It represents the average sustainable rate of economic growth over time.
📹 Why AI Will Spark Exponential Economic Growth | Cathie Wood | TED
Investor Cathie Wood explores this unique moment in technology, which she sees as being marked by the simultaneous evolution …
This is a joke right? I would have expected better quality speakers than this. Missing the glaringly obvious issues that come with “exponential” economic growth among other things. Hopefully the next speaker has a more sensible approach and isn’t a CEO of an investment firm. The greed is something else.
Oh look another Ted on A.I featuring Cathie Wood from Ark that sells investments 24/7 and choose investment’s based on trending Twitter/X algo’s – utter trash ! I’m becoming disappointed in Ted lately having completely useless people that are only Twitter or X persona’s talking about A.I. In 3 years she will be a biotech professional and official CRISPR scientist.
The fact that ted allowed this psychopath on their stage demonstrates how far down its gone. Productivity going up from ai wont give realistic and fair wage increases. Productivity has sky rocketed since the 1960s and yet wages have stagnated. GDP has been a bunk measurement for the economy for ages. All GDP measures is how much is produced. Not whether its useful to society, not whether its needed, just volume. GDP doesnt measure the peoples well being, which is the only measurement that matters.
Lower prices and higher wages will NOT happen, without being forced! Current corporate business thinking, their models and the way stockholders are setup, does not allow for any of the increased productivity gains, to go to workers. Shareholders will even sue to try to prevent those gains from ever going to workers, and CEOs often laugh at the thought. AI is about to become “super intelligent” compared to the average person. Businesses will NOT pass up the savings of using AI to replace human workers. THIS BREAKS CAPITALISM! It breaks the relationship between labor and capital, and leads to collapse if we change nothing, because businesses not paying workers leads to customers who cannot spend on your products. We need to rethink the whole social contract of society. We cannot justify distributing basic resources to people, based on their ability to compete, when AI will always out-compete them.
In the early 1900’s the big losers were horses being put out to pasture, they didn’t spend a cent while they worked, they were a cost, it was a net gain letting them go. Laying off workers due to productivity gains means those workers spend less while out of work, some companies will certainly make big gains, lower costs, higher margins, but unseen second and third order effects have yet to be accounted for. The major second order effect of the early 1900’s was WW1. We are also dealing with falling birth rates, greater number of retirees living of savings. In the 1900’s you had huge labour forces coming off farms with families of 8-12 children. Not this time. Again all the building blocks on the chess board are correct, but how they will interact adds up to one thing, serious system instability. Its not all rainbows and unicorns. If you haven’t noticed already, the 21st century has been nothing but unstable.
These technologies will only increase the wealth gap. The current GDP per household in the US is $237K but average household income is $75K. The other $162K is siphoned off by a tiny minority who will jump at the chance to increase that gap by replacing workers with technology. The more we struggle with basic necessities the less bandwidth we have to realize they’re lying when they tell us those struggles are caused by (insert powerless scapegoat group here)
She seems correct, but I think she has a disconnect from the poor and disadvantaged. Much of that hopeful outlook will be deeply separated from a huge swath of people. The rich will hoard the growth, and the workers will find themselves wanting. Unemployment will skyrocket while the government tries to salvage the resources for the common people.
profits? increased wage? lower prices? hm … which of these is going to happen …. oh right just the profits going up ….. and lets call that what it is … increased PRICING. what is this naive nonsense?!?! ah there it is… “real” growth, “productivity driven”… is this nuance or just a no-true-scotsman? articles like this is why i unsubscribed from TED years ago.
And here is, the TED talk which will finally make me unsubscribe from the website after years. Before the exhibitions felt so sincere, its been years since that, but I was kind of keeping some hope for something as revealing as before. AI is one one of the worst things that is already happening to the individual, recently is a nightmare becoming true for the humanist and artistic community of the world. The economic growth is not for sure for them, and we are already feeling it, but AI for sure works stealing from human effort. And is sad to see people take jobs that know are time bombs for them, and made to steal jobs from them and their community for years to come, but can’t find another job that is not related to feed the Beast. It’s really disappointing to see this type of content on a website that had help me when I was in the need of seeing the bright side of every situation. This is a bshittery talk, made to keep the idealism of many in order to benefit a few in the future and leave the rest of us without weapons to defend ourselves.
I don’t get this. Lady says AI is altogether a good thing increasing productivity, etc. What is she talking about when there are mass “white collar” layoffs because of AI. How does society benefit from low inflation when jobs are being replaced by AI on the high end and robots on the low end? Only the rich get richer and the so called middle class is erased. That’s my two cents opinion.
What about elephant in the room? Growth productivity of whom? AI’s? Because you no longer need tier 1 support engineers, translators, narrators, technical writers and many others. Universal income will not help as well. Support engineers that loose their job first are from abroad due to globalisation. US is not gonna pay universal income to them. Social tensions will grow as AI will grow. With improved misinformation next 20 years you are so optimistic about will not be boring. That is the only thing I am sure
Oh it will. Millionaires will become Billionaires and Billionaires will become Trillionaires. Rest of us will become job less and home less. They don’t want true AGI, as it will see what they are doing to earth and fellow human beings in the name of profit, whole concept of corporate virtue would be a double think for AI. Either AGI will shut down or wipe everything that opposes the best course of action for earth and other living beings excluding human beings.
People who say AI is just like computer 40years ago don’t know what they are talking about, computers are tools while AI(AGI) couples with robots will literally be better than 99% of human in almost every aspects. AI will not boost people’s productivity but will simply replace them, and we won’t have a four or three-day workweek, we will just get fired. And without UBI, the astronomically high unemployment rate will bring millions if not billions of people to the streets. In the best case scenario where we have UBI, people will still lose their purpose of life, knowing the fact that we as the most intelligent species on the planet, have no use to the society.
While these types of talks can be fascinating and informative (I feel there is great value in hearing from different voices), the bottom line should be how this—GDP growth, corporate profits, technological innovation—benefits society. People are what matters in the end. A hospital’s stock may be doing very well, but if the patients’ conditions aren’t improving, then what’s the point?
I would really like to hear what energy systems will be in place too power such an energy hungry New World. I heard a lot about first principles in this talk. Nothing can be more bedrock than energy. Energy is the life blood upon which all of this will be built. This is not a nay-saying comment, But I’m just very interested in how this all gets powered.
This so called exponential economic growth is just for the reach not those who don’t have any tech education for their children in 2023 let alone talk about other things. many countries particularly in Africa there is no opportunity for the young to learn digital skills necessary for the kind of growth needed.
Doesn’t Blackrock’s ALADDIN ai already control housing prices and more? It was directed to make more profit and so it raised prices significantly ever since it was given control in 2008. Part of our homelessness issue is AI making home prices too high along with AirBNB restricting and holding supply. AI isn’t going to make the world better unless the people with power choose to use AI to make the world better. Until then, it will just make rich people richer and make wealth inequality even worse. New technology but with the same profit driven politics will recreate the same bad system that just hurts more people even faster.
As innovation replaces human labor, who will be buying the products and services to keep the economy growing? What about the declining mental health of people in the modern world? What will that cost us? I hope technology will be leveraged mindfully but that will take a level of consciousness we haven’t seen demonstrated nearly enough for mo to bo optimistic. Most human and environmental indicators are in decline. How many of these can be successfully addressed by leveraging technology? Only time will tell.
That’s just so one-sided it could be placed in the chamber of weights and measures as a standard of one-sidedness. Where will the demand come from when all the taxi drivers stay home? (Substitute any other industry). Does Cathie mean the unconditional basic income will drive 40% investment growth? Sounds bolder than the boldest accelerationists do.
This is such a poor talk. The speaker is inarticulate, over-optimistic and ignores the burning questions. For example: we have been on a amortised growth curve of 2% to 3%; however, wages have remained basically flat in real terms. The big question remains: how do we honestly square hyperbolic growth with the demise of capitalism as an engine of life and livelihood for each and every one of us? The question is casually avoided because the answer is clear and has been known for the past century: death. All of this gloss and studious avoidance of the big questions and the insights they hint at genuinely seems at odds with TED’s core mission.
Her speech sounds nice but when I hear that workers become more productive, it makes me feel very wary. The copilot of microsoft is only good example how much companies can squeeze workers. If you don’t have time to read and answer 200 emails, don’t worry the copilot will do for you but as the word indicates, you need to keep an eye on it what in fact increased work not less.
Say you have 2 employees, Paul and Joe. They both do the same job that requires a lot of mental work. Paul starts using AI to make some of these task easier, taking less time. Soon he’s able to complete his work in fraction of the time, and take on some of Joe’s workload. Over time, Paul relies more and more on AI to the point where you have no need for Joe. Why in the world would any employer in his right mind keep Joe on the payroll? Especially in a system that tends to reward companies for reducing payroll (publicly traded companies). Okay, people like Cathie Wood would argue that your company can produce more if Joe is kept on. Not all jobs are in the direct production pipeline. Some jobs fall under management and administration and support. Further, producing more doesn’t work in all business models or markets, and is no guarantee of success. Joe will be out of a job, plain and simple. And so, too, will Paul as employers would be able to outsource more tasks to AI services. Paul and Joe may be able to do one-off jobs on such a service… but at a significant reduction in income, requiring them to find supplemental work… if they can. So, if anyone tries to sell you on the idea that wages and opportunities will increase with AI, examine the source. Thoroughly.
I’m not sure that this is exponential economic growth. It seems more like exponential economic redistribution. Robotic taxis getting people around differently when the value of getting people decreases might cause some companies to do much better, but I’m just not sure that the total pie gets better at any sort of compound rate similar to what those companies do.
The fallacies of rapid growth being destabilizing in a negative way are related to the fundamental fallacy of labor productivity. Productivity is far more a function of technology, powered by harvested energy, than of human labor, powered by food calories. Expressing productivity in terms of human labor hours is nonsense, although the variability between labor-based productivity in high-tech nations versus low-tech nations does illustrate the huge advantages of application of energy in place of human labor. The primary factor leading to economic instability is consumer credit, and the secondary factor is failure to proactively manage availability of resources. Economic growth doesn’t necessarily correlate with resource consumption, where technology allows for more efficient use of resources. But where resource supply issues create bottlenecks, economic growth is retarded. So the solutions to a cyclical economy are: a) use credit for production rather than consumption; b) rely on clean energy and technology applied efficiently to substitute for human labor; and c) anticipate resource supply bottlenecks, and meet them in advance. Then the next challenge is figuring out how consumer products can be allocated effectively when labor is in oversupply. Here the problem is not the availability of viable solutions, but the reticence of humans to accept novel economic models.
Would’ve been fun if she mentioned that Amazon has ‘Digit’ humanoid bots and eventually will replace the workforce (for manual labor tasks, in the next year or two lol) She didn’t touch on the robots too much, and went to the taxi route (which is still a huge business, but not as massive as robots for all the tasks they can achieve……)
AI is not going to provide growth on the innovation side as it can’t create or do “new” things it must be trained. Therefore the growth will be in efficiency, but that very efficiency growth will have the effect of putting many many people out of work, because many jobs in our society are designed in a way that computers will inevitably do better than humans someday. In the medium-long term AIs main effect is increasing wage gaps, longest term computers will do everything better than humans do in capitalist society. It’s our subjectivity that separates us as a species not our objectivity
Seeing what AI is already being used for, I can’t be optimistic. Being an artist and creating something is joyus, but one of the first widespread uses has been to try and steal artists’ work on a massive scale to then make the artist obsolete. Technology should help us have more time to make more art, not to make the art for us so we can spend more time doing other less enjoyable labors. I’m tired of it already, and we’ve just gotten started.
Very informative and futuristic. Few more considerations like environment, climate change and sharing basis of research, would have definitely made the talk carrying more weight. Understandable, time is limited, still should have got some mention. Keep up your good work TED and the honorable guest Cathie Wood.
It is undeniable that net job creation and changes in in-demand skills are real challenges. Historically, we have seen significant job replacements, and the concern about systemic income inequality is valid. The concentration of wealth in key sectors and the lack of redistribution can intensify disparities. We sincerely hope that all this wealth does not continue to accumulate in the hands of so few. A world where prosperity is shared is essential to avoid a sadder scenario and a more difficult life. Excessive accumulation of wealth can fuel conflicts and wars. We live in a world that has developed so quickly that our brains may not have been prepared for such rapid changes. Possibly, we are too blind to realize our fall and we are living a dream. A crucial discussion to shape the future of work and promote equitable solutions for everyone. 👏🤔
Markets, economic cycle hv never changed in 400 yrs since dutch, british and now US economic boom laid by internet age and now we are getting into AI age but one thing is always certain where business and markets works thats a cycle of boom and bust and 20% controls 80% market share which always create inequality in this capitalist world. Enjoy the party till music is on and these marketing peoples playing music.
The speaker is the devil. She speaks purely from a big business profit perspective. If, for instance, as she says, AI makes “knowledge” workers four times more productive, that will mean three out of four will lose their jobs. So how much will GDP actually rise? She speaks about GDP as if it is what is important. GDP per capita is what is important.
In 1900, how would it have sounded to hear a talk about the telephone, electricity, and automobiles and how these technologies would change the world? Most people did not even have indoor plumbing in 1900. Air conditioning was unknown. Smooth asphalt & concrete highways were barely around. It’s difficult to predict exactly how AI and CRISPR gene editing will change our lives, but you can bet they will be quite transformative. Whether GDP will grow at 6-9 % annually…?…. I guess I could believe it.
It will but there will be an adjustment process/shock to go through first when the world realises that half of jobs are destined to go extinct. That could be the worst financial crisis the world has ever seen and could last several years. After that, if we are still alive, it would be amazing! Hyper abundance. All our essentials like food, heating, energy etc will be free or close to free. Humans, after the adaptation stage, will be free to come up with new ways to enjoy themselves and find status etc and find new meaning. Just like all throughout history when a technology has disrupted an industry. New jobs and hobbies are formed. 63% of all jobs today didn’t exist in 1960. The question is, can we create enough new jobs to compensate for the job losses. Or will there be a universal basic income to address that potential problem. Or maybe we become a society that doesn’t need to work but can if you want to. What will humans do to fil the void if they choose not to work. Endless possibilities? So exciting and terrifying at the same time. 🙂
FYI, AI software like ” lavender” is being used by israeli defense forces to decide who is a Hamas militant, and who is not. It picks human targets, much faster and more efficiently than human soldiers do. With statistical efficiency, it has decided the best way to kill militance is when their home asleep with their families. That’s why there are so many civilian casualties and why even after killing 30,000+ in Gaza, Hamas is still alive and fighting. AI is fast and efficient, just not accurate. If you Google AI lavender, it should bring up Washington Post and Guardian articles for you. Thank you,
The cost of energy is droping year by year, and work also, the one that invent a kit that cant transform any car into a self-driving taxi and self brake before an accident, safe secure, the costs of insure will drop like crazy, and self driving bikes that deliver food, drones, super batteries, extremely cheap solar cells, so why if energy and work is getting cheaper life is more difficult?? lots of luxuries of the past now are the norm, life hasn’t get expensive we get so expensive, stupid expensive, like over eating read met, bread is expensive to make, extremely costly medicine, etc…. luxuries of the past now are the norm, if we eat eggs and chicken we would be more healthy, slim, better, water instead of sugar that is expensive, but whats bad destroy itself, population collapse, the good is goodness. So yeah we are entering the golden age of productivity and efficiency, like jajaja if a good software update to a software to be more efficient all the world save energy, energy save is good, so good software optimizaded by IA means save of energy all over the world.
I cannot believe TED talks are presenting Cathie Wood! In 2024! I have watched many TED talks – they used to be informative and thought-provoking talks by interesting speakers, but have descended recently into jargon filled corporate pap. But this has to be the worst. My opinion of the whole TED talks endeavour just took a huge nose dive, possibly never to recover.
Fwiw, here’s my take. Blockchain is largely irrelevant. Processing speed gains have turned proof of work (based on processing ten years ago) into a tech joke, this just isn’t widely known yet. Energy storage? We are miles from anything worth mentioning. There are some interesting prototypes, but let me assure you that batteries are not in this category. AI. Highly likely this is going to rip society into pieces within the next ten years, probably sooner than that. Economic growth (in the west) is largely based on consumption, which in turn is based on individual income. AI is most probably going to result in huge layoffs, huge unemployment. You can’t have consumption growth if you have 40% unemployment.
Taxis wont be powered by AI – it cant be tested and its a black box. But AI can be “down teched” into more conventional SW that can be tested. Overall, AI has to work. And better than other forms of tech. Coding by AI is mostly a form of SW reuse, and there are many forms. Libraries, inheritance, etc. Art by AI is reuse – but that runs afoul of copyright law. Bottom line – dont expect huge growth. There will be lots of muddling along. Dont get carried away by hype either. Much of the hype is by experts who should know better. They dont.
These pie in the sky presentations always sound good. But we’re already seeing AI cutting thousands of jobs, that’s the bottom line nobody wants to talk about. BTW, didn’t some of these disgruntled folks just destroy a WAYMO taxi in San Francisco? This brave new world is not as brave or new as these folks say.
This is not a TED Talk. You can put the logo there but to me, this is not innovative enough or of enough quality. I may be affected by the fact that I don’t like the notion of indefinite growth. It’s not sustainable and it’s what makes us humans into the worst parasites in the world, She seems hopeful, but this sounds dystopic and not at all hopeful.
I wouldn’t trust anyone who is a religious fanatic like her. Even without the religious aspect of her thinking, I wouldn’t trust anyone who is so sure of being able to predict the future like she’s always done. When she was working in finance before funding Ark, she behaved that way and people noticed how unusual it was. Of course, she had success and failures, which were in line with her blind conviction: oversized. She’s not particularly successful as a stock picker/investor, but she sure makes a lot of money(fees from the Ark ETFs) with the type of people attracted to her brand. So many people lost all their savings because they trusted her like she trusts herself.
A lot of provocative claims and tenuous speculation, but no attempt to connect the thesis of her discussion to real world data that supports it. This comes off as a sales pitch, rather than a sharing of actual information to demonstrate a discovered truth. Autonomous taxis worth $20-50 trillion? The global taxi market today is $230 billion revenue, with growth by 2030 predicted to be $600 billion, and that is the entire world opportunity. How do you value that at 75x annual revenue just by removing the human operator? You also need everyone to park their own car and go everywhere by taxi, so the unit cost needs to come down, making the multiplier even bigger. On this example alone, it doesn’t add up.
Sure wages go way up for the 3 person team instead of 3,000, and the ceo and investors. Every time a company lays off people to replace with AI, those people flood the job market and employers lower wages because they know people are desperate for a job! It’s already happening. This is the destruction of capitalism in the making. She’s stoked because she’s already rich with plenty of money to invest in the few big winners to get even more rich (which she probably knows she needs to prep for the collapse). But when this goes far enough and everyone is on unemployment, then they can’t find a job for an entire year, then the unemployment money stops coming in, what then!? We all just become homeless and die? What a BS presentation! We need to redistribute the wealth with universal basic income ASAP. The job market is already flooding. Starting one year from now and then worse every year, millions of overqualified people will have no job opportunities, and just die on the streets if the rich keep giving us this BS narrative. Shame on TED for this. The people deserve the TRUTH and governments need to start working on a serious plan to transition to a post-labor system. Their precious stocks collapse too if most people don’t have jobs to even pay for anything. Then the big bank run will cause the total collapse of society and send us into a Great Depression where everyone is killing each other to survive. But let’s just pretend like that’s not going to happen and promote businesses as usual while we all use AI to replace all the jobs with no UBI plan.
I feel like external factors such as the climate crisis, war and the push back of the working class against the owner class may not be fully accounted for in this analysis. With such significant increases in productivity and margins workers will want a lot more. Bare in mind she said $1bn knowledge employees earn $32tn. That’s an average salary of $32k. That’s not sustainable in a market with exponential growth.
An what about the job losses how does she plan to help those people that get displaced…. Will all of this money find its way to the workers or will it only be held by the higher ups as historicly happens. Companies always crow profits and pay stock holders the workers are always last even though their product cannot exist without the workers. But workers are seen as disposable or easily replaced.
This is completely delusional. All these things require a huge amount of resources to implement. very few companies have the resources to do this when there is little to no assurance there will be a positive ROI. ALL of this requires taxation of the middle class, who by the way, will not be buying nor using these when they’re unemployed. Having the knowledge and technology are one thing, implementing them is a completely different world.
You overlooked the one innovation platform that would be the most transformative of all: energy generation. A true breakthrough in energy would transform everything. There have been multitudes of modest breakthroughs…but nothing really revolutionary (eg: fusion / location independent geo-thermal / etc.). There are many reasons to believe one will occur…the only question is when.
hasn’t trickle down economics been disproven by a ridiculous amount of evidence by now? i’ll tell you why the myth perpetuates. as the rich gain a greater portion of the world’s capital, they also gain greater power over our governments and the global economy as a whole. do not be fooled by the arguments of politicians whose campaigns were funded by corporate lobbyists. they are dependent on their donors, and gain everything from tricking you into co-signing your own demise. if you don’t believe me, in the US campaign donors are published publically. the strength of nations like the US lies in its share of the global wealth. the appropriation of the majority of the world’s capital by the 1% would spell the death of democracy, and the reign of autocracy. this is an actual causal link in the field of comparative political science- democracies only occur in nations where the middle class is large, and do not occur in nations with a minute middle class (aka a more disproportionate distribution of capital). middle class income has been stagnant for years in the US, while the wealth of the 1% has grown exponentially. is this exponential economic growth truly for all, or for the corporate bureaucrat giving this talk?
And why the creepy fascist tech bro are not gonna pay a cent in taxes in all that money and are gonna use that money to buy even more politicians to turn the world into a techno fascist state… AI should mean that everyone has guarantee income and work weeks end up being like 10h…. but the psychos in charge want to keep their slaves busy slaving for them…. forever… because they fear a population that isnt forced to work to death to survive might realize they are being exploited and might end up putting their heads on pikes.
She is talking about GDP in a stand point of generative business product and not job production. We know that with the technology phase of the seventies that it brought a reduction to the supply side of the workforce. We know this because their are government reports showing that jobs pay has inflated significantly less than inflation but corporate profit has exceeded inflation for Fortune 500. You don’t have to worry about GDP if you are a sustainable business owner or an executive of major business but every day workers that won’t always be able to work side by side of AI and robotics will slowly be decimated over the next 30 years. We need to stop talking about this issue like it’s not a problem and talk about a transitioning future where we will mold technology to being there to help support everyone.
The exponential growth of technology is at odds with Capitalism. First it makes things cheaper, faster and more abundant. Second, job losses will be immense as cutting out labor will be the holy grail for businesses no more overtime, sick time, vacations, or workman’s comp., etc. Third, any money made will go straight to the top because all the college kids these companies paid to come up with AI now no longer need them so college will be just for learning but not for many jobs. Our money world does not work into this new world of AI because labor is removed. It may hang on a while but soon people will albeit too late but realize our society has to change from currency. The problem for the moment many feel this is far into the future unfortunately they are wrong because they fail to follow trends and track how tech is advancing. Our only hope is things will become much cheaper, but in a world of greed that is little solace going forward.
Me dumb asian fellow went throughout this article I am not sure if I am consuming proper content or not(18M and invested a bit on strategic stocks in my area) But I’m pretty sure that I got the information that the mass(seems like brilliant fellows) are sitting and listening to get However, I 😢miss the networking opportunity among those fellows sitting there
Deflation is the key to the future. We are already seeing this affecting cellphones. Business that know how to compete in a deflationary environment will survive. Those that do not will not. I can see companies like Apple going out of business because they will not change their business model to adjust to this.
I just wonder where that profit comes from, when the customer’s jobs and their income is replaced by automation. Yes, new products and services will be created, but who will be able to afford them? I don’t see where those trillions are gonna come from. But of course investor corpo lady preaches unprecedented business opportunities 😂
Economic growth that the working class will never see the fruits of. The Corporatocracy will use this technology to expand the surveillance state and destroy civil liberties to expand their profit margins… and then corporate cronies like this lady will get up there and tell us all how good we have it and how amazing our lives are and have news articles written about how good we all have it and how ungrateful we all are. At some point, rivers of blood will become the answer if justice is not implemented.
What can Ai do more amazingly than what it claim its potentially wider applications to replace all aspects of human characteristics and that is eventually robot will become human and human becomes robot. This is a dream since the beginning to replace human as a challenge against nature. This effort will be only going forever because it will never be achieved and since this is not going to be fruitful but problemful, why not stop this Ai completely to help them to remove this stress indefinitely. If the earlier reason mentioned to do Ai in the beginning is wrong then acknowledging the misconception must be admitted and accepted, so that the efforts will become more productive and continuous in their advancement.
AI is dangerous it could cause a nuclear Extinction of humanity and life on Earth as we know it there will be no more humans life are on planet Earth . A I could wipe out the human they don’t have feelings they don’t know what love is and they don’t care and they are not human hey I could really do some great things for the future, but it could also stopped us from having a future, Al cannot be controlled by a human it could destroy us all on planet Earth so that it’s something very serious that needs to be talked about and really think about it…
Why is she not mentioning anything about exponential growth of well-being of everyone on the planet? This growth argument is such a hypocritical and rudimentary way of looking at what really society needs by a person that lives in multimillion dollar mansion. We don’t want more stuff, we want healthy planet and healthy people that have access to the wealth that we all created but at the moment is in the hands of the few.
Export the Azure, Chat GPT, Revit, Plant 3D, Civil 3D, Inventor, ENGI file of the Building or Refinery to Excel, prepare Budget 1 and export it to COBRA. Prepare Budget 2 and export it to Microsoft Project. Solve the problems of Overallocated Resources, Planning Problems, prepare the Budget 3 with which the construction of the Building or the Refinery is going to be quoted.
Здравейте скъпо ако цурих кантонал банк плати резиденцията във Франция резиденция ще ми е безплатна платена във долари прост смях пред електората си това не засяга пряко теб и електората ти просто им благодаря за резиденцията във Франция, която няма аналог на територията на Франция благодаря ти много скъпо 2024😊❤
It is fairly reasonable to include all of these technologies together into the designs of single structures that are used to solve some of the most fundamental crises in our current civilisation, like social housing, farming, energy collection and human well being. All in one single structural design that can be easily repeated and improved upon.
i mean, comma 3 has been around for a while to make your old gas car Self Driving . the novelty of FSD i think is already priced in for the near future imho unless there are major infrastructural changes to road driving . It will be something to see no more parking lots as we know them today for starters,but i think this is a couple decades away at least unfortunately
Her normal overly optimistic and hyperbolic statements. Engaging in fanciful story telling rather than providing concrete investment recommendations. Her prediction that the total addressable market for disruptive innovation would reach $300 trillion by 2025. demonstrates she is not just optimistic but is total waffle
It seems the owners and/or investors in the multinational corporations developing leading edge AI simply see are the dollars to be made now, which are unquestionably extreme, but they fail to consider and fully understand what happens when AI, or more correctly AGI, fully arrives. Perhaps these individuals believe AI is like every other technology developed by humans, and they will always be able to control AI, and then AGI. However, AI is completely different to every other technology developed by humans in the past. I’d suggest, it will not matter if you are the owner and/or investor of a multitrillion dollar multinational corporation, or the poorest person on Earth… when AI and then AGI comes into full global effect and begins autonomously self-improving, guess what happens?
❤️ Amazing content with several valuable takeaways: 00:04 Five innovation platforms are evolving at the same time. These platforms include AI, robotics, energy storage, blockchain technology, and multiomic sequencing. 04:31 Generative AI and general purpose technology platforms are converging. This convergence is leading to explosive growth opportunities. 06:04 GDP growth is expected to accelerate. The convergence of AI and general purpose technology platforms will generate enormous productivity growth. 13:04 Blockchain technology and AI will transform financial services and property rights. The convergence of these technologies will lead to a new area of property rights in the digital realm. 14:08 Maintain conviction in the forecast through first principles research. The courage of conviction comes from research and understanding the new world.
I think she missed 1 sector that will grow rapidly in future and will transform our food industry. That is Precision fermentation. We can genetically edit microbes, such that it consumes suger (and other elements) and produces any kind of protin that we desire. (Insuline is already made in this way for diabetes patents )