World "NEEDS" Next Technological REVOLUTION!

[Economy 52,951]

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21621237-digital-revolution-has-yet-fulfil-its-promise-higher-productivity-and-better

 

According to many historians and a--lysts, part of the reason the economy is still sturring along (besides negative effects still remaining from the 2008 financial crisis) is that productivity simply is hardly growing. Productivity per worker is barely rising 1.5% these days and when u factor in aging retiring population productivity is rising even slower

After the industrial revolution the world saw a long period of surging economic growth as one thing after another could be mass produced with much less work and labor... so more labor was freed up to do other things and the world was more production

Sometimes refered to as the "roaring 1920s", the mid to late 1920s saw a big economic boom as all sorts of new inventions that we use today were invented then. From washing to drying machines, dish washers, hair dryers created a manufacturing boom that also helped industries that made parts as well. A more effective telephone system was also created in 1920 making communication so much faster and effective

In the 1940s to 1950s we saw solid economic growth after transportation became much more accessible and affordable to the average person and business. Companies also had ever more ease getting products around with effective infrastructure with roads and trucks keeping costs down making business easier and giving people more purchasing power...

The 1950s also benefited from the surge in ability to advertise after TV sets became the big new thing

In the 1970s There was the building boom. Construction techniques improved big time bringing down building costs. Businesses could buy new buildings for cheaper, and taller buildings for corporations were then possible. The construction boom had all sorts fo ripple effects particularly in mega cities

Late 1990s to early 2000s This was tech/information boom. Computers making organization of information so much easier, emerging internet changed everything. Fewer workers were needed for slow mediocre tasks such as data management. Trasfers of information became so much easier. Businesses now had access to all kinds of data basis they needed and everything just became so much faster

 

NOW NOTHING???? what each of these revolutions resulted in was improved efficiency, productivity and as a result, strong economic growth. As of the last decade, there has not been any particular revolution to really improve efficiencies, and with an aging population and more people retiring, productivity gains are ever sagging and the economy is barely growing.

 

Perhaps part of what the economy needs to get kick started again is another technological revolution. Periods of time with little productivity gains have been linked with long periods of economic stagnation

[FATCAT 60,901]

I feel that the next 'Boom' will be in health care/ weight loss.

[AM98GJ 3,086]

Space tbh 

[Giorno Giovanna 3,178]

i don't have enough knowledge about economy and this stuff to give a decent opinion, however i quite like that technology doesn't grow as much as expected, steady and slow development is better than no development, I don't get this often stated "faster, bigger, better"-mentality

[Runway 27,876]

Volantis is coming to snatch Graham Bell's wig. Technological chanteuse

[Economy 52,951]

i don't have enough knowledge about economy and this stuff to give a decent opinion, however i quite like that technology doesn't grow as much as expected, steady and slow development is better than no development, I don't get this often stated "faster, bigger, better"-mentality

​the economy at the end of the day is all about production and consumption. A business produces something and needs someone to consume it, and the workers they pay with the money they make can consume things also

We think of the economy as bad right now, but in reality, its bad in comparison to what we have been used to the last few decades

before the industrial revolution, in some areas (even in more prosperous nations) the average family spend as much as 75% of their resources for food. Housing and clothing pretty much took up the rest. People didnt have resources for extras. Production was slow.

 

Now with mass production we have a higher standard of living. the average family in the US spent only 7% of income on food (it has increased slightly since recession as drops in incomes bite).

The idea is that the more u can produce with fewer workers and costs, you do not have to raise prices much keeping inflation low and consumers save money to buy more of other stuff. It also frees up labor for workers to work elsewhere and be productive where they can be. In a nutshell, when a society produces more, it can also consume more, and the average person has more purchasing power

 

in the late 1990s all those people transfering data that lost their jobs because they were no longer needed, in the long run actually was of benefit as companies saved money, and those fired people found other jobs where they could be useful instead

 

when productivity doesnt rise, economic growth slows, investment due to anticipation slows, business investment for expansion slows and it can actually lead to more unemployment and stagnant wages

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

Who cares, I'm so sick of everything being about "efficiency", economic growth and making more money, this and that.

 

What we need is a paradigm shift and a new way of seeing the world, a  new definition for "economic growth" that isn't all about more and more efficiency and profit at the expense of the earth and life itself.

 

Like we should be able to LIVE and enjoy our lives rather than have to live just to work, it's dull and not what life should be about

[Ferrer Zorola 3,966]

what is technologiocal 

[Economy 52,951]

I feel that the next 'Boom' will be in health care/ weight loss.

​haha perhaps. i dunno if thats a big enough spectrum to affect the whole economy tho

 

there is a lot of hype over what "the internet of things" may do to the world economy in a few years. Some crazy estimates say it could boost word economy by $19 trillion although in my opinion thats a little too optimistic but we will see

 

its basically an upgrade to how the internet works and has a lot of potential. Its new technology using the internet. u should look up about it

[Economy 52,951]

what is technologiocal 

​sorry. fixed

 

and did u come here just to criticize my typos?

[Giorno Giovanna 3,178]

​the economy at the end of the day is all about production and consumption. A business produces something and needs someone to consume it, and the workers they pay with the money they make can consume things also

We think of the economy as bad right now, but in reality, its bad in comparison to what we have been used to the last few decades

before the industrial revolution, in some areas (even in more prosperous nations) the average family spend as much as 75% of their resources for food. Housing and clothing pretty much took up the rest. People didnt have resources for extras. Production was slow.

 

Now with mass production we have a higher standard of living. the average family in the US spent only 7% of income on food (it has increased slightly since recession as drops in incomes bite).

The idea is that the more u can produce with fewer workers and costs, you do not have to raise prices much keeping inflation low and consumers save money to buy more of other stuff. It also frees up labor for workers to work elsewhere and be productive where they can be. In a nutshell, when a society produces more, it can also consume more, and the average person has more purchasing power

 

in the late 1990s all those people transfering data that lost their jobs because they were no longer needed, in the long run actually was of benefit as companies saved money, and those fired people found other jobs where they could be useful instead

 

when productivity doesnt rise, economic growth slows, investment due to anticipation slows, business investment for expansion slows and it can actually lead to more unemployment and stagnant wages

i get what you say, however it depends on you achieve these things, if you produce with fewer workers more there will be less people with (enough) money on the market to consume things, of course a single company reducing its amount of workers won'thave a huge impact, but if every company tries to do so less people will be able to consume 

[Ferrer Zorola 3,966]

​sorry. fixed

 

and did u come here just to criticize my typos?

​hahaha nope sorry I just had to
I also came to remind you of Madonna's revolution of love 
now all jokes asides, is it really bad there's no new revolution? what if we make the anti-deforestation revolution or something green like that idk 

[Economy 52,951]

i get what you say, however it depends on you achieve these things, if you produce with fewer workers more there will be less people with (enough) money on the market to consume things, of course a single company reducing its amount of workers won'thave a huge impact, but if every company tries to do so less people will be able to consume 

​i dont think u understood what i was saying. more production doesnt result in more unemployment.

If it did well... with todays technology we can produce at least 10 times more per worker than say 100 years ago where so much stuff was manual. And then theres the fact that most women work now and before they did not. Using your logic, over 90% of people should be unemployed today because to produce what we did 100 years ago, we hardly need anybody

 

But that does not happen. Thanks to competition, much of what companies save everytime theres a productivity boom, they pass it on to consumers, keeping inflation lower, in fact for a number of years after the industrial revolution in the mid 1800s we actually had outright deflation much of the time where prices were actually falling

 

what consumers do with mroe purchasing power is they consume more.

So its true u dont need as much workers for the same amount of production but since people can consume more, it makes up for it

 

Its like how a smaller percentage of people working now because of aging population is actually not resulting in more job options. Some people thought it would but others warned that when people stop working they stop producing (and cant consume as much cause people cant afford as much when they retire). So as a result, fewer people working from retirement did not have a positive impact on unemployment numbers

 

The way the economy works is like that. If u cant fully comprehend it or if i cant explain it well enough for you to understand then just remember a simple fact. the economy is driven by supply and demand (production and consumption). More people working int he workforce and mroe productivity per worker is a good thing not bad. Technologies in the long run have always improved the economy not deteriorated it

 

thats one of the current flaws in the economic system. It requires constant growth because part of the economic activity is because of anticipation of future growth. Construction for example is one example of sectors in the economy that are supported by growth itself

[Economy 52,951]

​hahaha nope sorry I just had toI also came to remind you of Madonna's revolution of love 
now all jokes asides, is it really bad there's no new revolution? what if we make the anti-deforestation revolution or something green like that idk 

​not just any revolution will do. It has to be something that has a meaningful influence on productivity and costs

if its something that makes doing business easier, and something that results in more productivity per worker, it helps drive economic growth

if productivity barely rises, the economy can actually deteriorate because if the economy isnt growing, the investment and expansion part of the economy starts to sag and thats a major component of the economy...

 

so although productivity may not actually be decreasing, the economy itself can deteriorate as a result of no growth in it

[me069 284]

I might sound kind of ridiculous but aren't today's smartphones kind of revolutionary? I mean for $200 you get a phone, a videocamera, an mp3 player, a very capable gaming console, an almost fully functional mini-computer.

No, it's not as revolutionary as we expect it to be but technology is definitely developing. We want to advance faster and further but that is not always as easy said than done.