Sorry for the delay in posting. I’ve been thoroughly swamped getting back from Austin. It’s the usual mid-August–I have to find referees for another 52 soccer matches this season. Plus I contributed to the economy by buying a car. I practiced saying no for a while before going in to see the dealership finance manager.
My video recap of NI Week is live at Automation World.
I’m putting together a post on jobs. I’ve written about Martin Ford in the past who is a pessimist on jobs. Jeff Jarvis just posted a pessimistic note about loss of jobs. Jason Calacanis responded with one of his usual grandiose ideas. What I’m pondering (comment now, and you can help shape my ideas)–in the ’50s and ’60s we had great prosperity with only one person earning a salary in most households. Then we encouraged women to enter the workforce, and they did in huge numbers. Simultaneously, the price per worker went down. This driven partly by Republican politics–it’s the usual boost income for my friends and decrease for my foes something all politicians seem to think. But it’s partly due to supply and demand.
So, what I’m wondering is–do we all need to work for a wage? What’s wrong with only one earner per household who can earn enough that the family can live a middle class life. The other person could work (since I do believe that work is fulfilling) on one of various agencies that do things to help people and not worry about earning $40K to keep the family in a house.