What My Mind Thinks

I'm impressed with this perspective on the economics of spending time, largely focused on the question of why we are chronically so short on time these days. In an age of abundance, why are we so harried? The simple answer, argued by economist Daniel Hamermesh in his book Spending Time , is that, as our wealth has grown, the number of hours in our day has not. Huh? But read on, it makes incredible sense, and it answers a lot. Hamermesh illustrates this with an a thought experiment about a billionaire. How much of the stuff that a billionaire does can she hire out? Even a billionaire would likely want to DO something with her day, so even though she may not be earning a living, she will still likely be occupied by something important, something that she couldn't pay someone else to do. She can hire someone to mow the lawn, to clean the house, to shuttle the kids around, walk the dog, and do the cooking and childcare. But at some point there's a limit. She can...

My mind is not made up about universal basic income (UBI), but it seems to warrant serious consideration. The most compelling argument in favor is the apparent increasing likelihood that machines will be able to most human jobs better and cheaper than most humans. There are good arguments that increased automation won't in fact eliminate jobs , but I think these arguments are short sighted, lacking the vision of, say, maybe my favorite visionary Yuval Noah Harari . For me, it's a "not if but when" argument. Sure, despite recent automation, the unemployment rate is low. But will this trend continue when Tesla displaces the trucking industry overnight? When, by some estimates , half of all jobs are eliminated within 10 years? It seems hard to be confident that the rate of automation will continue to be outstripped by the creation of new jobs and new employment sectors. For any prediction work, we should consider not only the likelihood that something will com...

There are companies that help develop existing personas  (you're a brand, whether you like it or not), or create fake personas for potential hires or potential clients . What about a philanthropic organization that develops personas that they'd like to see in the world? For example, I'd like to see more curators of middle-of-the-road news and political commentary to combat febrile polarization. What if I hired a writer to create some thoughtful blog posts, initiated a twitter and facebook account, and then recruited someone to maintain these? It feels a little like a subversive Russian influence racket, but if I genuinely feel this persona would be helpful, and I find someone who genuinely agrees, then it doesn't strike me as wrong. I bet there are many talented people out there willing to maintain a certain public face, they're just not sure what. Priming them with the beginnings of a beneficial persona seems reasonable. Other quick persona ideas: -...

There's a strong argument that the advent of the printing press in Europe lead, at least initially, to years of religious war before supporting the sustained progressive force of the Enlightenment. Are we seeing a similar pattern with the internet? It's early promise of an enlightenment 2.0 , a kind of phase shift in the growth of knowledge and collaboration, seems to be overshadowed by fighting, partisanship, and extremism that is disrupting national and global governance. Perhaps sufficiently disruptive communication technologies get the public more upset than enlightened, at least at first. Old dogmas die hard before new visions can become realized. Perhaps we will continue to see a growing amount of internet-driven strife, on social medial and mobile platforms, hopefully flaming out sooner and less bloodier than the Europe's reformation. And what would an enlightenment 2.0 bring? Those who predicted an internet-fueled uptick in growth have been scratching...