It’s amazing to me the gap between pro and anti remote work continues to grow. The potential benefits are so large to employers and workers alike it defies logic that the anti forces are able to remain in the discussion. Smart remote workers can take steps to solidify and strengthen the business-employee relationship. For example, because I don’t have to commute 2.5 hours total in one day, I am willing to be more flexible with my time, often willingly working hours overlapping with colleagues and suppliers in other time zones, whereas if I have to be in the office, that’s a 10.5 hr day just to work 8 hours. And those days I’m in the office, usually 1/3rd to 1/2 the time is in conference calls with colleagues at other sites or remote. I actually have a more quiet office and better facilities at home than my workplace. This gap is going to continue to grow and I’m guessing there is already a productivity gap between companies in the same industry who have and have not adopted effective remote work programs.
The biggest opponents are : i) Oppressive employers who know that looking for another job is 10X easier in a remote world. ii) Owners of office real estate (but many will eventually adapt and be fine, mostly by converting to housing), so this group is surprisingly not the most pig-headed. iii) Economists and other eggheads who are too theoretical to grasp how creative destruction occurs. But, I mean, sheesh. 10-15 hours a week saved is often twice as much discretionary time available to a person. For families with two working parents, this is huge.
@@KartikGadaATOM I think your point in this video and other previous videos about the creative destruction is right on point. I think I can make the case creative destruction is keeping the economy afloat as a growing share of economic growth. Just in the energy sector alone, without the savings coming from reduced fuel costs associated with remote work, the artificial inflation caused by U.S. energy policies would have lasted longer and been more severe. (US commodity index would have more closely tracked to the GSCI). The wild swings in several regional real estate markets would have been more severe if remote workers had been prevented from moving to more rural and smaller, safer communities. (You already mentioned the point of view from commercial real estate owners and investors). Gig workers are creative destruction in a pure form and will continue despite governments attempting to dissuade the populace. I really enjoy this particular series and learn much. At first, I thought you were harsh on PHD economists, but now I realize you may be to kind. Thanks for the steady flow of lectures and rapid responses to comments.
Thanks. When I first wrote the ATOM publication in 2016, I had no idea that I would end up having a low opinion of PhD Economists. I assumed they would evaluate my ideas and research. But when I saw the true Dunning-Kruger syndrome at work at a mass scale, combined with extremely high privilege for truly no valuable output to improve the human condition, I figured out how much of an isolated bubble with perverse incentives this is, and how much they are holding back human progress.
Indeed. No one else has this much overconfidence about stating such a bad idea out loud, because they assume that if the idea came from THEM, it must be good. The same goes for their take on what is and is not good for mental health. It really takes effort to be this wrong.
Thank god I quit the economy college. I did 2 years and then started to feel that the things being thaught, especially in macroeconomy where not right, I felt that if I worked doing what was being taught I would be no more than a fraud or scammer.
Yes. See this whole playlist, including the stack introduced in Episode 1. The concept of the economics 'stack' vs. science and technology stack is valuable.
Except they are taxing people who are not rich : i) Mothers with small children, for whom WFH is immensely valuable. ii) Elderly people who can't/shouldn't commute but can still work part time at their desk. Top executives could already often work from home if all of their reports are other executives who don't need in-person managing. This shows how unthinking these PhD Economists are.
People who use a word processor to produce written text instead of hiring a nice natural monk equipped with ink and quill should have to pay extra tax.
That is how they think. They want to preserve anything disrupted by technological progress, whether those things were themselves of any good or not, with taxation. This is exactly how to destroy an economy.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
View the full playlist here : ruclips.net/p/PLtB9SWgRuNLWf5IUP25Tys15NCQYkLS8e
Cant believe someone said that in 2024 😮
Do you mean the 5% tax part or the 'going to the office helps mental health' part?
Thank you for continuing to make videos, Kartik. Your work is very useful and I appreciate it very much!
It’s amazing to me the gap between pro and anti remote work continues to grow. The potential benefits are so large to employers and workers alike it defies logic that the anti forces are able to remain in the discussion. Smart remote workers can take steps to solidify and strengthen the business-employee relationship. For example, because I don’t have to commute 2.5 hours total in one day, I am willing to be more flexible with my time, often willingly working hours overlapping with colleagues and suppliers in other time zones, whereas if I have to be in the office, that’s a 10.5 hr day just to work 8 hours. And those days I’m in the office, usually 1/3rd to 1/2 the time is in conference calls with colleagues at other sites or remote. I actually have a more quiet office and better facilities at home than my workplace.
This gap is going to continue to grow and I’m guessing there is already a productivity gap between companies in the same industry who have and have not adopted effective remote work programs.
The biggest opponents are :
i) Oppressive employers who know that looking for another job is 10X easier in a remote world.
ii) Owners of office real estate (but many will eventually adapt and be fine, mostly by converting to housing), so this group is surprisingly not the most pig-headed.
iii) Economists and other eggheads who are too theoretical to grasp how creative destruction occurs.
But, I mean, sheesh. 10-15 hours a week saved is often twice as much discretionary time available to a person. For families with two working parents, this is huge.
@@KartikGadaATOM I think your point in this video and other previous videos about the creative destruction is right on point. I think I can make the case creative destruction is keeping the economy afloat as a growing share of economic growth. Just in the energy sector alone, without the savings coming from reduced fuel costs associated with remote work, the artificial inflation caused by U.S. energy policies would have lasted longer and been more severe. (US commodity index would have more closely tracked to the GSCI). The wild swings in several regional real estate markets would have been more severe if remote workers had been prevented from moving to more rural and smaller, safer communities. (You already mentioned the point of view from commercial real estate owners and investors). Gig workers are creative destruction in a pure form and will continue despite governments attempting to dissuade the populace.
I really enjoy this particular series and learn much. At first, I thought you were harsh on PHD economists, but now I realize you may be to kind. Thanks for the steady flow of lectures and rapid responses to comments.
Thanks. When I first wrote the ATOM publication in 2016, I had no idea that I would end up having a low opinion of PhD Economists. I assumed they would evaluate my ideas and research. But when I saw the true Dunning-Kruger syndrome at work at a mass scale, combined with extremely high privilege for truly no valuable output to improve the human condition, I figured out how much of an isolated bubble with perverse incentives this is, and how much they are holding back human progress.
An idea so bad only a PhD economist could come up with it
Indeed. No one else has this much overconfidence about stating such a bad idea out loud, because they assume that if the idea came from THEM, it must be good. The same goes for their take on what is and is not good for mental health. It really takes effort to be this wrong.
Thank god I quit the economy college. I did 2 years and then started to feel that the things being thaught, especially in macroeconomy where not right, I felt that if I worked doing what was being taught I would be no more than a fraud or scammer.
Yes. See this whole playlist, including the stack introduced in Episode 1. The concept of the economics 'stack' vs. science and technology stack is valuable.
Just a variation of the "Windfall Profits Tax".
Except they are taxing people who are not rich :
i) Mothers with small children, for whom WFH is immensely valuable.
ii) Elderly people who can't/shouldn't commute but can still work part time at their desk.
Top executives could already often work from home if all of their reports are other executives who don't need in-person managing.
This shows how unthinking these PhD Economists are.
People who use a word processor to produce written text instead of hiring a nice natural monk equipped with ink and quill should have to pay extra tax.
That is how they think. They want to preserve anything disrupted by technological progress, whether those things were themselves of any good or not, with taxation. This is exactly how to destroy an economy.
@@KartikGadaATOMthey cant do that a Change is a change you would only destroy yourself in a process trying to fight this technological.change