, , , ,

Talking about the “new economy” of not stuff, not ideas, but exchange, she states:

Which underscores a disturbing truth about the new economy: it’s all on you. People who are smart, well educated and entrepreneurial may well do better in this paradigm.

Except, of course, for the poor sods who had the misfortune to be born in the 80s — the crash wiped them out. Faroohar blithely ignores generational inequity to focus on socioeconomic status:

But what about those who aren’t as well positioned or at least need help in tooling up?

The obvious answer is for government to provide more help through a reformed educational system, workforce training and a social safety net to pick up slack. That’s what I consistently hear tech titans and other CEOs calling for. The hitch is that they are calling for it even as they pay a smaller share of the tax pie to fund it all.

I’ve gotta say, “rich or welfare” doesn’t that sound like that great a deal to me.

If the “new economy” is based on, essentially, barter — Faroohar’s example is Airbnb, a “lifestyle” alternative to the hotel — there isn’t going to be a way to scale up your skills. Last time I checked, a college diploma can’t buy you a house. If you’re of a certain age, it can’t even get you a job. So what are you going to do for those workers?

A good economy creates employment, whether through goods, services, or thoughts. A stagnant economy creates ‘experiences’ for the fortunate — whether that’s borrowing another wealthy person’s home on the Riviera for a week through Airbnb, buying a personal chauffeur for an hour through Uber, or refusing to give your cleaning lady, handyman, or ‘assistant’ a real fucking contract with TaskRabbit. Meanwhile, the less fortunate are expected to get ahead … through “workforce training” for this future?

This type of economy was pretty common once upon a time. We called them Robber Barons.