He&#x27;s right about most of this. Refreshingly different article. I counter mainly on productivity:<p>1. As mirimir said, we can get information and training faster than ever. That has directly implications for labor force. We predictably see more talent than the market is even willing to utilize in some areas.<p>2. VOIP and video conferencing make collaboration easy between people that likely would&#x27;ve had to travel.<p>3. Retrieving files on people, the law, whatever is a process that takes minutes instead of hours to weeks.<p>4. My taxes are filed and refund received quickly.<p>5. Self-checkouts can handle 6 customers in the time it takes a regular checkout to handle 1 or 2. Doesn&#x27;t mean they&#x27;ll move that fast but productivity &amp; cost savings were proven out.<p>6. Planning algorithms on computers let us quickly produce optimal schedules, division of raw resources into parts, routes, industrial steps, and so on. The gains here are real.<p>7. Scheduling itself deserves special mention. Well-designed scheduling systems dramatically reduce waste throughout the organization while getting the mission done. First case study I saw was HCA spending about a million on one to save $300 million across their hospital chain. I call that computer-driven activity quite an economic result.<p>8. The combination of computers, cloud, and competition make many services formerly requiring specialists nearly dirt cheap for startups or small businesses. Each can therefore get more done with less money.<p>Just a few to counter his point that there&#x27;s been no productivity gain. If he&#x27;s measuring macroscale, what he&#x27;s probably seeing is productivity gains all over the place combined with competition that keeps financial effects in check. If anything, we&#x27;re hyperproductive these days to the point where computers&#x27; capabilities require us to do too much. It&#x27;s hard to simply break even today much less have numbers wildly ahead of the competition.