It’s weird to think that there are assets available, right now, which are dirt cheap but will be extremely valuable in 5 or 10 years.
Anyway, I’ve given this issue a decent amount of thought since it’s reasonable to expect that advances in AI will cause a lot of economic disruption and there is a decent chance that people fortunate enough to be invested in the right assets will end up very well off. What will be scarce but desirable in a post-AI world? Land? Rare art? Taxi medallions?
The main idea I have had is to save money by investing in an index fund on the theory that it gives you a pretty good chances of hitting one or more companies that would benefit tremendously from advances in AI.
Advances in technology seem to increase urbanization, so if you’re betting on the former you should bet on the latter.
Everyone already seems to think land around bigger cities is a good bet. But there are other aspects of increased urbanization that seem fairly predictable and entail specific increases in economic value.
Car rental companies, for one. With self-driving technology, people will get a lot less attached to their cars, and car rental / taxi companies will pick up the shift in transportation demand. (I suspect the shift will be most dramatic in caravans / mobile homes. Mobile hotel rooms. They take you to all the sights in the area, let you pre-order your choice of menu at the next restaurant they’ll drop you at, and pick a perfect sunset stop every evening. The elderly will love it.) But that business is easy for competitors to enter, so I’m not sure if being there early is a big advantage.
Advances in technology seem to increase urbanization, so if you’re betting on the former you should bet on the latter.
Yes, that thought occurred to me as well. Especially since improvements in crime-fighting technology (DNA testing, surveillance cameras) are making it a lot safer to live in the big city.
On the other hand, perhaps in the future it will be really easy to live your life without leaving your house. In that case, one can imagine that the cities will empty out and people will choose to live on big plots of land in the middle of nowhere.
It’s just really hard to predict these things.
Car rental companies, for one. With self-driving technology, people will get a lot less attached to their cars, and car rental / taxi companies will pick up the shift in transportation demand.
Yes, that’s another likely possibility. On the other hand, cars themselves have been getting cheaper and cheaper so people might still choose to have their own.
That’s the thing about these predictions—there’s always an “on the other hand.”
So one can argue that prudent thing to do is to diversify. e.g. invest in a real estate trust which buys urban land; suburban land; rural land; farmland; etc.
That was predicted decades ago, when telecommuting was hyped, and the opposite happened.
Yes, I agree with this. But a lot of trends stop and then reverse themselves.
ETA: Upon further reflection, my best guess is that this trend will continue. Because people crave status; even in a society of plenty there is a limited amount of status; and it’s high status live in or near an important city.
Also, people want to be near their friends, and the easiest way to be close to a lot of people is to live in a big city.
I would actually expect that communications technologies accelerate the urbanization process, since it makes it easier to make geographically distant friends online, and then you become more likely to want to move to where they live.
what is status in a world thats moved out of the age of scarcity that humans have been in since existence?
I really don’t think there will be any kind of status except maybe politics. How can you be certain that in a society of plenty “there is a limited amount of status”? No society has ever been there before.
To your first point, I agree. Comparing the past to the future, saying well we weren’t right about telecommunting’s consequences so we definitely cant now be correct about a different technologies consequences is silly.
what is status in a world thats moved out of the age of scarcity that humans have been in since existence?
Hanging out with the cool kids; summering in the Hamptons; having a balcony on Central Park West; having courtside seats at Knicks games; sending your children to Harvard, just to name a few things.
All of these things are scarce and are likely to remain so no matter how wealthy the world gets.
It’s weird to think that there are assets available, right now, which are dirt cheap but will be extremely valuable in 5 or 10 years.
Anyway, I’ve given this issue a decent amount of thought since it’s reasonable to expect that advances in AI will cause a lot of economic disruption and there is a decent chance that people fortunate enough to be invested in the right assets will end up very well off. What will be scarce but desirable in a post-AI world? Land? Rare art? Taxi medallions?
The main idea I have had is to save money by investing in an index fund on the theory that it gives you a pretty good chances of hitting one or more companies that would benefit tremendously from advances in AI.
Advances in technology seem to increase urbanization, so if you’re betting on the former you should bet on the latter.
Everyone already seems to think land around bigger cities is a good bet. But there are other aspects of increased urbanization that seem fairly predictable and entail specific increases in economic value.
Car rental companies, for one. With self-driving technology, people will get a lot less attached to their cars, and car rental / taxi companies will pick up the shift in transportation demand. (I suspect the shift will be most dramatic in caravans / mobile homes. Mobile hotel rooms. They take you to all the sights in the area, let you pre-order your choice of menu at the next restaurant they’ll drop you at, and pick a perfect sunset stop every evening. The elderly will love it.) But that business is easy for competitors to enter, so I’m not sure if being there early is a big advantage.
Yes, that thought occurred to me as well. Especially since improvements in crime-fighting technology (DNA testing, surveillance cameras) are making it a lot safer to live in the big city.
On the other hand, perhaps in the future it will be really easy to live your life without leaving your house. In that case, one can imagine that the cities will empty out and people will choose to live on big plots of land in the middle of nowhere.
It’s just really hard to predict these things.
Yes, that’s another likely possibility. On the other hand, cars themselves have been getting cheaper and cheaper so people might still choose to have their own.
That’s the thing about these predictions—there’s always an “on the other hand.”
So one can argue that prudent thing to do is to diversify. e.g. invest in a real estate trust which buys urban land; suburban land; rural land; farmland; etc.
That was predicted decades ago, when telecommuting was hyped, and the opposite happened.
True. I imagine that this too should decrease people’s (often very strong) emotional attachment to their car, though. But who knows?
Yes, I agree with this. But a lot of trends stop and then reverse themselves.
ETA: Upon further reflection, my best guess is that this trend will continue. Because people crave status; even in a society of plenty there is a limited amount of status; and it’s high status live in or near an important city.
Also, people want to be near their friends, and the easiest way to be close to a lot of people is to live in a big city.
I would actually expect that communications technologies accelerate the urbanization process, since it makes it easier to make geographically distant friends online, and then you become more likely to want to move to where they live.
what is status in a world thats moved out of the age of scarcity that humans have been in since existence?
I really don’t think there will be any kind of status except maybe politics. How can you be certain that in a society of plenty “there is a limited amount of status”? No society has ever been there before.
To your first point, I agree. Comparing the past to the future, saying well we weren’t right about telecommunting’s consequences so we definitely cant now be correct about a different technologies consequences is silly.
Hanging out with the cool kids; summering in the Hamptons; having a balcony on Central Park West; having courtside seats at Knicks games; sending your children to Harvard, just to name a few things.
All of these things are scarce and are likely to remain so no matter how wealthy the world gets.