Granted, our didn't have computers or the internet; technology has marched onward. But regardless of whether we're discussing the modem or the mimeograph, the story of the young usurping the old with 'modern' technology is a classic.
Yes, it's the beginning of a fairly tale, a standard mythological motif - by which I don't mean it is fictional or trivial, but that it is universal. BTW: Matt does acknowledge that the next generation will do the same to his (at the end).
He's right about greater productivity - but if everyone is more productive, then the competitive bar simply resets at a higher level. It's an endless trudge, if the finish line recedes as you approach...
There's a sophisticated argument that with a smaller firm-size, you have more CEO's. The problem with competitive success remains that not everyone can be a winner - it's a zero-sum game by definition. But everyone can have a family. Everyone can have the satisfaction of improvement and mastery. Everyone can enjoy the thrill of risking a lesser thing for a greater thing. Everyone can take pride in effort and sacrifice for a worthy goal.
And ultimately, these things are immensely more satisfying than vacationing for months in Europe.
Talkin bout my generation
The economy is not a zero-sum game. The economy is not a zero-sum game. The economy is not a zero-sum game.
There does not need to be a loser for every winner.
We can all be happy and affluent.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29109.php
(Actually, the research in question had caveats: absolute income correlated with happiness until one's basic physical & health needs were satisfied. After that point, it didn't matter: instead, what mattered was how well you were doing relative to your peer group. So for there to be winners, there had to be losers as well.)
"They want to be CEO tomorrow,"
"I deserve favors from others"
"I know that I have more natural talents than most."
expect ready access to senior executives, even the CEO, to share their brilliant ideas.
I had an interesting conversation with a co-worker from the Midwest and for the first time I understood how the defition of winning and happiness differs. I don't think there has ever been a time in my life where I needed something and couldn't have it whereas my co-worker had to work hard for everything he has. His definition of "winning" is having a nice place to sleep, being able to eat a nice meal, and go out every once in a while. And once he has that, maybe a little bit nicer place to sleep, a little bit nicer meals, and going out more often. What other people have is not important to him, therefore, in his world everyone can win.
My definition of winning pretty much requires losers. I don't understand how you can consider yourself a winner unless you are more/better/faster/stronger/etc. than someone else.
Some people have their scale of success calibrated to be absolute (my co-worker), and other have it calibrated to be relative (myself). I hypothesize that the absolutes are happy more often but the relatives have the drive to achieve a greater magnitude of success albeit less of the time, which explains why some people are happy with (relatively) little and others are unhappy even with extreme wealth.
I think it's more a testament to the improvements we've made in technology how easy it is for kids to become BIG deals quickly with good ideas.