In the Future Everything Will Be A Coffee Shop

My company does a SAAS product aimed at banks. Everybody except the office manager telecommutes... sometimes. And everybody is in the office a large chunk of the time.

It's good to be able to concentrate alone, AND it's good to be able to collaborate in person.

Promise free food, and suddenly way more people are demanding it than the economy can support. Even if the economy can afford to give away food, society stagnates because there is no incentive to produce nor advance anything of value - be it making widgets, sweeping floors, or writing sonnets. Those who do produce the wealth unproductive others live on will decide to not bother (look up "go Galt"). We Americans are obsessed with jobs because we realize to not work leads to death, be it individual or cultural.

> Those who do produce the wealth unproductive others live on will decide to not bother (look up "go Galt").

Has this ever happened? Has anyone at any wealth level ever simply stopped making money because he was upset about taxes? I hear a lot of small-time sole proprieters talk about it, but I've never heard reliable reports of it actually happening.

"free food" doesn't necessarily mean a communist society where everything is free - it means providing an income level that allows for the necessities of life. It probably makes more sense to give those away than it does to force people to work meaningless jobs just so we feel they aren't getting something for "free" - if the jobs don't produce value, then the workers are getting something for free, they're just also wasting their time in the process.

People would still have every incentive to work to improve their lot in life; most people on HN probably have the capability to quit their jobs and live off of welfare checks, but it's not exactly a great lifestyle, even if it doesn't require any work. In fact, people might have more incentive than they do now to try out new, interesting work; knowing that if everything blows up they won't screw up their lives and the lives of their families is a great asset.

Overall, I imagine society would progress tremendously if everyone were able to get an education and do creative work while being guaranteed the basics of life, even if that results in some freeloaders surviving on the dole.

This somewhat assumes that the purpose of universities is to gain knowledge useful to employers. While that might be a purpose of it, universities are also screening mechanisms.

This is something by people in educational economics. While I think the author has a great point that we're looking to get workers who can get the job done, that isn't necessarily how businesses hire. The benefits from education don't just come in the form of increased human capital. Basically, you get bonus points for having the degree regardless of what it means to your human capital (there's a term for it that I can't come up with right now).

For a long time, we've heard of jobs that don't need a college degree, but that you won't get hired for without it. In fact, that's the reasoning behind getting a college degree in many majors where one doesn't have the intention of working in that area.

College is also a place where people get sorted into social groups according to smartness - social groupings that can continue well past college. After college, you meet friends of friends you had in college who also went to schools similar to your own and you get to build a network of people like you somewhat regardless of your success in life.

Finally, the appeal of letters is great. If you're "John Smith, BS", you will always be that. You will get the respect of being a college grad for the rest of your life. In a world where things seem in flux, items that we place undue weight on are comforting. Heck, the same can be said of going to a good school. If you went to Harvard, you will always have gone to Harvard - something very few people can say. No matter how much you fail at life in the future, you have proven that you're the top by having gone there.

Getting a certificate of completion from MITx isn't the same for many of these things. The fact that there aren't entrance requirements or limitations means that it isn't a certification that you're the top rung of society - just that you've learned some knowledge. Because it's so broadly available, it isn't sorting you into a social grouping. If universities are for knowledge transmission, the author is right - that these new offerings are wonderful. While maybe they should be for that purpose, I think that universities play a broader role in our society (I'm not saying it's a good or desirable role, just a role). They prove to others that I was accepted as not just someone they could transmit knowledge to, but a really smart person well above what would be needed to pass the courses. They connect me to other smart people who will become my social group as well as professional networking group. They make sure that no matter what I do in the future, I've proven that I'm one of the smart ones - one of the elite. My neighbor with a high-school diploma may make millions as a real-estate agent, but I'm a college grad! I can still feel proud (and maybe a little smug) because someone has certified that I'm part of the top of society - and no one has done that for him!