This past summer I started biking. Although I had a bike when I was young, I never really got into it.
Now that I live in Hamilton, Ontario, the street that I live on actually ends and then becomes a trail complete with paved roads that are great for biking.
And it's been amazing. Although I (try to) go to the gym 2 to 3 times a week, it's something else to force yourself to go up a steep hill. And yes I had to get off the bike and walk it. But just the first time ;).
But alas, summer is coming to an end. What can I do? Will virtual reality come to my rescue?
As it turns out, my local gym has a solution that just may fit the bill. Although no it does not offer VR helmets, they do have a simulation mimics going out on the trail - video game of sorts. There are different courses to choose from.
It also offers you the ability to login and tracks your progress as illustrated in this video. :
Although not totally virtual reality, it is a good illustration of how a "real world" activity can be simulated through technology. As I want to keep up my biking in the winter, the experience does give you some of the feedback that you would experience when biking. For example, when you go up a hill it does feel tougher to pedal. And it is an immersive experience as you focus on the course instead of the regular gym experience where you kind of bored.
Why am I writing about this on a blog about CPA and tech?
The experience made me reflect on how such a simulation can be leveraged by the CPA profession for the purpose of education.
As we move up the automation curve, one of the looming challenges will be reimagining the training of a CPA. For example, let's say testing cash becomes completely automated due to easy access to banking data; how do CPAs learn to test accounts for completeness (e.g. subsequent disbursement testing), testing outstanding cheques, etc. That is, if junior auditors are no longer needed to do these routine tasks, then how do they get their experience?
Virtual reality and augmented reality may be the answer.
My colleague, Eric Barsky, trying out VR at the 2019 CPA One Conference in Montreal.
In Canada, the business case has been the chief tool to test CPAs in the Common Final Exam (CFE) and the UFE (Uniform Final Exam; as it was called when I wrote it). The idea is that the case simulates a business experience to enable CPAs to test their knowledge before going out into the real world. Consequently, adding technology to the mix may give examiners the ability to test CPAs in ways that were not possible before. For example, immersive technology could simulate an inventory count, client interactions or site inspection that was not possible before.
"Accenture is enabling inexperienced caseworkers to receive training simulations through VR headsets. The content uses immersive storytelling and interactive voice-based scenarios to help caseworkers hone their people and decision-making skills. The goal, DuBoff says, is to get new staff up to speed with real-world scenarios as quickly as possible. And it beats hiring consultancies to help coach new hires. VR/AR training will top $8 billion by 2023, according to IDC."
A key advantage that CPAs have is that we as a professional body have the natural ability to form a network. By contributing resources and time to this network - for projects such as "immersive training" - can give a unique value to the profession. Just imagine being able to put on a VR helmet and actually experience what it's like to interact with challenging situations - in a way that goes beyond a static case. Although it seems like the stuff of Sci-Fi, the fact others are already doing is a good indication that this is an innovation worth exploring.
Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else
Less than a month ago, Gartner released it's latest Hype Cycle for 2019.
But for we get to that, what is the Hype Cycle?
If you have heard terms like "peak of inflated expectations" or "trough of disillusionment" - you're already familiar with it. But if not check it out here on Gartner's site. As described in the link, it looks at technology going through a "bubblistic" growth curve, dividing the ascent of an innovation or technology into the following phases:
The Hype Cycle essentially captures the "herd mentality" that causes Bubbles to form in the Capitalist economic system. Efrim Boritz and I wrote a paper, "A Brief Review of Investment Bubbles throughout History", over a decade ago that analyzes the history of Bubbles going back to Tulipmania back in 1600s to the DotCom Bubble in 2000. In the paper we reference, John Cassidy's "Dot.con: The Greatest Story Ever Sold", as follows:
"According to Cassidy (2002) all speculative bubbles go through four stages: 1) displacement, when something changes people’s expectations about the future; 2) boom, when prices rise sharply and skepticism gives way to greed; 3) euphoria, when people realize the bubble can’t last but they want to cash in on it before it bursts; and 4) bust, when prices plummet and speculators incur great losses. "
This illustrates that it's not just Gartner that has understood this phenomenon, but it is something broadly understood about the maturity of a given technology within the context of a Capitalist economy.
Why should CPAs care about the Hype Cycle?
CPAs working for companies that approve investments or provide strategic advice to business leaders will want to understand where a technology trend is before approving an investment in that solution. For example, a company who is not threatened by competition or other trends may want to wait till the technology hits the Slope of Enlightenment or later. For example, chiropractors and other health care professionals can benefit from calender and website building/hosting services that are commercially available instead of having to develop their own. Conversely, someone in a highly competitive space may want to get in much earlier to head-off the competition. For example, Blackberry was too late when it came to having an app ecosystem to compete with Andriod or iOS.
Delving into the 2019 Trends: What's new in AI & Analytics?
In terms of the overall 2019 Hype Cycle, we see that AI is still hasn't surpassed the Peak of Inflated Expectations. This illustrates that the technology is in a Hype mode; meaning a lot has to be proven out before the full ROI of AI can be understood
In the article, the following 5 trends were highlighted:
Sensing and mobility
Augmented human
Postclassical compute and comms
Digital ecosystems
Advanced AI and analytics
In terms of the trend that arguably has the most relevance to CPAs is advanced AI and analytics.
In a supplementary link, Gartner highlights the importance of data literacy equating to speaking the same language in the organization:
"Imagine an organization where the marketing department speaks French, the product designers speak German, the analytics team speaks Spanish and no one speaks a second language. Even if the organization was designed with digital in mind, communicating business value and why specific technologies matter would be impossible.
That’s essentially how a data-driven business functions when there is no data literacy. If no one outside the department understands what is being said, it doesn’t matter if data and analytics offers immense business value and is a required component of digital business."
They go on to state that there is an essentially a looming crisis with respect to this stating that by "2020, 50% of organizations will lack sufficient AI and data literacy skills to achieve business value".
This trend is important for two reasons.
Firstly, one of the continuing challenges for CPAs in the world of audit is to get their arms around the data. So such a stat testifies to the continuing challenge that auditors will face when designing and executing audit data analytics (ADAs).
"Poor data literacy is ranked as the second-biggest internal roadblock to the success of the office of the chief data officer, according to the Gartner Annual Chief Data Officer Survey. Gartner expects that, by 2020, 80% of organizations will initiate deliberate competency development in the field of data literacy to overcome extreme deficiencies."
It won't be easy to prove value with data governance because of the indirect link to cost savings or revenue enhancement. But when reputable analyst firms, such as Gartner, identify this as an important trend it makes it easier to convince the business that such investments are warranted.
Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else.
“Many players have attempted to use cryptocurrencies to fund their malign behavior. This is indeed a national security issue,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in remarks at a Monday news briefing. Should Facebook develop its digital coin, called Libra, to “have a payments system correctly with proper [anti-money-laundering safeguards], that’s fine,” Mr. Mnuchin said" [emphasis added]
The US is pretty committed to fostering all their muster against China and enabling capital flight from their country would be an important tool in the new "Great Game" that is being played by these hegemons.
What can bitcoiners teach us about innovation and cryptocurrency?
Although the grand chess match between China and the US is important, the innovation angle is also something worth analyzing.
What did bitcoin enthusiasts have to say about Facebook's Libra?
It turns out their critique, via Mastering Bitcoin's author Andreas M. Antonopoulos, yield some insight into the reality of blockchain innovation. He had the following to say about Libra:
As per the video, he notes that cryptocurrency is "open, public, borderless, neutral, and censorship resistant" (this post lays out what each means, so check that out). More importantly, he points out these characteristics can only emanate from a decentralized approach used by bitcoin and certain other public cryptocurrencies. Conversely, if we have a centralized blockchain - like Libra or Ripple - then it loses these magical qualities. As pointed above, Mnuchin requires a "throat to choke". The only way you can't have a "throat to choke" - is when that throat is decentralized.
What's the innovation?
In the class, I teach about Audit, Innovation and Technology, I went through my Delta Framework. In this table, we have key characteristics of the old system or technology. The second column looks a bitcoinesque cryptocurrency, while the third looks at Libra.
What the analysis confirmed is how permissioned blockchain, such as Libra, is more of an incremental innovation rather than something radical that would upset the apple cart. Specifically, the ability to use permissioned ledgers will make it really easy for the consortium to fulfill their AML obligations. Why? Because all the record keeping is automated. And that last word is key: automation. Permissioned blockchain is really about "frictionless" transaction propagation between known parties via a decentralized ledger. The Libra consortium is essentially establishing systems that can trace a transaction from crade-to-grave because the underlying blockchain technology is all about automating the accounting. Regulators are actually going to love it.
The public blockchain, on the other hand, is about disrupting the concept of fiat currency itself. If governments can conjure currency out of thin air, why not Satoshi Nakamoto? And there you have bitcoin. Of course, as previously published, governments are not going to like this and have worked to crush bitcoin by going after people. But the point is that eliminating the centralized intermediaries of trust was never bitcoin's objective and could be arguably are caught in a "gale of creative destruction". Rather, it was to offer an alternative to the fiat currency order that we live in and the blockchain technology was just the means to do it.
Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else
"Libra, which will let you buy things or send money to people with nearly zero fees. You’ll pseudonymously buy or cash out your Libra online or at local exchange points like grocery stores, and spend it using interoperable third-party wallet apps or Facebook’s own Calibra wallet that will be built into WhatsApp, Messenger and its own app."
The head of Libra, David Marcus, went on CNBC to discuss this initiative as well.
The move represents the growing power of Facebook and other IT companies that increasingly dominating the economy.
In fact, this reality was one that was discussed at the CPA Foresight Initiative that were recently held. In my breakout group, dubbed "Tech Titans, I proposed is that there is actually nothing stopping one of these companies from becoming a bank. Circulating this picture to the wider group:
It is quite clear that these tech giants are well capitalized. What stops them from blessed by the grand wizards of Capitalism to become a bank? For example, Rogers has been issued a bank license in Canada to "issue credit cards and other financial products". Although the charter seems limited in scope, if they have enough capital reserves what's to stop the next step of them issuing loan through the magic of fractional reserve banking?
And so here you have it. Facebook is the first of the Tech Titans, also known as it’s Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google (FAANG), to turn embark down the path of financialization. What separates Libra from Bitcoin is that it's a stablecoin, is that it is a "stable coin"; where the value does not fluctuate. Bitcoin, in contrast, is not an actual currency as it is not backed by nothing. Hence the fluctuating value prohibits it from being something that consumers and retailers can keep in their wallets to buy things. As the Libra whitepaper notes:
"Libra is designed to be a stable digital cryptocurrency that will be fully backed by a reserve of real assets — the Libra Reserve — and supported by a competitive network of exchanges buying and selling Libra. That means anyone with Libra has a high degree of assurance they can convert their digital currency into local fiat currency based on an exchange rate, just like exchanging one currency for another when traveling. This approach is similar to how other currencies were introduced in the past: to help instill trust in a new currency and gain widespread adoption during its infancy, it was guaranteed that a country’s notes could be traded in for real assets, such as gold. Instead of backing Libra with gold, though, it will be backed by a collection of low-volatility assets, such as bank deposits and short-term government securities in currencies from stable and reputable central banks."
Arguably, Apple was the first of the FAANG to go down this road with their shiny new credit card, but this was largely incremental innovation as they are leveraging Goldman Sachs and MasterCard for the underlying infrastructure. And it’s a credit card, which is obviously a legacy payment technology.
Facebook, on the other hand, is charting new territory by wrapping its foray into financialization in blockchain technology. However, they too have assembled a coalition of the willing as well:
Although Calibra (Facebook's digital wallet to hold Libra) will not be connected to people's Facebook account, there is a treasure trove of data that would come from linking a person's personal data to the audit trail that would come from their Calibra wallet. And given Facebook's track record on privacy, it's not difficult to see why people would be suspicious about Facebook trying to monetize this data. That being said, David Marcus (head of Facebook's Calibra divison) noted on an interview on CNBC that there is a significant effort to get the cryptocurrency up and running.
My bet was on Amazon
As I noted in a previous post, I thought it would be Amazon that would be first to the market with a "stable-coin". My prediction was based that Amazon would have the most to gain by cutting out the credit card companies. The trick though, was how would Amazon get people to load up cash directly into their systems? Amazon would have to make a deal with a retailer, like Starbucks or Walmart, who could not only provide such access to Amazon but could also then get to use that cryptocurrency.
What did I miss?
The FAANG are not as powerful as the banking sector. Both Apple and Facebook have included major financial players in their respective entrance world of financialization. Perhaps that will change over time but for now, it seems they are content to partner with major players within the industry.
Why financialization?
Apple and Facebook may occupy the headlines when it comes to their respective financial plays, but they are not the first in tech to realize there are pots of money to be made from the rentier economy.
Perhaps the biggest illustration of this is how Sony makes 63% of its operating profits from finance with “[l]ife insurance has been its biggest moneymaker over the last decade, earning the company 933 billion yen ($9.07 billion)”. So even Sony - the inventor of the Walkman - is not focused on the production of goods or services but on such rent-seeking activity.
What about regulation?
How on earth is Facebook going to get away with this without being regulated?
Facebook appears to have bought themselves time by establishing this initiative in Switzerland. The other reality is that it's highly unlikely that this initiative was overlooked by the legal departments at Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, etc. That being said, could regulation be the worst thing for Facebook? I think that they may benefit from it. As I noted in this post, regulation can be a monopolist's best friend:
"In Tim Wu's Master Switch, Theodore Veil also advocated for the concept of a regulated monopoly in the arena of telephones:
"[Theodore] Vail died in 1920 at age 74, shortly after resigning as AT&T's president, but by that time, his life's work was done. The Bell system had uncontested domination of American telephony, and long-distance communication was unified according to his vision. The idea of an open, competitive system had lost out to AT&T's conception of an enlightened, licensed, and regulated monopoly. AT&T would remain in this form until the 1980s, and it would return in not so substantially different form in the 2000s. As historian Milton Mueller writes, Vail had completed the "political and ideological victory of the regulated monopoly paradigm, advanced under the banner of universal service."" [emphasis added]
We all know, including Facebook, that the world of finance is heavily regulated. Consequently, they likely know that the day they will have to comply with numerous regulations is inevitable.
However, could it be that the US Regulators are turning a blind-eye on purpose?
"Things really get interesting when the U.S. government issues a digital dollar. The dollar is already the world’s primary reserve and commercial currency, but this would give it an even bigger edge. That’s because people in countries whose currencies aren’t trusted or who are barred or restricted from buying foreign currencies—think China, Argentina, Russia—could now easily obtain the one currency that has long symbolized international stability. Whereas the international movement of paper dollars can be (somewhat) controlled with physical checks at border crossings and regulation of bank transfers, digital dollars would be far more footloose. They would invade other jurisdictions’ currency zones. If citizens of other countries can easily acquire dollars—by far the most sought-after currency in the world—and use them to buy almost anything, why would they need renminbi or pesos or rubles? In this scenario, other currencies become less sought after, the dollar more powerful. It is the ultimate expression of U.S. hegemony, and, for other governments, undermines their nation-state sovereignty."
That is, Facebook's deployment of the cryptocurrency gives the US government plausible deniability that the US is working to undermine the Chinese from a currency perspective. As I noted in this post, I cited the Wall Street Journal in explaining China's concern regarding cryptocurrency.
"Virtual currencies in theory allow holders to bypass China’s traditional banking system to move money outside its capital-controlled borders. That could make it more difficult for Chinese regulators to maintain a tight grip on the yuan."
(I also noted that the US had similar concerns around bitcoin and used DoJ operation Chokepoint as well as IRS rules to curtail the use of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. It's not realistic to think that a country will let down it's guard when it comes to capital controls.)
Although the foreign policy aspect may be important, there are real risks for the consumers here. How do the consumers know that their money is safe at Facebook? For example, the FDIC insures deposits of actual banking institutions. Unlike Bitcoin, Facebook can be forced to under audits and other compliance activities. Without such oversight, it's impossible to know whether Facebook is actually keeping enough reserves to back Libra. Take for example Tether, a stablecoin that was allegedly backed by the US Dollar. They initially had to break things off with their auditor. And it seems that they have retained lawyers to provide the necessary assurance over their reserves. However, this article on Forbes traces how Tether seems to be changing its wording around whether Tether is actually fully backed by US fiat currency.
So, we shouldn't be surprised to the FDIC or some other financial regualtor's seal as part of its updated infographic in the near future.
In future post(s), we will look at how bitcoiners are reacting to this as well as what potential opportunities Libra could bring to the audit.
Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else
China’s continued clampdown on bitcoin has provided an impetus for miners to relocate to USA and Canada. In this article, Forbes noted that China’s, National Development Reform Commission (NRDC) might identify bitcoin mining as an activity that is causing harm to the environment. The article also cited that problem of the ability for the rich to evade the country’s capital controls, which I raised in this post. The NRDC has put May 7th as the deadline when it will ban bitcoin. As a result, Bitmain Technologies is looking to relocate in Canada (and the US) and BTC.Top is “opening facilities in Canada.”
Will this relocation to Canada prove to be a boon or is it a prelude to the inevitable bursting of the Bitcoin bubble?
Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, are highly volatile. Some companies use the spot price to determine their value and report it on their financial statements. Hive Blockchain notes on financial statements that:
“Digital currencies consist of cryptocurrency denominated assets (Note 8) and are included in current assets. Digital currencies are carried at their fair value determined by the spot rate based on the hourly volume weighted average from www.cryptocompare.com. The digital currency market is still a new market and is highly volatile; historical prices are not necessarily indicative of future value; a significant change in the market prices for digital currencies would have a significant impact on the Company’s earnings and financial position”.
“While this boom and crash was unfortunate for investors, it actually produced some of the most innovative ideas that were simply just ahead of their time. Concepts developed by many companies that went under, including VoIP, eCommerce, big data and the web experience, still live on today, in many cases as the fundamental concepts driving success in large corporations.”
“The 1840s were a period of dramatic growth and change for British accountants. Many of today’s big accounting firms trace some of their roots to that period. As just one example, the accounting firms around the world that use the name “Deloitte” derive it from William Welch Deloitte, who set up his own practice in London in 1845. There is rare unanimity among experts on this period in attributing the growth in the ranks and prosperity of accountants to the rising demand for accounting services from the railway industry.”
When applying these lesson to crypto-currencies (that use the proof-of-work algorithm), the reality is that there is no underlying asset or service – other than a digital token that cannot be double spent. Therefore, unlike the Dot Com companies – who could at least feign a business model – cryptocurrencies have no mechanism of delivering value to its holders or purchasers. Consequently, the best way to mitigate against valuation shocks is to avoid investing in such speculative investments.
Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else.
As noted in my process flow post, the idea here is that the segregation of duties concept is breached because the miner has effectively the ability to write to the ledger on their own.
Did a few searches but Ivan Liljeqvist does the best job in terms of breaking it down:
In summary, the hacker will use their hashing power to build a “secret” chain that is longer than the active chain that contains the transactions submitted by the attacker. This secret chain will not contain those transactions. Then at the right time, the attacker will publish their secret chain. Since it is the longer chain (i.e. as the attacker has 51% of the hashing power), it will be accepted by the protocol and displace the public chain, thereby allowing the attacker to spend those bitcoins again, as the official record (which has now propagated across the network) does not record those transactions as spent but as retained by the attacker.
The key to his explanation is the following:
The longest chain principle: the network essentially is able to maintain integrity as long as 51% of the hashing power is distributed as it is only the network that is capable of generating this chain; not a single person. The bitcoin blockchain protocol uses this control to resolve to the situation where two chains are being created simultaneously. For example, let's says miner in Canada has identified the nonce for a block of transactions. However, a miner in Japan has also arrived at a nonce for the same block of transactions. Which chain should take precedence? The protocol will declare the longest chain the winner, where length is a function of the difficulty to create that chain. Therefore, as long as the majority of the hashing power is distributed across the network, the control will function as intended.
Specific transactions will be compromised: The attack allows to double spend on their transactions or transactions they are paid to attack. The rest of the records on the blockchain are not impacted by the attack.
The attacker can win each competition: What's interesting is whether the attacker would bother double spending their transactions when they can simply win each mining competition.
That being said, the system will lose trust if such attacks became rampant. If that were to happen, miners have the most to lose if such a thing. were to occur.
The bottom line is that all blockchain is like any piece of technology. The bitcoin blockchain network, which has numerous miners is very different than a newer blockchain that is unproven. Consequently, we can't simply assume because something is a blockchain it will be "auto-magically" invincible.
Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else
Why is Fox News afraid of upsurge socialism in America?
And it’s “not a Democratic Socialist, just a straight-up socialist”!
One reason is that they see – regardless of their uber-Capitalist stance – corporations engorging themselves on the wealth of the nation. Specifically, Fox Business analyst, Chris Payne commenting on GM’s decision to lay off nearly 15,000 workers said:
“And again, it's not like they're in dire straits. Now, they're trying to get ahead of things, they want a big fat cash flow. But this is why, I think, capitalism in and of itself is in a lot of trouble in this country…Because these companies keep posting record earnings and they keep firing people. They keep posting record earnings and they buying back billions of dollars of their own stock. The American public is going to get hip to this and my fear is that they're going to end up electing, not a Democratic Socialist, just a straight-up socialist because of these kind of shenanigans. They should have saw this coming a long time ago.”
What does this have to do with automation?
The interesting aspect about the layoffs, from a technology perspective, was that it was mostly white-collar workers that were impacted - 8,000 workers according to New York Times. The article went on to say:
"The cutbacks reflect a transformation underway in both the auto industry and the broader U.S. economy, with nearly every type of business becoming oriented toward computers, software and automation."
According to this clip from the CBC's the National, Goldman Sachs slashed its cash equity from 600 to 2, but gets the same amount of work done because those traders have been replaced with 200 computer engineers. Furthermore, the expectation is that between 1.5 to 7.5 million white-collar jobs will be lost due to automation.
But what does all this have to do with a people-free economy?
For that, we have to go back an exchange that is said to have happened at a Ford plant:
"Henry Ford II showing Walter Reuther, the veteran leader of the United Automobile Workers, around a newly automated car plant. “Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues,” gibed the boss of Ford Motor Company. Without skipping a beat, Reuther replied, “Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?"
The Capitalist economic system is a system that maximizes the freedom of ownership by focusing on investments. Everything else is secondary. Sometimes people in society can impose a cost on the Capitalists that forces them to accommodate them. However, the Empire inevitably Strikes Back. For example, the concessions made to labour unions in 1930s (that upheld Capitalist beliefs) was temporary. Once Communism was dead, these unions were destroyed through the Volcker interest rate hikes in the 70s, globalization and the non-enforcement of labour laws (meaning the government let the companies commit illegal acts).
However, given this, people should realize that the right number of workers at a company is zero. That is, if one can get more output from investment in machines instead of HR, there is no law or other mechanisms that will force a corporation to hire people.
“With government driving up the cost of labor, it's driving down the number of jobs…You're going to see automation not just in airports and grocery stores, but in restaurants… They're always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case.”
All doom and gloom or can innovation lead to hidden jobs?
According to the same Freakonomics podcast, approximately 600,000 in total (200,000 in radio and TV broadcasting, 300,000 in motion-picture and sound recording and another 100,000 in the repair of electronic equipment).
Although this is likely a good way to think about the future, it is important to remember that the underlying economic system has no consideration for people. It's cold hard logic is about generating cash for the shareholders - even if it means laying off everybody. But it seems like the best way to do this is with the combination of man and machine - for now.
Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else
