Equipment hire, business idea advice needed.

[Eddy Deegan]

I think I said: for making a living. If you do it for fun then things are okay as long as you dont expect to become famous. You might be the odds are very very long against that.
...

Music may have been the same; I was not involved with that back when.

Not talking about publishers or record producers but in context of the individual person trying to succeed.

Depending on how long ago you're talking about, I was there and tried exactly that. Early 1990s making a living doing live work with an established, if not famous, rock band and knocking out stuff as an individual on the side in the soundtrack and jingles departments. Our crowds were reliable and repeatable and resulted in a (basic but viable at the time) living for 6 people but those crowds were in the 100s, not the 1000s (with one or two specific event exceptions).

I could have opted to continue doing it but 1/40 of a millennia ago in the early 90s it wasn't easy by any stretch of the imagination. The gear we had to work with was hugely compromised compared to now. Less so if Mummy was related to the queen or Daddy owned a brewery but even serious money couldn't compete with Reaper on a modest laptop these days. There was no WWW, 8 tracks were a luxury outside of very expensive studios and we physically sent out hundreds of photocopied newletters a month in the post to keep our crowds warm.

If now I had the energy, image and drive that I had then and wanted to do it I think I'd have as good a go at most at it, but at my age (and for the last 2 decades) I'd have to sacrifice a bunch of things I don't want to sacrifice to do it. That and the fact I have none of the energy, image and drive for mainstream recognition any more renders the point moot. Apart from which I 'grew up' and having lived the dream for a while I got practical and got a paying job ... neither the first nor the last of many but those intervening years of on-the-road chaotic musical freedom are precious memories.

I probably wouldn't do it with the material I output now, but if I'd started producing what the current audiences seem to want then it would be an option to go in that direction. I have zero interest in doing so, but there you go. The catch-22 of being older and... I won't say wiser, but certainly with different priorities.

I know one or two youngsters (early 20s) with the image and the drive but not the talent (they expect it all to just happen, which ain't gonna) and I know a couple of youngsters with the talent but not the drive (they spent the time on crafting their skills and bypassed the whole PR/marketing thing).

In short, I don't think it's any harder now than it ever was, because you're not taking into account the additional challenges to make demos to succeeed back then through lack of equipment, and the fact that the Internet didn't exist, so you had to make demos to get an intro (unless you knew someone) ... and so on.

It's changed, certainly. I'd say if anything today's wannabe's have more opportunity than those of old (throw stuff on Bandcamp, promote it). However because there are a lot more of them, you need talent to rise above the crowd (well, one always did really) but more to the point you need to break through the marketing barrier.

However, if the likes of Zep, The Beatles (sorry CS70 I omitted them earlier but so ... many ... examples!), Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, ELP or Queen popped up tomorrow I suspect they would have little trouble breaking through. All they'd have to do would be to start a youtube channel and throw a few moody pics on instagram.

The talent would do the rest I'm fairly sure, and not being funny or nuffink, I've seen relatively little in the way of talent on that level in recent decades.

No regrets here, quite the opposite. I had an amazing time. If anything I'm sad that fewer people can perform in half decent-but-modest venues as regularly (with a bit of work getting bookings) as we could back then. Live music was much more of a thing in locals, clubs and theaters than it is now.

Still, you have the Internet, and we didn't!

[hobbyist]

I think I said: for making a living. If you do it for fun then things are okay as long as you dont expect to become famous. You might be the odds are very very long against that.
...

Music may have been the same; I was not involved with that back when.

Not talking about publishers or record producers but in context of the individual person trying to succeed.

Depending on how long ago you're talking about, I was there and tried exactly that. Early 1990s making a living doing live work with an established, if not famous, rock band and knocking out stuff as an individual on the side in the soundtrack and jingles departments. Our crowds were reliable and repeatable and resulted in a (basic but viable at the time) living for 6 people but those crowds were in the 100s, not the 1000s (with one or two specific event exceptions).

I could have opted to continue doing it but 1/40 of a millennia ago in the early 90s it wasn't easy by any stretch of the imagination. The gear we had to work with was hugely compromised compared to now. Less so if Mummy was related to the queen or Daddy owned a brewery but even serious money couldn't compete with Reaper on a modest laptop these days. There was no WWW, 8 tracks were a luxury outside of very expensive studios and we physically sent out hundreds of photocopied newletters a month in the post to keep our crowds warm.

If now I had the energy, image and drive that I had then and wanted to do it I think I'd have as good a go at most at it, but at my age (and for the last 2 decades) I'd have to sacrifice a bunch of things I don't want to sacrifice to do it. That and the fact I have none of the energy, image and drive for mainstream recognition any more renders the point moot. Apart from which I 'grew up' and having lived the dream for a while I got practical and got a paying job ... neither the first nor the last of many but those intervening years of on-the-road chaotic musical freedom are precious memories.

I probably wouldn't do it with the material I output now, but if I'd started producing what the current audiences seem to want then it would be an option to go in that direction. I have zero interest in doing so, but there you go. The catch-22 of being older and... I won't say wiser, but certainly with different priorities.

I know one or two youngsters (early 20s) with the image and the drive but not the talent (they expect it all to just happen, which ain't gonna) and I know a couple of youngsters with the talent but not the drive (they spent the time on crafting their skills and bypassed the whole PR/marketing thing).

In short, I don't think it's any harder now than it ever was, because you're not taking into account the additional challenges to make demos to succeeed back then through lack of equipment, and the fact that the Internet didn't exist, so you had to make demos to get an intro (unless you knew someone) ... and so on.

It's changed, certainly. I'd say if anything today's wannabe's have more opportunity than those of old (throw stuff on Bandcamp, promote it). However because there are a lot more of them, you need talent to rise above the crowd (well, one always did really) but more to the point you need to break through the marketing barrier.

However, if the likes of Zep, The Beatles (sorry CS70 I omitted them earlier but so ... many ... examples!), Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, ELP or Queen popped up tomorrow I suspect they would have little trouble breaking through. All they'd have to do would be to start a youtube channel and throw a few moody pics on instagram.

The talent would do the rest I'm fairly sure, and not being funny or nuffink, I've seen relatively little in the way of talent on that level in recent decades.

No regrets here, quite the opposite. I had an amazing time. If anything I'm sad that fewer people can perform in half decent-but-modest venues as regularly (with a bit of work getting bookings) as we could back then. Live music was much more of a thing in locals, clubs and theaters than it is now.

Still, you have the Internet, and we didn't!

I go back to the early 60s.

Some people still make a living. But it is getting smaller and there are more wannabees cluttering up the landscape making it hard to be found. And many of them are willing to work cheap while being good enough.

Exactly. Better gear is dirt cheap now and more people have it. And many of them want to try to make money which messes up the supply/demand ratio.

To make it now you have to be young and talented and be lucky like Bieber or work hard (dont forget the luck) like Gaga. I know bands that had a number of CDs, toured in Europe, yada yada but they quit because they could not support a family on what they made.

I still think it is harder now because of the competition being larger.
And if another Beetles or Gaga showed up they would have a very hard time succeeding. It is not as easy as putting stuff on utoob.
Are people really wasting their time searching utoob hoping to find the next Beetles or Bieber? Promotion is hard. Growing a following takes a lot of hard work and effort.

Those gigs in bars or local venues now charge the bands to let them play there. They will give them x free tickets to sell to make their pay from, but without a following its a money loser even for people who just want to perform. Getting a following is a catch 22 now.

[hobbyist]

Very true, but if i didn't make any music i would still need to earn money, but if i didn't need to earn money i would still make music.

Ah my friend, because you need to make music! Money feeds your stomach, music feeds your spirit.

And yeah, very interesting times.

And the article in Fortune magazine this last issue indicated it is only going to get worse.

And they didnt even consider that people are breeding faster than jobs can be created. Just the impact of automation on salaries. Things are dire now and will be impossible for the grandkids.

Throw in government that keeps raising taxes, wasting more money on pure pork, and over regulating business so it is impossible to start a small one successfully so only the big ones can compete and things are getting so we need armageddon to fix things.

[Drew Stephenson]

Very interesting points. I think we're largely seeing the same things but from different perspectives. I guess it'll take another couple of decades before it all shakes out and I buy you a pint and you can say, "I told you so."
The looming spectre of automation is a very interesting one, hence my comment about utopia vs dystopia.
Out of curiosity Hobbyist, are you based in the US?

[Hugh Robjohns]

You may not think that most of it is junk, whether music photog or writing, but in my view the amount of crud is massive and hides the few good things making them harder to find.

The 'digital revolution' has obviously made it possible for anyone and everyone to 'self-publish', and -- as always -- that has both 'good' and 'bad' aspects, largely depending on your viewpoint.

In the previous model, the 'crud' was filtered out of the public domain by the professional publishers and promoters... but so too was some of the really good stuff that just didn't happen to fit with their vision at the time.

I don't believe the actual balance of good things to crud has changed significantly -- although there are literally twice as many people making 'art' in all its forms today than there were in the 1960s. Nevertheless, the 'new technology' means that you now need to do some of the filtering yourself -- or take advantage of all the other people doing their own filtering on their own social media channels -- rather than have 'a professional's idea' of good stuff held up in front of you.

...photography, and writing used to be much easier and better to make money doing.

Possibly... From what I can see, those that are really good at it still make good money. It's the middle and lower tiers that struggle -- but then that was always the way with advancing technology.

It's the same with the multi-skilling point you raised earlier. When I started in the news broadcasting business we went out with a crew of four (reporter, cameraman, sound recordist, and sparks).

Over the course of a single decade the cameras became more sensitive and lighting wasn't needed anymore so the sparks went (or, thanks to their stronger union, they got retrained as a multi-skilled soundie, and the soundie went instead!). And then the camera became a cam-corder so the camerman started doing sound as well and the soundie went. Today, the reporter is often doing the whole thing on their own with an ultra-compact camera... or even their smart phone... and increasingly now, there isn't even a reporter; the broadcasters rely on Joe Public to send in their own (vertically framed) footage instead!

But it's all just the same old thing called CHANGE... and it's always happened and always will happen. The trick is to embrace it try to keep ahead of it, rather than always looking backwards and be trampled to death by it.

Going back again to when I started full time employment I remember listening in utter amazement (and some despair) at all my senior, very-experienced colleagues reminiscing about how good it was 'back in the day', and how standards (and new recruits!) are so terrible now (and this was 30+ years ago)... while there was me, in complete awe of the new technology all around me, and so excited over all the fantastic opportunities and prospects ahead of me...

It's certain that the model of employment will change in the future -- along with lots of other things. But that's entirely normal: the way our parents lived in the 1960s after the two World Wars was massively different from the way their parents or grand-parents lived in the 1900s before the Wars. And the way we live today is very different again from the way we lived in the 60s and 70s.... So it's absolutely for certain that the way our grand-kids live in 25 or thirty years time will be massively different again. Whether it's better or worse, or just different, only time -- and perspectives -- will tell...

H

[James Perrett]

I'm just wondering whether I'm in a little bubble here where I see more and more live venues starting up and plenty of opportunities for people to play live. In Portsmouth there seems to be a new venue every month and there are a whole network of music nights around here in mid Hampshire/Surrey that seem to attract new artists of a very high standard. I guess that the big problem for someone wanting to earn money is that many of these are run on a co-operative basis where very little money actually changes hands.

When I started off back in the early 80's we rarely made much money from gigs - most of the pubs wanted straight rock bands so we found ourselves playing youth clubs and benefit gigs where we might just about cover the petrol money. Later on, as the bands I was playing with improved and became more entertaining, we managed to break into the pub circuit and make a little money but not a huge amount.

The real money in the business is to be made offering services to musicians. Tuition, publishing and equipment are a few areas that come to mind. Even the recording business has opportunities if you can tap into the right customers - some people don't want the hassle of learning how to record and are happy to pay someone else to do it.

[Eddy Deegan]

I go back to the early 60s.

My bad - for some reason I assumed you were 10 years or more younger than me as opposed to a few older else I would have expressed my thoughts in different terms.

I'm just wondering whether I'm in a little bubble here where I see more and more live venues starting up and plenty of opportunities for people to play live. In Portsmouth there seems to be a new venue every month and there are a whole network of music nights around here in mid Hampshire/Surrey that seem to attract new artists of a very high standard.

That's good to hear James - in Brighton it's rather different, at least in terms of your average pub band. Before 2000 or so the live music scene was very different to what it is now in the area and a large number of the pubs and venues that we used to play no longer do live music. It was sad watching them all drop off the list over the years.

[Drew Stephenson]

York has a mixed scene. For solo/acoustic acts it's pretty good. Lots of small, real-ale pubs looking for a bit of low-key live music makes for a fairly healthy scene there. There's also a reasonable number of pubs regularly hosting rock covers bands.
The difficulty (it was ever thus!) is getting a full band spot playing originals. We have three or four venues that actually host that kind of set-up, payment is generally of the order of £1 per punter you bring in - which doesn't go far when you're a bunch of middle-aged folks without any strong connections to the universities...
But that was the case 15 years ago as well.
The other option of course is to bear the risk yourself and put on your own gigs.

[hobbyist]

You may not think that most of it is junk, whether music photog or writing, but in my view the amount of crud is massive and hides the few good things making them harder to find.

The 'digital revolution' has obviously made it possible for anyone and everyone to 'self-publish', and -- as always -- that has both 'good' and 'bad' aspects, largely depending on your viewpoint.

agreed

In the previous model, the 'crud' was filtered out of the public domain by the professional publishers and promoters... but so too was some of the really good stuff that just didn't happen to fit with their vision at the time.

again true

I don't believe the actual balance of good things to crud has changed significantly -- although there are literally twice as many people making 'art' in all its forms today than there were in the 1960s. Nevertheless, the 'new technology' means that you now need to do some of the filtering yourself -- or take advantage of all the other people doing their own filtering on their own social media channels -- rather than have 'a professional's idea' of good stuff held up in front of you.

I see the balance swinging far toward the bad side as anyone can now easily create and 'publish' whereas before you had to be more determined which kept some of the crud from getting out of desk drawers

...photography, and writing used to be much easier and better to make money doing.

Possibly... From what I can see, those that are really good at it still make good money. It's the middle and lower tiers that struggle -- but then that was always the way with advancing technology.

True. The few at the top do well.
It is the middle that hurts more now.
And the long tail has virtually no chance at all.

It's the same with the multi-skilling point you raised earlier. When I started in the news broadcasting business we went out with a crew of four (reporter, cameraman, sound recordist, and sparks).

Over the course of a single decade the cameras became more sensitive and lighting wasn't needed anymore so the sparks went (or, thanks to their stronger union, they got retrained as a multi-skilled soundie, and the soundie went instead!). And then the camera became a cam-corder so the camerman started doing sound as well and the soundie went. Today, the reporter is often doing the whole thing on their own with an ultra-compact camera... or even their smart phone... and increasingly now, there isn't even a reporter; the broadcasters rely on Joe Public to send in their own (vertically framed) footage instead!

True. So many usa stations advertise for free pictures that people are happy to send in. Even when they are the only one on site capturing something historical that is worth big money they still give it away.

But it's all just the same old thing called CHANGE... and it's always happened and always will happen. The trick is to embrace it try to keep ahead of it, rather than always looking backwards and be trampled to death by it.

Change is the only constant.
But IMHO what I see is the change making things worse for all of us.

Going back again to when I started full time employment I remember listening in utter amazement (and some despair) at all my senior, very-experienced colleagues reminiscing about how good it was 'back in the day', and how standards (and new recruits!) are so terrible now (and this was 30+ years ago)... while there was me, in complete awe of the new technology all around me, and so excited over all the fantastic opportunities and prospects ahead of me...

Another 3000 journalists lost jobs in the start of 2019

It's certain that the model of employment will change in the future -- along with lots of other things. But that's entirely normal: the way our parents lived in the 1960s after the two World Wars was massively different from the way their parents or grand-parents lived in the 1900s before the Wars. And the way we live today is very different again from the way we lived in the 60s and 70s.... So it's absolutely for certain that the way our grand-kids live in 25 or thirty years time will be massively different again. Whether it's better or worse, or just different, only time -- and perspectives -- will tell...

H

True.

But as Fortune magazine indicated last issue the model is looking worse for the masses of people.

[Drew Stephenson]

My take on it is that a significant part of the problem is that we're trying to solve new problems with old models.

[hobbyist]

....
The real money in the business is to be made offering services to musicians. Tuition, publishing and equipment are a few areas that come to mind. Even the recording business has opportunities if you can tap into the right customers - some people don't want the hassle of learning how to record and are happy to pay someone else to do it.

True but the competition is tough as big companies have automated it to own the really low end for cheap help, and many people prefer to DIY with the affordable gear that is so much better now and so much cheaper, making the middle smaller and the top non existent.

My laptop can outperform a million usd studio from the 70s without breathing hard.

The only issue is , IF I am making money from my work is could you do some task better faster easier cheaper than I can DIY.

[James Perrett]

The only issue is , IF I am making money from my work is could you do some task better faster easier cheaper than I can DIY.

While you, and quite a few others on here, are happy to DIY, some musicians prefer to get on with the process of writing and playing rather than learn to record themselves. One guy I work with will record a basic idea on his phone - sometimes just a vocal line and other times voice and guitar. He'll take them to his collaborator who will turn them into proper recordings and then bring those recordings to me for mastering/editing and possibly remixing. He doesn't want to get involved in learning about recording (although he must have spent hundreds or even thousands of hours in studios) and prefers to work with collaborators who understand what he wants and have the skills to produce it.

[James Perrett]

Before 2000 or so the live music scene was very different to what it is now in the area and a large number of the pubs and venues that we used to play no longer do live music. It was sad watching them all drop off the list over the years.

In Portsmouth probably the only privately run live venue that still exists from the 90's is the Wedgewood Rooms which seems to be doing OK (I hesitate to say well because running any venue is a precarious business). Quite a few pub venues have closed but the change in licensing laws seem to have made it easier for others to open and I heard last night that someone has even converted a local industrial unit into a venue.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I see the balance swinging far toward the bad side as anyone can now easily create and 'publish' whereas before you had to be more determined which kept some of the crud from getting out of desk drawers

Sure, there's a lot of deluded crud all over the interweb. But I would humbly suggest your viewpoint is one of a 'glass-half-empty' mindset. The fact that everyone can now easily create and publish means there's also some genuinely fantastic off-the-wall talent getting seen and shared on social media today that would never have been let through the front doors of the big agents in years gone by. It's really not all bad.

Even when they are the only one on site capturing something historical that is worth big money they still give it away.

But the audience get to see things that otherwise wouldn't have been captured at all... And I know of one very successful professional photographer who was inspired to become a pro precisely because his work was published directly without him having to work through an agency. It gave his CV the boost he needed that he would never otherwise have been able to achieve. It's really not all bad -- there are new, different opportunities, and new benefits.

But IMHO what I see is the change making things worse for all of us.

Glass half empty! You really do sound just like my senior workmates thirty years ago...

Another 3000 journalists lost jobs in the start of 2019

I find it hard to get upset at that particular statistic... However, it is obviously clear that more and newer technology may well mean fewer 'traditional' jobs. So our way of living (and earning) is going to have to evolve along with it... But that's not a new phenomenon is it? Think of all the ways people's working lives have evolved over the past decades and centuries because of new technologies. All those stagecoach drivers and stablemen put out of work because of those new-fangled trains, for example. It's an unsettling concept for those of us judging things from our past experiences, but would you really want to go back?

The only alternative is to restrict or do away with technology, have people to take on the dangerous, dirty, tedious, and drudgey jobs again, and to pay a lot more for goods, groceries, and things. Good luck with that as a manifesto!

[Hugh Robjohns]

My laptop can outperform a million usd studio from the 70s without breathing hard.

It's certainly true that the tools have evolved fantastically. But a cloth-eared novice with the world's most powerful MacBook Pro will still struggle to mix a hit record, and good though it is, the technology still can't yet make a pokey bedroom sound like Oceanway or Abbey Road's no.2 studios, let alone accommodate an 80-piece orchestra.

So it's different, but not necessarily worse, and if there are opportunities lost at the low end, there are also new opportunities opening up for those brave enough to run at the leading edge.

[hobbyist]

My laptop can outperform a million usd studio from the 70s without breathing hard.

It's certainly true that the tools have evolved fantastically. But a cloth-eared novice with the world's most powerful MacBook Pro will still struggle to mix a hit record, and good though it is, the technology still can't yet make a pokey bedroom sound like Oceanway or Abbey Road's no.2 studios, let alone accommodate an 80-piece orchestra.

So it's different, but not necessarily worse, and if there are opportunities lost at the low end, there are also new opportunities opening up for those brave enough to run at the leading edge.

True, but the cheap cost of the tools has given more people the chance to prove how bad they are. And when they all compete the income for those who do succeed is lower.

Also with more entertainment options there are fewer buyers for music or any given segment.

Opportunities are always changing. But like Fortune magazine just said they are not coming as fast as we need them now. Jobs are being killed off faster and people are breeding faster than job replacement can suffice to handle.

[awjoe]

...photography, and writing used to be much easier and better to make money doing.

Possibly... From what I can see, those that are really good at it still make good money. It's the middle and lower tiers that struggle -- but then that was always the way with advancing technology.

H

Yeah, I think this is one of the more perceptive and pertinent comments in this thread. The recording revolution opened up opportunities for lots and lots of variously talented people to:

a) join the game

b) not make much money

I mean, if you're not making money in any given field, there's a strong possibility that you're just not as good at it as the people who *are* making money at it. I can instance my own self-delusion here. I've written some pretty good songs (is that the self-delusion kicking in?) but my recordings and mixes of them aren't as good as I thought they were when I made them. Just not close to pro. So now I'm going for it. Concentrating on that all-important 'performance at the recording stage'. I want to see if I can do better than the 'middle tier' that Hugh describes. More self-delusion? Maybe, but now that I know that the self-delusion is my biggest enemy, I stand a better chance of spotting it, a better chance of not boring the world with mediocre music.

[Hugh Robjohns]

But like Fortune magazine just said they are not coming as fast as we need them now. Jobs are being killed off faster and people are breeding faster than job replacement can suffice to handle.

So apart from banning procreation, what's your solution?

H

[hobbyist]

I see the balance swinging far toward the bad side as anyone can now easily create and 'publish' whereas before you had to be more determined which kept some of the crud from getting out of desk drawers

Sure, there's a lot of deluded crud all over the interweb. But I would humbly suggest your viewpoint is one of a 'glass-half-empty' mindset. The fact that everyone can now easily create and publish means there's also some genuinely fantastic off-the-wall talent getting seen and shared on social media today that would never have been let through the front doors of the big agents in years gone by. It's really not all bad.

Not all bad. Just not as good as it was. Too many of them making bad stuff so the stuff that is good even harder to find.

Even when they are the only one on site capturing something historical that is worth big money they still give it away.

But the audience get to see things that otherwise wouldn't have been captured at all... And I know of one very successful professional photographer who was inspired to become a pro precisely because his work was published directly without him having to work through an agency. It gave his CV the boost he needed that he would never otherwise have been able to achieve. It's really not all bad -- there are new, different opportunities, and new benefits.

Harder for the pros to work at all when every cell phone owner can snap the pic and email it in on the spot. And uncle Bob shoots weddings for free, while soccer moms take the team pics for free.

But IMHO what I see is the change making things worse for all of us.

Glass half empty! You really do sound just like my senior workmates thirty years ago...

Perhaps. Or maybe we are looking at different parts of the elephant.
I call them as I see them. The glass is not only half empty. The glass is now smaller as more people put their straws into it at once.

Another 3000 journalists lost jobs in the start of 2019

I find it hard to get upset at that particular statistic... However, it is obviously clear that more and newer technology may well mean fewer 'traditional' jobs. So our way of living (and earning) is going to have to evolve along with it... But that's not a new phenomenon is it? Think of all the ways people's working lives have evolved over the past decades and centuries because of new technologies. All those stagecoach drivers and stablemen put out of work because of those new-fangled trains, for example. It's an unsettling concept for those of us judging things from our past experiences, but would you really want to go back?

Nothing lasts forever. Especially trends and extrapolations.
All systems saturate. Job growth is saturating while population keeps growing exponentially.

The only alternative is to restrict or do away with technology, have people to take on the dangerous, dirty, tedious, and drudgey jobs again, and to pay a lot more for goods, groceries, and things. Good luck with that as a manifesto!

Ideally technology would serve all of us so we ALL could work say 3 days a week and support our family because goods are so cheap with machines doing all the work. Nobody out of work, nobody working excessive overtime.

In the longer run that too would fail as only a few people would be needed who have exceeding high levels of education and experience to keep designing bigger and better machines and maybe operating/maintaining them too, while most people would be free to self actualise while never working.

Would the supersmart be forced to work? Could you pay them enough to want to work when nobody else has to? Who would want to suffer through all the crud at the uni for a decade or so to be able to be the one that has to work? How many would deliberately flunk so they would be free all day like most of the people are?

The problem is government and special interest groups. They only care about themselves, not optimising the system to benefit everybody equally. And no that is not socialism just a constrained market to guarantee fairness where everybody should be working their share and no special group at the top effsupp things like now while living really high on the hog.

[hobbyist]

But like Fortune magazine just said they are not coming as fast as we need them now. Jobs are being killed off faster and people are breeding faster than job replacement can suffice to handle.

So apart from banning procreation, what's your solution?

H

As a systems engineer I see no solution that is feasible.

There are some possibilities but you could not get enough people willing to work together to make it happen. Certainly not before the antis start a war or do something to sabotage the effort.

We do need to severely limit population growth anyway , but that will never happen. We are past peak food, water, energy, and a dozen other key parameters. We may have decades or a century but it will end badly; if not for us then our grandkids.

I believe that like all systems this one we have on the planet for civilisaton will grow until some massive disaster helps stabilise things again. Or Armageddon writes =30=.