Automation hunts price, not boredom

In entry 1-3 I argued that programmers got repriced because they were the market’s most expensive input. Two days later, explaining it to Julia’s mom forced me to refine the theory, and the refinement changes the prediction.

What I expected, and what happened

I used to work in a call center. It’s boring, everyone knows it’s boring, and I assumed the boring jobs would be automated first ▸ 14:34. That’s not what happened ▸ 14:47.

The refined theory

What gets automated first is determined by two variables, neither of which is boredom: price and volume. The most expensive services with the highest demand attract the automation capital ▸ 15:01. Top of the list: programming. Next: graphic design and image creation, with 3D on the way ▸ 15:13. Services billed at $10,000 or $30,000 stop being payable while demand still exists: that gap is the target.

no lo aburrido: lo caro →

There’s a third variable, task difficulty, which explains the ordering within the list. Text was easiest, images next, video is happening now (Veo 3 shipped weeks ago and already fools untrained eyes), and full world-simulation is the logical endpoint ▸ 15:41.

Why log the refinement

Version one said: scarcity was the salary. Version two says: scarcity plus volume is the targeting system. If you want to predict which skill gets repriced next, don’t ask “is it repetitive?” Ask “how expensive is it, how many people buy it, and how hard is the task really?” A boring job that’s cheap is, ironically, safer than a fascinating one that’s expensive.

This entry exists because the idea moved. When it moves again, the arc will show it…