Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ad Group Says Internet Accounts For 5.1M US Jobs, 3.7% of GDP

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the exact-figures-are-124.987-percent-accurate dept.

The Internet 73

lpress writes "A Harvard Business School study sponsored by the Interactive Advertising Bureau shows that the ad-supported Internet is responsible for 5.1 million jobs in the U.S. — two million direct and 3.1 million indirect. They report that the Internet accounted for 3.7% of 2011 GDP. The research, development and procurement that launched the Internet back in the 1970s and 1980s cost the US taxpayers $124.5 million at the time — not a bad investment!" Your calculations may vary.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

yeah, whatever (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41569347)

So is this meant to be some sympathy piece for why we should all feel guilty for ad-blocking ala the anti-piracy ads of the MPAA? Sorry, but you ad people are sleazy scumbags who can all be run off the cliff for all I care.

Re:yeah, whatever (1)

bonehead (6382) | about 2 years ago | (#41573729)

Sorry, but you ad people are sleazy scumbags who can all be run off the cliff for all I care.

Not all ad people. I do use ad-blocking software on the Internet, but I do like to browse through the flyers in the Sunday paper to see what's on sale. And I'm not terribly bothered by advertising that slips through my ad-blocks. Ads aren't entirely bad as long as I am able to check them out when it's convenient for me.

Now sales people, on the other hand. Screw them. Why can't I just walk into Best Buy and look over their selection of small televisions. No, I don't "have any questions". And if I did, they would be out of the league of anyone willing to work for what BB pays. Now go sell someone a $5,000 HDMI cable and let me do my shopping in peace.

Re:yeah, whatever (2)

overlordofmu (1422163) | about 2 years ago | (#41575897)

Would you like to purchase an extended warrantee on your shopping in peace experience?

Adblock (4, Funny)

Ironchew (1069966) | about 2 years ago | (#41569365)

So does that mean my Adblock Plus/NoScript combo is killing jobs?

If so, I'm too satisfied with my ad-free internet to really give a damn.

Yes, idiot mods, this is a sarcastic post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41569389)

Yes you fucking communist terrorist. Git out of muh country! *cocks gun*

Re:Yes, idiot mods, this is a sarcastic post (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#41569433)

Yes you fucking communist terrorist. Git out of muh country! *cocks gun*

Sorry, I prefer mercurial over git. And where is that muh country you are speaking of? :-)

Re:Adblock (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41569491)

So does that mean my Adblock Plus/NoScript combo is killing jobs?

Not when the study includes sites like Amazon and Craiglist.

Re:Adblock (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41569683)

Yes, you're a bad person and you should feel bad. If you don't like ad-supported sites, don't browse them. Instead, you're stealing the services by refusing to pay for them.

Re:Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41570507)

What if I don't use Adblock, but don't buy any of the stuff in the ads?

Re:Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41574529)

Um, virtually all advertisements on large sites pay per 1,000 views. Just by viewing the ad, they get paid.

Re:Adblock (1)

AdamWill (604569) | about 2 years ago | (#41577449)

The site gets paid, sure. On the advertiser's assumption that _some_ of those people view the ad. These days many ads are actually paid on a click-through basis, but even if we ignore that, the rate for pay-per-view ads is usually set after some sampling to determine the typical click-through rate for X number of views.

So let's say adblock is outlawed, and all the people who hate ads are forced to see them. We can reasonably conclude that such people will have a much lower click-through rate than those who don't bother blocking ads. Therefore, stopping the use of adblock (etc) would *lower* the rate sites were paid by advertisers per view, after they did new samples and found the click-through rate per 1,000 views (or whatever the precise metric is) had dropped.

I'd bet it'd wind up being pretty close to a zero-sum game.

Re:Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41574245)

This is arguable, there and I intend to keep using ad-block, and script blocking measures. Because pay for my bandwidth not the content providers and I choose not to download any advertizement that may negatively affect page load times. (even over 56k) I don't get reimbursed for bandwidth used for adds I don't want to see. When the content providers get the idea that any advertizements that they want me to view must be small, unmoving, and non-intrusive and adopt this policy across all web sites than I will remove these tools. But until then they will just have to get used to the idea that I don't want their adds. I also don't want my internet activity to be tracked unless I am informed of how that data is going to be used and agree (with the option of line by line exclusion) to the terms.

If they want me to see their advertizements then they need to operate by my terms. It's bad enough that they keep trying to trick me into installing malware into my system, then try to charge me because the ruined my systems performance. If they had used ethical terms early on then they wouldn't have people like me being to paranoid about the use of their content.

Re:Adblock (1)

zidium (2550286) | about 2 years ago | (#41574535)

Your reimbursement is being able to read material without having to actually pay money. I mean, seriously, are you stupid?

Re:Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41580547)

Bullshit. It's like some ad agency paying someone to hand out flyers at an event. Just because they paid the event organisers some money to be permitted to hand out flyers doesn't mean I have an obligation to take the flyers.

Using adblock is exactly equivalent to refusing a flyer when someone tries to hand it to you, or fast-forwarding ads on TV.

Re:Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41580535)

Fuck you asshole.

It's my internet connection and my computer, and I'll make or not make whichever http requests I please. I have every right to decide what I do with information I retrieve via the internet and that includes not transmitting http requests for ads I have no interest in viewing.

Re:Adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41570439)

Only marketing and advertising jobs. Don't worry about it. No one else does.

Re:Adblock (2)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#41575531)

You wouldn't download a car, would you? Well, that's what you're doing when you use adblock on the internet.

Much larger than the movie and music industries (5, Insightful)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | about 2 years ago | (#41569401)

So the employment is much larger than the movie and music industries.

And the video game industry is also larger than movies and music.

Why is the tail always doing the barking for the dog again?

Re:Much larger than the movie and music industries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41569435)

better lobbyists

Re:Much larger than the movie and music industries (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41569515)

The IT industry is divided, while the movie and music industries form a strong cartel.

Re:Much larger than the movie and music industries (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 2 years ago | (#41569569)

Because the movie and music industries are controlled by huge multinational megacorps. Sure the individual music or movie divisions themselves might be smaller relatively but the parent corps of Disney, Vivendi, Viacom, Sony, News Corp, Time Warner and Comcast have enormous of amount of money and power at their disposal. Anyone of which completely eclipses the revenue and employee count of even the largest video game companies like Activision/Blizzard, EA, etc. The video game companies are peanuts compared to any of those huge media conglomerates.

Re:Much larger than the movie and music industries (1)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | about 2 years ago | (#41569583)

Not to mention that these same media companies have their hands deep in advertising as well.

Re:Much larger than the movie and music industries (2)

theCoder (23772) | about 2 years ago | (#41571497)

It's not the music and movie industries that control the debate (if there were one). Sure, they try, but it is the various news media programs out there which tell everyone about the "piracy problem". The news programs which only give one side, that copyright is a great thing and that pirates are stealing money out of starving artists hands.

Of course, the news media themselves have a vested interest in stronger copyright, since they directly benefit from that copyright. Whether MSNBC, the New York Times, NPR, or Fox News, all of them make their living peddling copyrighted goods that they created. Why would any of them favor a policy or a candidate that would want to limit their (perceived) ability to make money?

It doesn't help that copyright law makes the average person's eyes glaze over faster than a discussion on tax policy, so they just go with whatever the news person on TV told them. They wouldn't lie to make money, would they?

This is sad (4, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | about 2 years ago | (#41569501)

This is just indicative of how our society is going downhill. America cannot be viable long term on a service-based economy. We must do more manufacturing. Those that own the means of production have the ability to rapidly innovate. If we don't stem the tide of partisan corruption and sending manufacturing overseas, the United States is going to go the way of Rome and our future will be studying us in textbooks much like we study Ancient Rome.

Re:This is sad (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#41569509)

So who is going to be the first emperor of the U.S.?

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41570837)

Barack Obama.

Re:This is sad (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about 2 years ago | (#41573853)

Abraham Lincoln or FDR

Re:This is sad (1)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#41575535)

My nipples.

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41569651)

Manufacturing is being replaced by robots.

Re:This is sad (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#41570009)

Movies. Microcode. Pizza Delivery.

(Notice that, in this particular utopian view, the service industry is in third place.)

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41570195)

no one writes microcode anymore...or more accurately, the hardware people took that over because they
do a better job

Re:This is sad (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#41570047)

Jobs will go where the labor cost is lower. Not complicated.

Re:This is sad (2)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 2 years ago | (#41570431)

Obviously manufacturing companies aren't using enough unpaid interns. Now that many college graduates have no hope of ever paying back their loans, a labor commitment should be added to the contract in lieu of interest.

Re:This is sad (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#41571029)

Now that many college graduates have no hope of ever paying back their loans
 
Most of of us have more interesting problems to worry about than a bunch of brats who borrowed and partied away $100K while getting a useless degree in fine arts or something and now don't want to pay it back and their parents who neglected to tell them that the world does not owe them a living.

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41574815)

There are plenty of unemployed or underemployed STEM graduates with student loan debt. Education should be taxpayer-funded on the premise after graduation those whom received their diploma or degree will productively contribute to society and pay taxes on their earnings.

Re:This is sad (1)

shmlco (594907) | about 2 years ago | (#41579989)

Wow. Agenda much? It must be terrible living in fear that someone, somewhere, just might be getting something to which they might not be entitled.

As a matter of fact, this fits in with my theory that the neo-con position on sex is based primary on the fear that someone else might be getting more sex than they're getting... and actually enjoying it.

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41580583)

you sound like a homosexual.

Re:This is sad (1)

shmlco (594907) | about 2 years ago | (#41591737)

Haven't had that pleasure, thanks.

Re:This is sad (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41582339)

Now that many college graduates have no hope of ever paying back their loans Most of of us have more interesting problems to worry about than a bunch of brats who borrowed and partied away $100K while getting a useless degree in fine arts or something and now don't want to pay it back and their parents who neglected to tell them that the world does not owe them a living.

The sort of people who can afford to do a fine arts degree are most likely from upper middle class, wealthy parents who can get them a good job in Finance through their contacts. The problem is the poor working class student who struggles through a degree in something like mechanical engineering then finds there are no jobs in engineering available unless he wants to go and live in China.

Re:This is sad (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#41570453)

America cannot be viable long term on a service-based economy.

Why not? There is only so much I need in terms of physical goods. As I make more money, that becomes a smaller percentage of my income. Frankly, I think we need some manufacturing, but that should become a smaller and smaller percentage of our economy.

Re:This is sad (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41571019)

That's fine if your trade is balanced and you can repay your debts with your services. As it stands, you can't have service economy because your trade deficit is about 50Billion USD per month, and it's been there for decades, growing your debt.

If you can export enough services to cover your imports, then there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to have a 'service sector economy', but you do not export enough services to do that.

Re:This is sad (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#41573455)

We have a trade imbalance because there is a global demand for dollars. Countries use our dollar for their reserves. As long as this is the case, we will have an artificially high dollar. In a floating currency, there is absolutely nothing that would support a long term trade imbalance. Should countries decide to abandon the dollar as a reserve currency, and you will see the US standard of living pop like a balloon, but this has nothing to do with having a service economy.

Re:This is sad (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41582351)

America cannot be viable long term on a service-based economy.

Why not? There is only so much I need in terms of physical goods. As I make more money, that becomes a smaller percentage of my income. Frankly, I think we need some manufacturing, but that should become a smaller and smaller percentage of our economy.

You appear to be confusing the term "manufacturing" with "production of consumer goods".

Re:This is sad (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#41570643)

There is no reason why the US can't have a long-term service-based economy. Consider for example Switzerland, a country that aside from agriculture and high-end watches, doesn't really produce a whole heck of a lot. But they have (historically, sadly not as much anymore) excellent banking and financial services which has kept the country very prosperous and well within the top 10 countries in term of per-capita wealth.

The problem is, just like Rome the US has a corrupt political system. The number of people receiving government benefits (Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, or have a government job) vastly overwhelms those who do not and in a democracy those people who do get government benefits will always vote for more of those benefits.

Just like Rome the US is debasing its currency to nothingness and just like Rome the US is having productive people leave the US in droves to countries that on the surface might seem "less free" but in reality offer far more freedom than the US has. To quote Salvian the Presbyter, "Thus, far and wide, they migrate either to the Goths or to the Bagaudae, or to other barbarians everywhere in power; yet they do not repent of having migrated. They prefer to live as freemen under an outward form of captivity, than as captives under the appearance of liberty. Therefore, the name of Roman citizens, at one time not only greatly valued, but dearly bought, is now repudiated and fled from, and it is almost considered not only base, but even deserving of abhorrence."

Of course, Rome didn't collapse in a day and neither will the US. But the time is coming.

Why the Swiss example has problems (3, Interesting)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 2 years ago | (#41570879)

Switzerland is a terrible example because it is a relatively small country with a large banking sector that essentially prospered in part by skimming a percentage off of huge global economic flows (including historically shielding transactions of dubious legality via their privacy laws). Such a pattern of success can't work that way for everyone, as nice a country as Switzerland may be in many respects..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Switzerland [wikipedia.org]

The central issue regardless of what jobs people do is that so much wealth has become concentrated in so few hands. This has happened in big part because the value of automated capital managed by large bureaucratic systems with monopolies over markets is triumphing over the value of individual human labor. See Marshall Brain's "Robotic Nation" article for more details:
http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm [marshallbrain.com]

You can't have a "service" economy when robotics and AI is better than most people for most tasks. You can't have a service economy when most things become manufactured so well they don't need much servicing or it is just cheaper to replace them with new things fresh from the automated factory.

That said, I feel that your other points on the US/Roman comparison are insightful.

Re:This is sad (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41571035)

Switzerland is a huge exporter, not only of watches but of machinery, medical supplies, food, all sorts of things are made in Switzerland.

Unfortunately they have pegged the Franc to the Euro, which is the dumbest idea they ever had.

As to having a 'service sector economy', as long as you balance your imports with your exports, it doesn't matter what economy you have, but you are not balancing your imports with your exports. You have a huge trade deficit, you had it for decades now, adding to the debt. 54 or so Billion USD per month.

You don't have enough productive output to pay for those imports, and whatever it is you are producing and exporting today already has all of your services accounted in those numbers.

Had BIG "run in" w/ economic prof. about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41570741)

Back circa 1984 iirc. Macro-Economics in fact. He was saying "the service economy is the future" & I was like:

"That WILL NOT WORK OUT in the long-term, for very simple reasons - first, most guys want the stability & familiarity of routine that a manufacturing job tends to give one. They want to learn their job while trained, & not worry about having MORE responsibility than their job training + description states. That said, most also can't afford collegiate academia (or imo @ least, want it) to get into 'white collar jobs'".

He told me "That doesn't matter - the future will be what I am saying!"

I said: "Fine - but did YOU come up with that 'fine idea' or did you just read it in FORBES magazine & spit it back @ us to 'brainwash us' into thinking it is the 'right thing to do', when it is anything but. You can't have an economy with A LARGE MAJORITY of people stuck in dead-end non-union low-paying hand-to-mouth paycheck-to-paycheck jobs with NO DISPOSABLE INCOME, because if THAT happens? All folks will be able to afford will be "the basics" essentials for food, shelter, utilities, & little more... then, small businesses dying will be the first signal (think small taverns, movie theaters, restaurants, etc./et al)"

---

He threatened I might not pass his class at that (when he couldn't argue about disposable income helping to POWER an economy)... lol!

I then told him I had PLENTY of witnesses from my classmates as to that threat, & that I would go over his head to his dept. head IF necessary on it, or higher...

I passed the class with a GOOD grade iirc (B), in the end.

* Well, hate to say it, but I was correct... & here we are, in the 21st century, nearly 20 yrs. later today!

(Me, a young green wet-behind-the-ears KID could see it back then even... why couldn't these "economic geniuses"? Oh, they knew it alright - but kept their MOUTHS SHUT on the long-term harm it entailed: An idiot could figure it out!)

APK

P.S.=> So much for "the service economy", which is only designed to keep the rich getting richer, & the poor getting poorer (eroding away a "middle class"), which ELIMINATES ANY THREAT or COMPETITIVE or LEGAL POWER from the "lower classes"... hence, the "1%-ers investment class", doing their planning DECADES in advance, for what we have now, today...

... apk

Re:Had BIG "run in" w/ economic prof. about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41572095)

That's over 20 years, almost 30 in fact, you monumentally stupid fuck. No wonder your shitty software is so terrible code monkey host-file garbage when you can't even do basic math. If I were your boss, I'd lay your stupid ass off.

Noticed it myself: It was just a typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41572967)

They happen, or are you perfect & never do typos occasionally?

* As to the rest of your profanity-riddled rant? Please - take your meds already!

APK

P.S.=>

"No wonder your shitty software is so terrible" - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06, @06:33PM (#41572095)

Ok then, let's compare - So, what softwares have YOU ever written? ZERO... since I have never seen any wares written by "Anonymous Coward", it is absolutely true!

(Now, "shoo - go away now, little troll")

... apk

Sad maybe, but inevitable in any case (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about 2 years ago | (#41570763)

Headlines like "Internet accounts for 5 million jobs and 4% of the economy" are misleading because they do not say how many jobs the internet made obsolete or how much older economic activity is no longer needed. In the same way that agricultural labor went from 90% of the US workforce (200 years ago) to about 2% (although lots of people still garden as a hobby), manufacturing etc. is going from around 35% of the US workforce (50 years ago) to around 10% now and probably, like agriculture, around 2% fairly soon. The decline of paid manufacturing labor is inevitable given flexible robotics and 3D printers and so on. Just look at a stream of slashdot articles on robotics and such. I agree that thinking the "service" economy is going to provide jobs, like some say, is ridiculous -- but I feel it is because service robotics and AI and free information exchange is proliferating. We need to fundamentally rethink the notion of an income-through-jobs link as the main thing granting a right to consume the fruits of our increasingly automated agricultural, industrial, and service sectors (see the 1964 "Triple Revolution Memorandum" and Marshall Brain's recent story "Manna"). We need to some combination of a "basic income", a proliferation of personally-owned means of production (like gardening robots, 3D printers, and solar panels), an expanded gift economy like via GNU/Linux and Wikipedia and the Creative Commons, and better internet-facilitated participatory government planning at all levels. More details are here:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html [pdfernhout.net]

For good or bad, the wage-based economy as we knew it is in its final death spiral. The stronger the demand for decent wages and good working conditions, the faster most jobs of any sort will be automated. For example, here is a robotic system under development that can replace most fast-food workers:
http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/fast-food-robotics-an-update/ [wordpress.com]
There may be some jobs that will be exceptions to automation for longer periods of time (for example, ones at Google developing AI to replace more jobs), but overall that is the trend. Here is a related video parable I made about that:
"The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p14bAe6AzhA [youtube.com]

Re:This is sad (1)

Solandri (704621) | about 2 years ago | (#41570809)

We missed our chance in the 1980s-1990s. When replacing manufacturing jobs with robots became viable, we should've gone whole hog with that. Replacing assembly line workers with robots, and retraining those workers for other jobs like operating and maintaining those robots or getting into the growing computer industry. Instead we opted to protect those low-skill but (compared to robots) high-wage jobs. Consequently when another country offered to do the same assembly line jobs for a lower price, the jobs (and the manufacturing) went there.

Protecting the status quo at the expense of progress is usually a bad idea, irrespective of politics. Foxconn is doing the smart thing and aggressively adding robots to their assembly lines, so a country like Vietnam or Thailand doesn't do unto them what they did unto us.

Long-term though, I don't think the problem is as bad as you fear. The increased productivity from a modern economy means a smaller and smaller percentage of your productivity (roughly, time spent working) is devoting to actually making things that are necessary for life like food, housing, transportation. A larger percentage can be spent on doing optional things like eating out, going on vacations, etc. Contrast this to medieval times when the average person had to work the fields 12 hours a day just to produce enough food to feed himself (on average). Of course there are some exceptions (e.g. HDTVs, which are manufactured but are entertainment), but the overall percentages will shift away from manufacturing and towards service as economic progress marches forward. (And I include dissemination of expertise in service; so an IT consultant is part of the service economy.)

Re:This is sad (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41582367)

The increased productivity from a modern economy means a smaller and smaller percentage of your productivity (roughly, time spent working) is devoting to actually making things that are necessary for life like food, housing, transportation. A larger percentage can be spent on doing optional things like eating out, going on vacations, etc.

John Maynarde Keynes said something similar in 1930. It appeared to be true up until the 1960/70s, but since then working hours have not decreased any further, and in fact most people probably work more now than they did in the 1970s.

Re:This is sad (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about 2 years ago | (#41574191)

Our manufacturing base in the US is growing. You must be listening to misguided politicians saying we need to expand it to provide more jobs (notably Santorum), when manufacturing provides fewer and fewer jobs. We are losing manufacturing jobs worldwide, and China (a scapegoat for taking our jobs) is losing jobs at a faster rate than us. It's generally cheaper to manufacture in the US than China, and companies are taking notice.

With the growth of new manufacturing technology, such as small scale CNC lathes, 3D printers and cheap/free 3D software (e.g. Google Sketchup), the means of small scale production are becoming cheap enough for anyone industrious. It's a second industrial revolution. One where you don't have the service of a local factory telling you things they'll pay you to do, but you get to control production. If you learn to design and build something that people want to buy, you can make a rather good income running a factory out of your garage. If you quickly become more popular than you can handle, then you can buy manufacturing services for your design. If you give up on all the a generic education in a college degree (or get a 2nd job), you'll save plenty of money to get started.

Re:This is sad (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41582449)

With the growth of new manufacturing technology, such as small scale CNC lathes, 3D printers and cheap/free 3D software (e.g. Google Sketchup), the means of small scale production are becoming cheap enough for anyone industrious. It's a second industrial revolution. One where you don't have the service of a local factory telling you things they'll pay you to do, but you get to control production.

I think you're being over-optimistic. There is a reason that we have huge factories producing things. Not everything can be done in your garage.

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41574803)

While the US has lost some manufacturing marketshare to Asia, we are still at the top (about tied with China) in terms of money made by manufacturing. In fact, the US manufacturing sector has not seen a large contraction, it just hasn't been growing as fast as some developing nations. Manufacturing jobs are being eliminated due to automation, not foreign countries. The number of manufacturing jobs worldwide has been dropping since 1980. The trend is not going to turn around... ever.

Re:This is sad (1)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#41575533)

I'm actually curious who thought transitioning the US to a service economy was a good idea.

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577125)

After we're done they will be studying us on tablets with ebook readers, not textbooks!

Seriously technology is our only real export left, at least the only one that makes up a decent amount of our countries contribution to the rest of the world. Sadly with how new bills/acts/laws and abuse of existing bills/acts/laws are going it wont last without some serious change.

Re:This is sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41577323)

You do realize that the US has the largest manufacturing base in the world both by tonnage and dollar amount right? And that the Manufacturing jobs we've lost are all in super low value, unskilled, low margin manufacturing or in jobs easily replaces by high quality (also American made) robots?

Oh you didn't? Because China and Germany lead exports?

Maybe that's because they have no domestic markets for their products.

Proper Headline (2)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | about 2 years ago | (#41569539)

Harvard Business School Study Sponsored by Ad Group Says Internet Accounts For 5.1M US Jobs, 3.7% of GDP

"Ad-supported internet" (1)

Mononoke (88668) | about 2 years ago | (#41569547)

Ads don't support the internet. Users support the internet. Content attracts the users. Ads support SOME of the content.

Of course an advertising organization would twist this.

Re:"Ad-supported internet" (2)

rgbrenner (317308) | about 2 years ago | (#41569673)

users support the internet? Maybe the ecommerce side.. but the content websites? really?

how much have you paid to slashdot today?

Why is there no subscription mark next to your UID? Is slashdot not worthy of your support?

If you haven't paid anything, then how are you supporting it?

slashdot requires 16 web servers, 7 db servers, 2 db read-only servers, 2 load balancers, and 3 misc systems.
http://slashdot.org/story/07/10/18/1641203/slashdots-setup-part-1--hardware [slashdot.org]

How much of that hardware did you pay for with your "support"?

Large websites are not free. Where is the money suppose to come from?

Re:"Ad-supported internet" (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41569909)

how much have you paid to slashdot today?

Slashdot is well known and popular because of its users -- people come here to read comments and have discussions, to the point where they need to be reminded to read the articles. Slashdot does not need to pay people to write things, moderate, etc. This is an online community, not some curated experience.

slashdot requires 16 web servers, 7 db servers, 2 db read-only servers, 2 load balancers, and 3 misc systems.

I manage that many computers in my spare time, and unlike the systems I voluntarily deal with, Slashdot only needs a handful of applications to work (you might even say Slashdot only needs one application to work, but I suspect this is divided into several parts). Slashdot has a high load to deal with, but you are not talking about users running arbitrary applications.

If anything, I would say that Slashdot-style websites would be the winners if everyone installed ABP. Websites where the only operating costs are keeping a handful of servers online are websites whose costs can be covered by other means if necessary -- micropayments, merchandising, etc. If that is impossible, then the web needs to start being decentralized, users participating in serving the websites they visit (a P2P revival, built right into your browser).

So yeah, the users support Slashdot, because if we were not commenting on articles and arguing with each other then nobody would visit Slashdot.

Re:"Ad-supported internet" (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41582573)

Even if slashdot paid nothing for its bandwidth and managed to run on equipment supplied by and maintained by volunteers, it would then just be a hobby site, not a business. I don't think that's a bad thing, I just want to point out that you're then talking about something completely different than economics.

Re:"Ad-supported internet" (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about 2 years ago | (#41570563)

how much have you paid to slashdot today?

$0. The same amount I've been paying directly to Craigslist.

And Craigslist does have ads, don't get me wrong. To list an apartment for rent, or to list a job opening on craigslist, you have to pay a non-trivial amount. But as users on Craigslist, we actually want those posts to be paid. Posting an apartment for rent, or posting a job, on there used to be free, but that meant those boards were flooded with posts from people who were not really serious about hiring anyone, or renting to anyone, but that just wanted to test out the market, or generate finders fees for themselves.

Also, note that Amazon (ad-Kindle excluded), Ebay, the Yellow Pages, Alibaba, could also be considered advertising web sites, but those advertisements, I actively seek them out, so I do not consider them as negatively as I consider other form of advertisements and blocking them would be a bug not a feature.

research investments = jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41569677)

Most government investments in research lead to great returns on investment in terms of economic growth - the internet is just one example. Google began with a $4.5 million National Science Foundation grant. The $3.6 billion investment by the National Institutes of Health for the Human Genome Project has led to about $800 billion in economic output and over 300,000 jobs (source: http://scienceprogress.org/2011/05/investing-in-innovation-pays-off/). Supporting research (via NIH, NSF, NASA, DARPA, etc.) may be the only government investment proven to lead to sustained economic growth.

Scientific research funding used to receive broad bipartisan support (e.g. Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton worked together to double the NIH budget from 1999-2003), but lately seems to be targeted as "wasteful spending" by certain politicians. Please tell your members of Congress to support funding for research!!!

Inefficient Jobs Cost GDP (3)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 2 years ago | (#41569741)

Like the music industry, the advertising industry is using jobs numbers to imply that they are inherently good. Like the music industry, there is an ideal level of their product -- the level at which it maximizes the long-run GDP growth rate. Beyond that point, increasing employment in their industry harms GDP growth by applying resources (labor in this case) beyond the efficient allocation level.

The music industry has a government granted monopoly in copyright. When that grant becomes too powerful, the industry consumes more resources than is efficient and is a net drag on the economy. Their employment numbers climb while their net contribution to the economy becomes negative.

Advertising, at its worst, distorts consumer behavior and causes unearned cashflow. This unearned cashflow causes corporations to focus their product development on features that advertise well even if they do not result in genuine customer satisfaction, resulting in a net drag on the economy. A portion of the distorted cashflow is channeled back into advertising to keep the distortion running despite negative customer experieneces. As employment in advertising rises past the efficient level, each additional job represents a net cost to the economy.

In any industry, not just those two mentioned, there is a GDP maximizing level of employment. Going beyond that point costs us all in the long run. In traditional industries, that point is defined by the guns versus butter balance [wikipedia.org] . But that is only an upper bound. In industries that have a structural inefficiency, like government granted regulatory monopolies or the potential to distort consumer behavior, the balancing point is reached at a lower level. In those industries, using employement as a measure of societal benefit is particularly perilous.

Re:Inefficient Jobs Cost GDP (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about 2 years ago | (#41582613)

Advertising, at its worst, distorts consumer behavior and causes unearned cashflow. This unearned cashflow causes corporations to focus their product development on features that advertise well even if they do not result in genuine customer satisfaction, resulting in a net drag on the economy.

All advertising is about persuading people to buy things they do not need or even particularly want. If it's not distorting consumer behaviour, it's not doing anything at all, is it?

The idea that you can split up "good" and "bad" advertising is just absurd..

Re:Inefficient Jobs Cost GDP (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 2 years ago | (#41593929)

If it's not distorting consumer behaviour, it's not doing anything at all, is it?

Yes, sometimes. Sometimes advertisements make a potential customer aware of a new product that satisfies a want more efficiently, or makes them aware of a new way to use an existing product to satisfy their wants. In such a case the ad is not distorting behavior in the economic sense; the person's lack of informedness prior to seeing the ad was a distortion preventing a mutually beneficial trade from happening.

Bull Shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41569795)

And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

If THIS would stop, I wouldn't do this... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41570405)

Per my subject-line above: THIS is mainly what made me do what's in my 'p.s.' below:

---

24 documented incidences of malware ridden banner ads the past few years now:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus [slashdot.org]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/bing_yahoo_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/24/malware_ads_google_yahoo/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/24/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/excite_and_rhapsody_rogue_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/google_sponsored_links/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/11/yahoo_serves_12million_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/real_media_serves_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge [slashdot.org]

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware [slashdot.org]

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware [slashdot.org]

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229 [slashdot.org]

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com]

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware [securityweek.com]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/spotify_malvertisement_attack/ [theregister.co.uk]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/02/1427257/demonoid-down-for-a-week-serving-malware-laden-ads [slashdot.org]

---

* Not only is THAT a threat, but the fact that adbanners account for a HUGE %-age of each page I download, slowing me down & they eat up CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O also, meaning ELECTRICITY COSTS ontop of my monthly ISP bill!

Hey, I don't know about the rest of you, but... I PAY FOR MY INTERNET CONNECTION SPEED TO DELIVER WHAT I AM OUT TO READ, which is not advertisements (and least of all ADS THAT INFECT MY SYSTEM WITH MALWARE as shown above)

(So, since I pay for it? Well - I want it back, and to be more secure online, faster, & more reliable... what's below, makes SURE that happens!)

APK

P.S.=> IF you don't want to be tracked, & to get your speed/bandwidth back you paid for (as well as electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well), better "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", reliability (vs. DNS poisoning redirection OR being "downed"), & even anonymity (to an extent vs. DNS request logs) + being able to "blow by" what you may feel are unjust blocks (in DNSBL's) & more...

---

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32-bit & 64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 [start64.com]

---

Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):

---

1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites

2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware

3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use

4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers

5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content

6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)

7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).

8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)

9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).

10.) Blocking out TRACKERS

11.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!)

12.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).

13.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)

14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).

15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.

---

* There you go... & above all else IF you choose to try it for the enumerated list of benefits I extolled above?

Enjoy the program! However, more importantly, the results in better speed/bandwidth, privacy, reliability, "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth", & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs & blowing past DNSBL's) + more, that custom hosts files can yield...

Of course, THIS is NOT going to "go well" with 3 types of people out there online, profiting by advertising & nefarious exploits + more @ YOUR expense as the consumer:

---

A.) Malware makers & the like (botnet masters, etc./et al)

B.) ADVERTISERS - the TRULY offended ones, as it is their "lifeblood" in psychological attack galore, tracking, & more, etc.!

C.) Possibly webmasters (who profit by ad banners, but fail to realize that those SAME adbanners suck away the users' bandwidth/speed, electricity, CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O they PAY FOR, plus, adbanners DO get infested with malicious code, & if anyone wants many "examples thereof" from the past near-decade now? Ask!)

---

Lastly - It does a BETTER JOB than AdBlock &/or Ghostery (both of those are OWNED BY ADVERTISERS & are crippled in the former by default, + track you via the latter)

AND

It also circumvents Apache's b.s. as well as anything in ANY browser that attempts to defeat blocks (or other webbound programs):

---

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org]

---

and

---

Evidon, which makes Ghostery, is an advertising company. They were originally named Better Advertising, Inc., but changed their name for obvious PR reasons.

Despite the name change, let's be clear on one thing: their goal still is building better advertising, not protecting consumer privacy.

Evidon bought Ghostery, an independent privacy tool that had a good reputation.

They took a tool that was originally for watching the trackers online, something people saw as a legitimate privacy tool, and users were understandably concerned. The company said they were just using Ghostery for research.

Turns out they had relationships with a bunch of ad companies and were compiling data from which sites you visited when you were using Ghostery, what trackers were on those sites, what ads they were, etc., and building a database to monetize.

When confronted about it, they made their tracking opt-in and called it GhostRank, which is how it exists today.

They took an open-source type tool, bought it, turned it from something that's actually protecting people from the ad industry, to something where the users are actually providing data to the advertisers to make it easier to track them.

This is a fundamental conflict of interest.

To sum up: Ghostery makes its money from selling supposedly de-indentified user data about sites visited and ads encountered to marketers and advertisers. You get less privacy, they get more money.

That's an inverse relationship.

Better Advertising/Evidon continually plays up the story that people should just download Ghostery to help them hide from advertisers. Their motivation to promote it, however, isn't for better privacy; it's because they hope that you'll opt in to GhostRank and send you a bunch of information.

They named their company Better Advertising for a reason: their incentive is better advertising, not better privacy

---

Advertisters never intended to honor it:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/23/1334258/advertisers-never-intended-to-honor-dnt [slashdot.org]

---

AND, neither do others:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/30/1435231/think-tanks-website-rejects-browser-do-not-track-requests [slashdot.org]

---

The webserver program folks even "jumped on the bandwagon" in Apache:

http://apache.slashdot.org/story/12/09/08/0053235/apache-patch-to-override-ie-10s-do-not-track-setting [slashdot.org]

---

Talk about "crooked" & telling 1/2 truths (as well as making software that was ONCE quite useful & effective, NOT QUITE AS USEFUL & EFFECTIVE by default anymore!)

... apk

Wait a second... (1)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about 2 years ago | (#41571009)

Does this mean government can create jobs or am I misssing something?

Directly backwards (1)

wagr (1070120) | about 2 years ago | (#41572123)

They have the indirect-direct correlation backwards. I would describe those 2 million as indirect jobs of other economic forces. I.e., ad supported internet jobs are there because others do things that want/need advertising.

See Previous Slashdot Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41574701)

How many are going to even be using the Internet when the greedy broadband $-whores start with tiered accounts and overage charges? That should fix the advertising problem. It will knock the US right of the Web.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?