One traditional metric for measuring the performance of a company is revenue per employee. And in a knowledge-based economy, this makes a lot of sense. Human capital is often the biggest expense. But as we enter the age of AI, this is now being called into question.

Sara Menker has, for example, proposed a new metric: revenue per MWh. (See above comparing Meta, Alphabet, and Microsoft.) This is meant to reflect the fact that, as AI infrastructure scales, it is likely that operating costs in the future will be dominated by electricity consumption, rather than employee count.
Naturally, this should make you wonder about a few things, namely: How will we manage the inequality that might (or will) arise from the decoupling of revenues from employees? And how are we going to sustainability supply this rapidly growing need for more and more electricity?
Albert Wenger argues that the comparable metric for nations will be GDP per GWh. This means that, to win, you're going to want cheap electricity. And as I understand it, the cheapest sources are wind, solar, and hydropower. This bodes well for Canada given that we dominate in the latter.
Cover photo by Thomas Reaubourg on Unsplash
Here's an interesting presentation by Albert Wenger, who is a partner at Union Square Ventures. He starts by showing a logarithmic chart comparing per capita energy consumption and GDP per capita. Then, by way of a clear empty area in the chart's data points, he makes the argument that there's no such thing as a wealthy, low-energy nation. If you're a wealthy country, you consume a lot of energy. That's just how it works. He then goes through a number of historical energy breakthroughs, landing on the point that, today, we are in need of much more energy. In other words, we need another energy breakthrough. We need it because we're still burning fossil fuels and putting too much carbon into the atmosphere, and because we have really big energy needs: everything from data centers to the full electrification of our homes, buildings, and cars. One piece of good news is that we are seeing exponential growth in solar energy. Today, our global install base is still relatively small, but the thing about exponential growth is that it can creep up on you fast.
It's an interesting presentation. And if you'd prefer to read his talk instead, which is/was my preference, you can do that here.
We know that, for a variety of reasons, more and more people are living alone. As of 2018, single-person households represented about 28% of all households in the US. This is up from 13.1% in 1960.
Here in Canada, single-person households became the predominant household type in 2016 (we're also at 28%) for the first time in Canada's 150+ year history. And the numbers are even higher for some European countries. In Finland, Germany, and Norway, more than 4 in 10 households are single-person.
Part of this has to do with people living longer. In Canada, 42% of people aged 85 or older (and living in a private household) live alone. But part of this is also cultural. Japan has one of the oldest populations in the world, but it doesn't have the highest percentage of single-person households. Although, the number is relatively high and increasing. It's nearly 40%.
Whatever the case may be, you could argue that there appears to be some sort of global trend line toward more people living alone. But here's an important question: Is this a good thing?
Albert Wenger recently argued in this blog post that, actually, we need new forms of living together. Whether it's multigenerational living or coliving with like-minded friends, there are clear benefits to living with other people. You get to share resources. You get elders that can look after kids. And you get company.
There's also an opportunity to curate your environment. As Phil Levin puts it on his coliving blog Supernuclear: "If your home is filled with motivated people, you will be more motivated. [And] if your home is filled with funny people, you will laugh more."
Albert posits that office conversions (which are obviously in vogue right now) could serve as an opportunity to rethink our built environment around coliving. And while this is certainly true, I'm not sure we need it to happen. There are ways we can live together today, within our existing environment, if we want to.
The question is: do we?
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog