It talks about how maintenance is shortchanged by new development. There is much talk that growth is required to keep an economy stable, but, if those resources were shifted to maintenance of existing stuff, it seems like there would still be plenty of economic activity? I'm about 1/4 of the way through the article. It is reminding me of "The Economics of Arrival", and also of "Foundational Economy". Also, of "Mutual Aid" - I have the book, haven't read it. But, important in "Debt: the 1st 5000 Years".
I went to tag this post, and "economics" also brought up "stability economics", which seems completely appropriate to me. Here is that tag in my blog, 5 posts (including this one). Note, to my knowledge,I invented "stability economics", yay me! I wanted to use Foundational Economics, but, it was already taken. :-(
We have to rework capitalism before it has completely converted the world to capital, with the complete collapse that represents. Once everything is capital, where does the stuff we need to live come from? Mining asteroids and/or gas giants, dudes, that is not going to happen before the planet has burned.
From my working years (1972-2012), when I was mostly running a software development shop, it was pretty close to 50-50% new development / maintenance.
But, I am guessing that, as the software development industry began to become financialized, fucking VCs & hedge fund vultures investing & demanding their 10% ROI, the balance totally shifted to >70% new features (splashy press releases, oh boy!) & and the pittance left to maintenance (users? fuck those losers.)
