This article points out some interesting things, but doesn't seem to get the cause of them right. Employees don't deserve employment, just as companies don't deserve loyalty. If a machine comes along and makes your per-task work much easier, you will be expected to accomplish more tasks. If you don't, then your company's competitors will win.
Companies don't exist for their owners, or their employees. They exist for their customers, and if you can finish more tasks for the same effort your customers will have better lives. And that's what propels us forwards: each company (or winning company in each segment) makes our lives better, or simpler, or easier.
> Employees don't deserve employment, just as companies don't deserve loyalty.
On a re-read, this sounds harsher than I meant. My central point is around how companies don't primarily exist to employ, but to provide something to customers, and not understanding that could lead people to make bad decisions about how much they should count on their employer.
Companies don't exist for their owners, or their employees. They exist for their customers, and if you can finish more tasks for the same effort your customers will have better lives. And that's what propels us forwards: each company (or winning company in each segment) makes our lives better, or simpler, or easier.