Comment: I didn't "get" the secretary analogy

(See in situ)


I didn't "get" the secretary analogy

If there is a tech-boom and you get downsized, fired, or are NOW required to adopt and find more work -- how is that dot connected to the roll of big bankers?

I mean yes -- they steal (civilians are compliant with) value out of the monopoly currency -- and yes that would effect the purchasing power of companies and the secretary -- but how does that connect with technology making the secretary redundant? Are there more or less secretaries today? Or does she now have the freedom to handle greater responsibilities?

An Executive Secretary (today) can become a CEO -- it is a highly covetous position occupied by MBA's and Ph.D's. In the pre-tech days this person was a "glorified" secretary often with no business background -- but owing to tech-boom she can handle greater levels of responsibility and she/he is right there when all the big decisions are made. Ursula M. Burns rose up Xerox from the Executive Secretary position -- now Madam Chairman and CEO.

I just think it's a poorly crafted argument whose conclusion happens to be right -- bankers bad (correct).