Mobile communications are merely a means. All that will do is give people traveling the same capabilities they have now when they're in your office. However, within 10 to 20 years, should make the working environment is more direct and seamless. The microphones, for example, collected voice wherever one is in the office, at home or in the car.
Yet again, we must ensure we develop the technology to empower people, not machines. We give an example. When a person enters a building designed to be used easily half century, the leading computer must know what types of computing resources is around it, allowing usage. For example, it may have been dictating documents, some 30 pages of important material, and fragments of voice and video. Then that person wants to say, "We will print this in the nearest printer." However, there are several ways. One is that as soon as one enters the building, that news is transmitted to the computer that one holds and everyone knows you are there. However, it could not be wished others to know that we have reached. At the time of reporting one's own presence in the building, you are vulnerable. In our laboratory, we have done the opposite. All resources are announcing their own existence, while no human being announces his. Thus, when entering a building, all resources, all printers, all fax machines and all computers are sending a message, "Here I am! Here I am "every 20 seconds. And, while I go into that building, my computer can measure the difference between the signals and know how far is the resource you seek. So once I move around a bit, I have on my computer from a complete map of all available resources, without anyone knowing that I'm there. This is a person-centered model.
Mobile communications also could exert a major impact on how they distribute the jobs in the future. So we moved a large portion of our manufacturing business to Taiwan and Southeast Asia in the 70s and 80s, can be provided a wireless technology that allows an enormous transfer of office work (which represents 70 percent of what do in our economy) out of the world's richest countries, those countries where there is great poverty and scarcity. It would be an interesting situation in which the work effort of a poor country could move across national borders to a rich country. There will be a massive redistribution of work, from customer service, through the transcripts, while checking for transactions and adjustments to insurance operations.
But if this whole routine office work goes abroad, many workers in more developed countries could lose their jobs. Is that a good thing?
Some office jobs go to foreign office employees, as well as some manufacturing jobs were lost when transferred to Southeast Asia. This is an inevitable consequence of lower labor costs abroad. In the short term this will be good for poor countries, which will see their gross national product increased so dramatically as that of Taiwan in the past two decades. The loss of jobs in the U.S., for example, will have a negative short term impact, both economically and psychologically, for those who lose their jobs here. However, as in the Industrial Age, U.S. workers will rise in the chain, offering sophisticated services, compared with more administrative and routine tasks will be moved out. I think long term to both developing countries and developed ones will benefit from the economic boom resulting from the increase in profits as a result of mobile communications technology.
