What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

What Would Adam Smith Say?

June 13, 2013, 11:15 AM

When Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776, it was in the midst of emerging industrial capitalism.  When he spoke about the division of labor, it was in the same context.  This meant that the market was small, businesses were small, and production took quite a long time when products were individually manufactured.  However, once labor began to become divided, and different people specialized in different stages of production, the economy began to expand; it became easier. This expanding economy was good for the market, and good for the individual workers because they could produce more in a shorter period of time, increasing the amount of money that could be made.

The division of labor was incredibly good for business and industry because it increased the number of goods that could be produced in the same amount of time.  It is worth mentioning that Smith was on the side of the emerging industrial capitalists.  This lent itself to being on the side of the worker, who realized higher standards of living, and to promoting the overall wealth of the nation, through the efficiency of production and the division of labor.

Because of this, we assume that Adam Smith was on the side of, or at least not in opposition to the worker.  That is, as labor becomes more specialized, and technological invention and innovation take hold, workers become more efficient and productive, which results in higher wages and a growing economy.

Is this still true today? Does the division of labor and technological innovation still promote the wealth of the nation? The division of labor, taken to its logical conclusion, produces mundane, mindless tasks, which require less and less skill and earn lower and lower wages. Increased specialization and innovation results in the displacement of workers and the phasing out of these jobs. As an advocate of the division of labor, it would seem now that Adam Smith is pitted against the best interests of the labor force.

However, it is important to take Smith in context.  It is possible that Smith may have said that we have gone too far – the division of labor has deskilled workers and technology has left them unemployed. Smith would have said that technology should replace these mundane tasks but not at the expense of workers’ livelihood. 



What Would Adam Smith Say?

Newsletter: Share: