Actually, yes. In less than 20 hours (probably) I'm going to release a gigantic blog post (the 2nd-to-last in my Gervais/MacLeod series; I'm finishing that up because I have technical projects I want to start and will probably be starting a new job soon) that gets into the economics of it.
Essentially, convexity pertains to work that's hard and where the maximal possible performance isn't well-defined. Now, Sharpe Ratio (ratio of yield to risk) is an affine exponential that decays as the work gets harder. In other words, it's exponentially favorable for easiness on concave work, but for convex work (no matter how difficult) the yield/risk curve is almost constant.
Old, industrial work: favor concavity because the limiting factor is how much capital you have to put at risk. Though convex work has more yield, it's yield-per-risk is unfavorable.
If work is concave, we can define "perfect completion" (it's a commodity) and machines can be programmed to do it. So they're pushing us out of that. The convex work is all that's left for humans. It won't all be technical; there is convex service work.
Financial risk (not smart people with good ideas) was the limiting factor for old-style industrial processes, but all that concave work is being given over to machines by the convex labor of programming them. With convex work in the technological era, the Sharpe Ratio is constant and irrelevant. Your limiting factor, instead, is the time and attention of the highly talented people capable of doing (usually specialized) convex work.
Check my blog in about 6-18 hours and there'll be more on this topic than you'd ever want to see.
It just sounds like you meant to say "capital is ABUNDANT in comparison to the talent." Capital being scarce in comparison to the talent has been the case for decades if not centuries.
>"With convex work in the technological era... your limiting factor, instead, is the time and attention of the highly talented people"
Right, not capital, which is why I thought it odd you said capital was scarce in comparison to talent. I think you meant abundant.
Is this really a new condition?
>"The new currency... will be some proof-of-work model related to technical talent"
So other types of talent will all be secondary to technical talent? That would be quite a revolution, even with a 65-year timeframe.