Dear Reader,

You are probably still thinking through the implications of George Gilder’s new theory of economics that I sent you yesterday. But today, I have another treat for you—the third installment of the five-part series on the individuals who have been influential in shaping my worldview.

Before we dive in, if you missed part two, you can access it, here.

Today, I am featuring Karen Harris, Managing Director of Bain & Company's Macro Trends Group, and her pioneering work on the declining cost of distance. This trend has wide-ranging implications for each one of us.

While not widely recognized, the cost of distance—that is, the cost of moving information, people, and goods—is a key driver of business and individual decision-making. And thanks to technology, the cost of distance is falling rapidly.

Investors listen up: that’s changing where and how businesses operate. And that will affect their stock prices.

Further, the declining cost of distance is changing where you live and work. That has massive implications for real estate prices, your lifestyle, and cost of living. Why live in a city, when the declining cost of distance is making it possible to live rurally and still earn a city wage?

When I say this is one of the most critical concepts to grasp going forward, I mean it.

Most people have never heard of this trend. That’s why, of all the ideas I cover in this series, I’m most excited to hear your thoughts and comments on this one.

I included an excerpt from the Karen Harris article, below. When you click to read the full article, you can share your thoughts and feedback at the bottom of that page.

John Mauldin

The Declining Cost of Distance is
Going to Change Everything

Almost daily, in the WSJ or on Bloomberg, you’ll see an article about automation and how it’s negatively impacting employment. At the same time, major research institutions like McKinsey, Brookings, and Pew are releasing studies on the topic.

Findings from these studies all draw the same conclusion: 30–40% of US jobs will be lost to automation over the next 20 years. When I see multiple forecasts, which arrive at the same conclusion, I get a little nervous. Here are two reminders of just how wrong the consensus can be.

Sources: The Economist, Forbes

• March 1999: Oil was at $12, and the consensus said it was headed lower. As we know now, that was pretty much the bottom for oil prices.

• November 2007: Nokia had a 37% market share, and its stock price was $39. Today, it has less than 2% of the market, and its stock price is below $5.

While automation and technology are having a massive effect on employment, when I see everyone falling into line with the consensus, my “inner-contrarian” alarm bells go off. When this happens, it tells me...