I haven't seen every calculation, but of those I've seen, most of the people who have "run the numbers" on the Kodak/Facebook/Instagram comparison have been trying to prove Lanier wrong and used a bunch of assumptions unfriendly to Lanier.

Perhaps he deserves that for not showing any data, but the repeated counting of Apple Store employees, Canon employees (who were employed back when Kodak was at 140,000) and others as "proof" that there has been no contraction has not impressed me.

Now it's fair to point out that fewer people employed in farming has not meant immediate unemployment. Rather people moved from the land into industry.

However, I think that masks an important point that Lanier has noticed, new industries have not arisen that provide mass employment the way the old ones did - and this is changing the nature of our economies and societies.