Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the impending decline of the corporate structure due to the rise of AI, which is fundamentally altering the nature of work and value in society [3][5][31]. Group 1: The Decline of Corporate Structure - The corporate structure was originally designed to enhance efficiency through organized labor and standardized roles [7][9]. - AI technologies are now outperforming human collaboration, leading to a reevaluation of the efficiency advantages that companies once held [10][13]. - The current economic uncertainty is a reflection of deeper systemic issues rather than normal fluctuations [12][14]. Group 2: The Fate of Knowledge Workers - The emergence of AI has rendered many cognitive tasks less valuable, with human economic contributions potentially becoming negative [17][20]. - Many professionals, including writers and designers, have already experienced job displacement due to AI, despite their belief in the irreplaceability of their creative roles [18][19]. - The traditional belief that work equates to value is being challenged, as AI can perform tasks more efficiently and at a lower cost [21][23]. Group 3: Educational System's Inadequacy - The current educational system is rooted in industrial-era principles, designed to produce compliant and efficient workers rather than innovative thinkers [26][27]. - As the corporate structure collapses, the skills instilled by this outdated education system will become irrelevant [28][29]. - The failure of the educational system to adapt to the needs of the AI era poses a significant risk for future generations [25][30]. Group 4: Navigating the Transition - The article emphasizes the need for individuals to redefine their identities and values in a post-corporate world, moving beyond traditional employment roles [33][34]. - Acknowledging the limitations of the current system is crucial for adapting to the changes brought by AI [32][34]. - The transition may lead to a reevaluation of societal structures and the meaning of work, presenting both challenges and opportunities for personal growth [34][35].

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that AI is not the primary cause of unemployment but rather a catalyst for the decline of the traditional corporate work structure, which is no longer suitable for modern productivity demands [3][4][24]. Group 1: Unemployment and AI - In August, the unemployment rate for urban labor aged 16-24 reached 18.9%, the highest since records began [1]. - A U.S. research institution predicts that by 2030, AI will replace 92 million jobs while creating 170 million new ones, indicating a net increase in job opportunities, but the new jobs are not reflected in current corporate hiring practices [3][4]. Group 2: The Flaws of the Corporate Work Structure - The traditional corporate structure is likened to an outdated vehicle that cannot adapt to modern advancements like AI, which increases individual productivity [6][9]. - The article identifies three main issues with the corporate work structure: 1. **Talent Slavery**: Employees essentially sell their time to companies without corresponding increases in compensation despite productivity gains from AI [10][11]. 2. **Departmental Silos**: The hierarchical structure leads to inefficiencies and inter-departmental conflicts, hindering productivity [13][14]. 3. **Gig Economy**: The rise of flexible employment shows that many prefer autonomy over traditional job security, challenging the corporate model [15][16][19]. Group 3: The Future of Work - The article suggests that the future work model will involve individuals leveraging AI tools and collaborative networks, moving away from traditional employment roles [22][24]. - It emphasizes the importance of individuals transitioning from being "company employees" to "independent entities" who can utilize AI as a partner rather than a competitor [21][24]. - The narrative concludes that the current unemployment situation is not a dead end but a starting point for redefining work in the age of AI [25].

Core Viewpoint - The Vanke partnership system, introduced eleven years ago, aimed to address profit distribution issues within the company, enhancing employee motivation and aligning their interests with those of shareholders. However, the system has faced challenges, leading to questions about its effectiveness and the company's stock performance [1][3][21]. Group 1: Background and Context - The partnership system was designed to resolve the inherent conflicts between capital owners and labor, focusing on equitable profit distribution [2][3]. - Vanke is not the first to propose the "partner" concept; it was initially introduced by Jack Ma, with other companies like Alibaba and Xiaomi implementing similar systems earlier [4][5]. - The real estate industry, being capital-intensive and competitive, necessitates collaboration among many individuals and substantial investments, making traditional individual efforts insufficient [7][8]. Group 2: Partnership System Structure - The partnership system consists of four main components: the career partner stockholding plan, project co-investment plan, event partnership, and internal entrepreneurship, with the first two being the core [33]. - The career partner stockholding plan aims to align long-term interests between the company and its employees by allowing management to hold company shares, similar to a management buyout [34][35]. - The project co-investment plan requires management and key personnel to invest in projects, linking their compensation directly to project performance [43][44]. Group 3: Implementation and Results - The implementation of the partnership system led to a significant increase in Vanke's operating efficiency, with average dividends per share rising from 0.24 yuan before the system to 0.64 yuan afterward [54]. - The stock price of Vanke saw a notable increase during the initial years of the partnership system, reaching a high of 36.38 yuan per share by the end of 2017, nearly tripling from before the system's implementation [58]. - However, employee co-investment peaked at over 10 billion yuan but has since declined significantly, reflecting the challenges faced during the industry's downturn [61][64]. Group 4: Challenges and Future Outlook - The partnership system has faced significant challenges, with the stock price dropping below the initial investment levels, leading to potential disbandment of the partnership structure [64][66]. - Vanke announced plans to develop a new long-term incentive mechanism, signaling a shift away from the economic profit bonus system that had been in place for nearly thirteen years [66]. - The partnership system's initial goals of shared benefits and risk-sharing have been complicated by market conditions, leading to a reevaluation of its effectiveness and sustainability [69][71].