I don't think we'll be running out of jobs anytime soon, though I do worry about the social and economical consequences of technology. I agree that technology h

I don't think we'll be running out of jobs anytime soon, though I do worry about the social and economical consequences of technology. I agree that technology has disturbing effects on society. But this article gets it wrong. > In its mind, Silicon Valley creates the future, while the rest of the world will soon become the “idle class.” What if they instead helped people build wealth for themselves? The idle class is a desirable end state. I for one would take that deal immediately if offered: to have the rest of my existence unconditionally funded, without anyone forcing me to do work I don't want to do. I think there are many people who would be happy to not have to sell their labor to survive. The authors' premise clings to the idea that everyone needs to derive their self-worth from the illusion of providing for oneself. Everyone who grows up in the Western world owes their survival to their family, society and the government. In reality, you are not independent. Selling your labor on a market is just one way of partaking in the enormous system you were born into. In the future, you'll be able to work on whatever you want, irrespective of the market, and that's how you'll contribute back. Make art. Organize communities. Study the nooks and crannies of the universe. Play sports. Live. > And you wonder why political candidates on both sides are tapping into anti-elitist anger with great success. It is only elitism if it denigrates. On the contrary, automation is supposed to be relief from drudgery. If anything, it denigrates the work, not the person. The major challenge is to have our political systems keep up with the pace of change. This is a huge challenge. > The idea here is borne from an underlying assumption that capitalism has winners and losers, and the victors have a responsibility to take care of the rest. Instead, we’d posit that many of the “winners” in Silicon Valley are part of a faux meritocracy — being born into the right city or social network. The system can be unfair and still have winners and losers. I think most people in SV understand how exceptionally lucky they are to not have been born into slavery in Mauretania, even though they don't exactly go out of their way to show it. The authors are right: SV is not meritocratic in any sane definition of the word. SV is unfair. It should be improved upon, but it's never going to be perfect. In the authors' view, you are not being taken care of by your society if you sell your labor. I disagree. > When India didn’t go for a Silicon Valley-led internet proposal, Marc Andreessen gained global denunciation (including from Silicon Valley CEOs such as Mark Zuckerberg) for a tweet This is a cheap attack on Andreessen. His comment, while horrendously worded, was clearly meant as a complaint against knee-jerk reactions. (That said, I think India made the right choice in rejecting Free Basics.) > the world will eventually be out of work and become a burden on the enlightened few Hopefully, by the time we get there, redistribution will be extensive enough that everyone can live a lavish life. > the resulting social unrest Probably. The political climate will not adjust lightly. > Snapchat may be solving an important problem for well-connected young people in America who don’t have to worry about basic needs. But whether it’s unemployed young people in St. Louis looking for their next paycheck or a family in Flint, Michigan worried about clean water, many Americans have more immediate problems. There is a difference between problems that capitalism can solve and problems that politics can solve. Capitalism solves market problems. Politics solves the rest. St. Louis and Flint are political problems. The problem is politics, not tech. Imagine if politics were more efficient. > What if a percentage of the $50B valuation were shared among the drivers, based on a merit-based system? This would be a nightmare to implement, notwithstanding that it's a terrible way to influence the market. The market is good at figuring out what things are worth. It often makes very unfair decisions, and in those cases politics should come in and rescue the day. The American model is increasingly incompatible with technology, which is increasingly demanding more redistribution. Why try to shoehorn a very complex equity-sharing system into the market, when some simple redistribution could achieve the same end? It's all for the sake of preserving the faux ideal of being independent. > But the conclusion — that the automation of these jobs will create a lot of wealth for a few people (of course the brilliant ones in Silicon Valley) but leave most out of work (the rest of us) — is reflective of Silicon Valley’s arrogance. Politics. We'll just take the money from them :) > How do we change ownership structures to prevent Snapchat, Instagram, and Whatsapp from distributing billion-dollar windfalls among only a couple dozen people? Whatever the imagined solution is, it is redistribution. You can dress it up in a wig and an evening dress, but it is still redistribution. The only difference is perception. Redistribution via UBI is seen as robbing people of their independence, whereas redistribution via unspecified market intervention is not. Technology is going to go the way it wants to. I've said it a million times but I'll say it a million times more: politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics.