I think there's a lot of underlying assumptions here we need to unpack. First, you are correct, not everybody is just going to "learn to code", and that's not

I think there's a lot of underlying assumptions here we need to unpack. First, you are correct, not everybody is just going to "learn to code", and that's not where I was going. The industrial revolution replaced, to a large degree, muscles with machines, but still required human minds to work those machines. This enabled an explosion of wealth across the entire world, giving everybody, in essence, access to the economic equivalence of an entire village's worth of labor. Goods which were once difficult to produce, and thus available only to the wealthy, became commonplace. You see this in design trends: ornate designs were favored until mass manufacturing rendered them trivial to reproduce, and then the world embraced Futurism and Bauhaus. In the information revolution, we are replacing minds with machines. We don't need as many muscles, nor do we need as many minds, and where we seem to be headed is a sort of neo-feudalism, as those that control the machines have all the power, and our societies are ill adapted for all the muscles and minds that find themselves no longer economically necessary. Nobody has a good answer to this. UBI, if implemented properly, may solve part of the problem, but human beings derive a great portion of their psychological nourishment from being valuable to their tribes. Just as how not everybody is going to learn to code, not everybody wants to be an artist or a musician, either. That's not even the ugliest problem. Two: There tends to be a very common assumption amongst the technorati, of which I suppose I am a member, that "lesser" folks, those who learned a trade instead of getting a computer science degree, can't learn how to code. I personally hate this attitude, and push back against it wherever I can. Yes, not everybody can be even a mediocre programmer; but, a great programmer can come from anywhere.