While I generally agree the article is a hyperbolic polemic (I mean, really, "Third, we can elect leaders who are vocal about holding Silicon Valley accountable

While I generally agree the article is a hyperbolic polemic (I mean, really, "Third, we can elect leaders who are vocal about holding Silicon Valley accountable for their power over the entire American workforce, including white-collar employees"... what does that even mean?!), the concerns about the "sharing economy" are pretty reasonable. Ultimately, these companies can easily trick folks into undervaluing their own labour. Now, I grant you, the folks involved are free to make that decision. But at minimum it should be an educated decision, and this is where the role of government or organized labour institutions can play an important role. Meanwhile, long-term, we are almost certainly going down the path of increasing automation, and that means we must, as a society, have an open discussion about what that means, and what might need to be put into place to try and mitigate some of the downsides (which is, of course, why the concept of a minimum basic income has re-entered the popular discourse). That's not to say that this trend is a necessarily evil one. We shouldn't be trying to preserve the jobs of the poor buggy whip makers. But it may very well mean a sea change in the way society views work, government assistance and the social safety net, health care, pensions and old age support, etc.