4 ms·

Of course technology is going to make jobs obsolete, the job decline is inevitable. The statistics in the article are loosely based with Silicon Valley at all.

Of course technology is going to make jobs obsolete, the job decline is inevitable. The statistics in the article are loosely based with Silicon Valley at all. Seems like a rant piece.

sago 12y ago
Do you not think the fact that a large proportion of jobs will be made obsolete by technology in favour of lower-paid or casual work is worth a rant, then?
- thoughtpalette 12y ago
  I think the future of jobs in general is a great topic to explore and discuss in length, but this article reads more as an attack on technology with Silicon Valley as the focus which doesn't make sense since technological achievements are happening world wide... eliminating jobs, creating efficiency and automation to many industries.
  - sago 12y ago
    Right, but he's specific about two types of technology-fueled role: minimum wage warehousing jobs and sharing-economy jobs. I think it is undeniable that the latter is directly caused by Silicon Valley-style startups. As evidenced by their multi-billion dollar valuations.
    - Eridrus 12y ago
      Not all sharing-economy jobs are created equal; some platforms bring workers on as employees, with all that entails.
- rorykoehler 12y ago
  The less people have to work the better, especially when it comes to menial jobs. If political and social policy fails to reflect changes in the economy and the jobs market then that is a political failure and should be treated as such. If we go on the premise that fascism is good and socially minded governance is bad (as seems to be the trend in many places in the world today including in the States) then of course things will go pear shaped but to point the finger at technological innovators and blame them is ridiculous and if I dare say irresponsible.
  - sago 12y ago
    His point was exactly the opposite. More menial and jobs are being created by technology that concentrates money in the hands of a few people. The interesting and fulfilling middle-class jobs are the ones being squeezed. Whether he's right or not, your point seems to miss the mark.
    - Eridrus 12y ago
      I think silicon valley gets around this moral quandary by arguing for things like basic income, wherein the logic is that people should have an opportunity to fill their lives with interesting and fulfilling things that don't pay. I'm personally vulnerable to this line of thinking, but I can definitely see that silicon valley is getting rich but expecting everyone else to chip in to solve the problem and advocating a solution that is a nonstarter in most circles. I think that, at the very least, Piketty is right and we need a progressive tax on capital gains.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        Progressive tax on capital gains (or, more simply, just taxing capital gains like regular income) and basic income aren't mutually exclusive alternatives. OTOH, not giving capital gains is currently highly-favorable treatment is at least as much of a "non-starter in most circles" as Basic Income, so its kind of odd to use the non-starter thing to criticize SV for supporting BI while pushing progressive tax on capital gains (unless, of course, you are referring to the progressive tax we already have on capital gains -- capital gains taxes now are progressive, not flat, just at lower levels than regular income taxes; but in that case, you aren't offering any solution at all, just the status quo.)
        Eridrus 12y ago
        You're totally right, they're not mutually exclusive, and I am personally a fan of both. I can just see it as not necessarily a pragmatic approach. I would simply envisage less popular resistance to a real progressive tax on capital gains than to a basic income (see: welfare fraud), but maybe I'm wrong. I don't have a particularly great solution to our problem, but I do think there are meaningful steps we can take between an ideal world and the real one that are better than nothing. Silicon valley should surely start paying people closer to the value they provide.

Of course technology is going to make jobs obsolete, the job decline is inevitable. The statistics in the article are loosely based with Silicon Valley at all. Seems like a rant piece.

sago 12y ago

Do you not think the fact that a large proportion of jobs will be made obsolete by technology in favour of lower-paid or casual work is worth a rant, then?

thoughtpalette 12y ago
I think the future of jobs in general is a great topic to explore and discuss in length, but this article reads more as an attack on technology with Silicon Valley as the focus which doesn't make sense since technological achievements are happening world wide... eliminating jobs, creating efficiency and automation to many industries.
- sago 12y ago
  Right, but he's specific about two types of technology-fueled role: minimum wage warehousing jobs and sharing-economy jobs. I think it is undeniable that the latter is directly caused by Silicon Valley-style startups. As evidenced by their multi-billion dollar valuations.
  - Eridrus 12y ago
    Not all sharing-economy jobs are created equal; some platforms bring workers on as employees, with all that entails.
rorykoehler 12y ago
The less people have to work the better, especially when it comes to menial jobs. If political and social policy fails to reflect changes in the economy and the jobs market then that is a political failure and should be treated as such. If we go on the premise that fascism is good and socially minded governance is bad (as seems to be the trend in many places in the world today including in the States) then of course things will go pear shaped but to point the finger at technological innovators and blame them is ridiculous and if I dare say irresponsible.
- sago 12y ago
  His point was exactly the opposite. More menial and jobs are being created by technology that concentrates money in the hands of a few people. The interesting and fulfilling middle-class jobs are the ones being squeezed. Whether he's right or not, your point seems to miss the mark.
  - Eridrus 12y ago
    I think silicon valley gets around this moral quandary by arguing for things like basic income, wherein the logic is that people should have an opportunity to fill their lives with interesting and fulfilling things that don't pay. I'm personally vulnerable to this line of thinking, but I can definitely see that silicon valley is getting rich but expecting everyone else to chip in to solve the problem and advocating a solution that is a nonstarter in most circles. I think that, at the very least, Piketty is right and we need a progressive tax on capital gains.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      Progressive tax on capital gains (or, more simply, just taxing capital gains like regular income) and basic income aren't mutually exclusive alternatives. OTOH, not giving capital gains is currently highly-favorable treatment is at least as much of a "non-starter in most circles" as Basic Income, so its kind of odd to use the non-starter thing to criticize SV for supporting BI while pushing progressive tax on capital gains (unless, of course, you are referring to the progressive tax we already have on capital gains -- capital gains taxes now are progressive, not flat, just at lower levels than regular income taxes; but in that case, you aren't offering any solution at all, just the status quo.)
      - Eridrus 12y ago
        You're totally right, they're not mutually exclusive, and I am personally a fan of both. I can just see it as not necessarily a pragmatic approach. I would simply envisage less popular resistance to a real progressive tax on capital gains than to a basic income (see: welfare fraud), but maybe I'm wrong. I don't have a particularly great solution to our problem, but I do think there are meaningful steps we can take between an ideal world and the real one that are better than nothing. Silicon valley should surely start paying people closer to the value they provide.