zlacker

Something has really changed. In those days the rewards were fairly linear and available everywhere. But now rewards are nonlinear and highly concentrated. Income inequality (and opportunity inequality) will continue to increase, and we probably need to rethink these pithy little axioms that powered the 1900s.

>>paulsu+(OP)
My belief is that the non-linearity is not due the lack of opportunity of some, but rather the hyper-opportunity of others.

The Silicon Valley isn't really an 'American' centre, it's like a 'Global Centre' where for the first time, indiviuals can have massively disproportionate, global impact.

A doctor may earn a big income, but he can only work on so many patients where as some global firms ... the yields are huge.

Coupled with some automation and large scale immigration of unskilled labour in North America which hurts labour, and outsourcing as well ... it creates a schism.

But remember that on a global basis, billions are being lifted out of utter and abject poverty.

It's mostly a good story.

We have to figure out the working class in advanced nations.

I actually do believe that it's mostly about good jobs, decent services, decent community. That's all there really ever was.

>>sonnyb+s
It's not really hyper opportunity, it is impact.

Impact is the reason why an elementary school teacher gets paid in the low-to-mid 5 figures and a professional ball player can get paid 7 figures. Usually, a school teacher has 20-30 kids in their classroom, while a professional ball player can indirectly influence tens of thousands of kids and adults in their "buying" decisions.

Impact is why Franz Schubert died poor and why Ozzy Osbourne made millions.

Technology can exponentially increase your reach and your impact. Ozzy in the medieval ages would have been just a tale told between towns. If you are a skilled marketer, the Internet is your oyster.

>>wallfl+Z1
Yes I agree to all of that except you're missing out on power and market power.

The biggest winners will be investors in tech, not employees, who will do well, but not as well as capital FYI.

>>sonnyb+o2
Kind of like a modern update on Karl Marx's "those who own the means of production are the capitalist class". A Modern update because "means of production" back when it was written meant non-human assets (e.g. machines) and the tech industry is clearly harnessing the collective effort of human assets now.