

Silicon Valley to millennials: Drop dead - david927
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/18/opinions/wheeler-silicon-valley-jobs/index.html

======
thoughtpalette
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
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?

~~~
rorykoehler
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
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
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
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
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.

~~~
dragonwriter
> [...] a real progressive tax on capital gains [...]

What does this mean in concrete terms? We have a real (= non-imaginary,
actual, existing) progressive tax on capital gains now. It's also at favorable
rates (across the whole spectrum of its progressivity) compared to "regular"
income, and especially favored compared to _labor_ income (which pays payroll
taxes, which are flat to regressive, on top of income taxes, which are
progressive).

In fact, _because_ of payroll taxes, its arguable that we have more "real
progressive taxation" of capital gains than of labor income.

~~~
Eridrus
Sorry, I should have been clearer, higher brackets and rates.

