It always strikes me a bit odd when someone from SV comments on societal questions. People from different backgrounds and different walks of life don't obviously share the same worldview, of course those people well off have a harder time relating to those lower on the economic spectrum. But somehow it feels almost like there's a physical discontinuum between the "tech" people, and other people, who don't breathe and live their work, who are just happy to keep whatever job that keeps food on the table. I believe a big part of this is that most folks, contrary to tech, don't have to actively learn on the job. That's why the common answer to start re-educating yourself isn't really a viable alternative for most average people in their 30s-40s.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's very much unfortunate that societal issues get in the way of progress that in the long run will make everyone better off. I'm just saying that the things you have listed aren't necessarily the only factor in solving this problem. It's like considering people and their lives only as a function of income and expenses, when there are really a host of other factors also at play here.

The items I've listed would help us actually move forward to help people survive and navigate the new world: to give them individual agency, autonomy, and safety in a world where lifetime employment is gone; traditional unions are weak and/or are protecting jobs that may themselves be automated / cannot be created in numbers high enough to make up for massive job losses; the free agency/gig/Precariat economy is growing; and jobs are being automated away (even if Google has decided to step away for now.)

Identity factors, habits, location/mobility, etc. are all very important. Policy is meant to help provide a baseline for existence, not act as a panacea.

There will have to be logistical changes: many people will move to urban areas, as the UN predicts 2/3 of the world will live in by 2050, which are easier to provide services to, have high-quality educational institutions, and obviously what's left of many of the jobs.

There will have to be habit changes: those who want to compete will likely have to embrace autodidactism-for-life / training-for-life (free college / cheap online learning makes this one much more palatable.)

There will also have to be the hardest changes of all: cultural ones. We'll have different classes of people, many of whom will not be engaged in traditional work. Treating the latter as lazy slackers or parasites that deserve to starve will have to go, first and foremost.

We'll have people who still work, and who do much better than those that don't. With proper tax policy and others that I've outlined, we'll hopefully be able to avoid massive wealth gaps / concentration that could lead to massive social upheaval. Some will be managers, developers, business owners, etc. Others will still be in the gig economy, but will exist within it while working from a much more stable base. Being on a "zero hours" contract or working as an Instacart shopper will be much less punishing if you can always afford a place to live.

We'll have the "socializing/partying" class that may just get drunk, do drugs, and hang out with their friends, etc.

We'll have people who do spend their time mostly consuming media (video games, movies, news, etc.)

We'll have people who just sit around learning new stuff because they enjoy doing so; the idea of a lifetime of academia becomes much more appealing when you're not perpetually on the verge of starvation.

We'll have people who create music, art, social media posts, and image memes full-time without worrying about paying the rent.

We'll have people who finally get to play sports or make handicrafts like they've always wanted to.

The biggest adjustment we'll have to make: people will be required to find their own meaning if they can't work, and so cannot derive their identity from their job as they have in the past. Jaron Lanier's "multiple overlapping hierarchies of status" will become ever more important (from both sides: creation/participation and consumption.)

Politics and policy are just the start.

Your comment reminded me of Star Trek: First Contact when Lily asks Picard about the lack of money and he said we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity. Ever since that movie I was always fascinated with that unseen part of Star Trek canon where somehow the world figured out how to finally stop warring and competing and made human progress a first priority. I'm thinking we'll be in a few more wars (over resources) before we get there. Especially if our man-made climate change screws everything up.

Also, makes me think a bit differently about companies like Uber etc. They are essentially enabling a part of the mechanisms you're talking about.

And why so many of the the Linus Torvaldses and Elon Musks of the world head for the US as soon as they're able to.

Maybe social justice -- or at least your idea of it -- isn't the last, best purpose of humanity after all.

http://www.demos.org/blog/3/16/16/nordic-innovation-argument...

Just a few example companies: Skype, Spotify, Mojang

Example technologies: Bluetooth, pacemaker, AIS (like GPS), first LTE system. More, just from Sweden: http://www.swedenabroad.com/ImageVaultFiles/id_19367/cf_347/...

As far as people coming to the US, there are totally understandable reasons. We have excellent universities, more people (which matters: bigger local market, larger talent pool, more companies to work for, etc.), and we also have legacy clustering effects (NYC for finance and ads, SV for chips and startups.) These advantages are obviously very significant. There's absolutely no reason we cannot combine those advantages, our highly entrepreneurial culture, and the best the Nordics have to offer to be even better; that's part of what the "Silicon Valley Democrat" idea is about, and influential people there support it (that's where the idea comes from, obviously.) Even YC is doing research into the GBI.

This implication here wasn't about that, though; it was about what we'll be forced to do if we don't want to simply leave the masses unemployed and eventually storming the metaphorical--or literal--gates. That will require some or all of the above list.

Maybe social justice -- or at least your idea of it -- isn't the last, best purpose of humanity after all

Woah. Talk about a non-sequitor. What's one thing have to do with the other?

I responded by pointing out that Google was formed here, in the USA. The US is a country in which those values don't generally prevail and -- in any event -- where corporations are not responsible for upholding them.

I asked, more or less rhetorically, if there was perhaps a reason for that.

The OP responded by citing some counterexamples that more or less agree with my point, which I thought was an interesting way to argue. Skype was purchased by Microsoft (and let's not talk about Nokia, right?), while the founder of Mojang is living like a king of old Arabia in one of the most expensive homes ever sold in the US. We're apparently doing something right that those other countries are not.

More seriously, it's pretty clear by this point that a rising tide lifts all boats, even under conditions of inequitable income distribution. I don't see anyone from the US trying to break into Cuba or Venezuela, do you?

Alphabet should be pushing for more efficient governments, with an 's'. Americans need to let the world pony up more for safe international trade, and stop being so damn wasteful with ever increasing taxes and debt. Society will cover you when it's wealthy enough. Got to get there first though.

I think that's a lot of why they really sunk the Google Glass project after the privacy backlash started appearing heavily in the media.

I loved my Glass, I still would prefer it over smartwatches sold today. But now it's kinda abandoned.

I actually was angry I couldn't turn off auto-upload, and never used the camera. Would've been more than happy to have a model without it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they scale back on the hardware side of self-driving cars as well.

We're actually not that stingy on education either: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&...

Next even the companies themselves will leave.

Do people really not realize the consequences of these types of actions?

But I don't think many teachers will teach for free. And the ones that do might not be as qualified.

You could force them to teach for free, but thats hardly ethical.

Point being, lets call a spade a spade. They're tax-funded education, tax-funded healthcare. This is what we should be calling it. Because that is what it is.

Thats not to say I'm opposed to those things.

That vision is nice and all, until you have to tell all the rich people and corporations that they must give away most of their income to sustain a "guaranteed income" future for everyone.

I'm not saying I disagree with it - in fact I agree - I'm just saying Google would have to be ready to fight for that and ask for higher taxes to pay for that income and other benefits for the whole population.