"As the Harvard University labor expert Lawrence Katz explains it: 'If you think about the labor market today, the top half of the college market, those with the high-end analytical and problem-solving skills who can compete on the world market or game the financial system or deal with new government regulations, have done great. But the bottom half of the top, those engineers and programmers working on more routine tasks and not actively engaged in developing new ideas or recombining existing technologies or thinking about what new customers want, have done poorly. They’ve been much more exposed to global competitors that make them easily substitutable.'"

Does that make sense? Is it "engineers and programmers working on more routine tasks and not actively engaged in developing new ideas" who are faring worst among engineers and programmers? What kind of education reform would have to happen to increase the likelihood that most working engineers and programmers are actively engaged in developing new ideas?

Overall, the opinion touches on many subjects, but I agree with some of the comments on the NYT Site: not everyone can be an entrepreneur.

Perhaps the inflation of the idea of being an entrepreneur is the next bubble?

For example, before, anyone can own a house and, now, anyone can own a business. (A transformation of "why rent when you can own?" to "why work for someone else when you can be the boss?".)