> he very consciously addressed the issue of providing jobs

how so?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

Ford declared: "My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business."

Now, how much of that was genuine belief and how much was him trying to win a lawsuit is anyone's guess. Nonetheless, he had a public message that offered people a path forward, a better path, even as his technology closed other paths.

See: https://newsroom.uber.com/2014/12/the-ride-ahead/.

Kalanick declared: "In 2015 alone, Uber will generate over 1mm jobs in cities around the world and with that millions of people may decide that they no longer need to own a car because using Uber will be cheaper than owning one. Parking could become less strained in our biggest cities, and city congestion may actually start to ease due to uberPOOL’s expansion and success."

Now, how much of that was genuine belief and how much was him trying to win public favor with regulators is anyone's guess. Nonetheless, he had a public message that offered people a path forward, a better path, even as his technology closed other paths.

;-)

Is the wink-emoticon because Uber deliberately and carefully generates the fewest jobs possible by structuring its workforce as 1099 contractors?

The wink-emoticon is due to the fact that I carefully mirrored the structure of rayiner's comment in my own.

I get your point though, and I don't think you're entirely wrong. I just don't think Ford was really any different from Kalanick. They're both capitalist looking to make themselves rich and powerful. They just lived in different times with different technological and social forces at work. Ford marshaled whatever rhetoric he could to combat those who were against him. Kalanick is doing the same.

Whatever problems with inequality the world faces aren't, in my opinion, due to a relatively small number of people in Silicon Valley but due to global forces trends that have been at work for decades.

The difference between Ford and Kalanick is that the technological and social forces at work in their time are driving the value of human labor in different directions. I don't think that folks in Silicon Valley can do anything about that. My point is just that people are understandably salty about Silicon Valley's enthusiastic embrace of a future that doesn't seem that great for many people.

> The difference between Ford and Kalanick is that the technological and social forces at work in their time are driving the value of human labor in different directions.

Ford's process allowed him to reduce the headcount, and gain competitive advantage even with the added expense of specialized training and higher wages to retain the specialized labor. Therefore the total value of human labor should include the workers who would've been previously hired but were no longer needed under new process.

Which is not that much different from Silicon Valley's "do more with less" mentality.