Tim O'Reilly writes about technology, the future of work, automation, inequality, and the economics of platform companies.
HN commenters link it in debates on automation, jobs, and inequality, including his response to Paul Graham's essay and his piece on machine money.
Options are your right to equity or ownership of the company. So you experience some of the upside as well as risk some of the downside.
The problem is equity is serving two purposes. On one hand, it represents ownership of the company, the ‘capital’. On the other hand, due to it’s favorable tax treatment, it has become a key component of compensation.[1] Marisa Meyer didn’t start or invest in Yahoo, but she is compensated almost $40m a year in equity, over 90% of her pay package.[2]
When you are evaluating an offer between a startup and a larger company, regarding compensation you need to evaluate the whole package: salary, equity, and bonuses. Startups want to compare only salary and over value their equity. “You’re taking a 50% pay cut from Google, but we are giving you XXX in equity at our last valuation.”
Look at the total pay packages with more realistic valuations such as a 409a for startups, and then examine the probability of different exits and how much you will make. There’s a reason people say employees are learning while founders are earning.[3] An honest assessment of the paydays doesn’t usually bode well for employees at startups. If founders can’t talk to you about this, you probably don’t want to follow them. Most hope you don’t ask the questions and then say things like “What, you don’t believe in the company!” They should be able to sell you on the probability of success, the learning, and everything that will make up for less comp. But…
I rate any risk of AGI as very low. Axiomatically, I don't believe in strong AI, so that's my bias.
The risks of increasing automation on the workforce and economy are real, but we also don't know where the new jobs will inevitably be needed. See O'reilley's essay here: https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/do-more-what-amazon-teaches-us-about-ai-and-the-jobless-future-8051b19a66af
To the extent that AI is the next incarnation of angst about what the eschaton will entail, I remain confident that our future perils and trials and travails will be both utterly familiar and totally unpredicted by pundits now, and that it will be neither a utopia nor a dystopia; always both together.
This is just the beginning - the problem we are facing are the digital personal assistants. They are like servants - but their loyalty is first to the corporation that runs the server not to the user. This is where the really rich data will come from. And the data will be useful in all kinds of criminal investigations - there will be more and more legitimate cases and there will be no will to limit it.
https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/we-ve-got-this-whole-unicorn-thing-all-wrong-3f3d108cc71d - see how useful the assistants can be - people will use them
Sharing: "use, occupy, or enjoy (something) jointly with another or others."
Economy: "offering value for money"
There are many very interesting discussions to be had about the Sharing Economy [1]. But the name isn't one of them.
[1] https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/networks-and-the-nature-of-the-firm-28790b6afdcc
And I'm disagreeing with you. Most of people's basic needs can be met with automation and clean energy, full stop.
https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/machine-money-and-people-money-29b497eeb9d0
Condensed version here: https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/in-his-essay-on-income-inequality-paul-graham-credited-me-for-pre-publication-feedback-ff8a0b295a1b#.8sjfw8397