Jon Gosier: The problem with "trickle-down techonomics" 

Oy. What does he propose- halting the advancement of all technology? Should we be able to predict the future? I think we can all agree that the Industrial Age has drastically raised the standard of living, not for every last individual, but as a whole. I'm so tired of these contrarian arguments, disguised as being in the interest of the poor and downtrodden, being thrust into the spotlight, only serving to make weak-minded people feel guilty for doing nothing wrong. It's easy to find a big topic and point out the smaller downsides if it. This mindset has become a cancer on the American mind and I would argue that it is a direct cause of our academic, technological, and industrial downfalls of the very late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Sure, there have always been examples of how some people or the last people to adopt new technology are affected negatively, but that is the price of progress. Consider how many small business owners have been bankrupted or how many people have lost their jobs because of new tech. I think what is of more importance is not new technology itself, but the rate of change. As long as there is sufficient overlap between old and new, and i think there is, the benefits so far out way the costs it hardly warrants discussion. I grew up to see fax machines, inkjet printers, PC's, cell phones, air bags, anti lock brakes, stability control etc. all hit the market and were all to the benefit of only the wealthy who could afford them - at first. Now people who don't even have jobs have cell phones and people are always trying to find someone who wants their old computers and printers so they can give them away. Many places have free wifi now too so people can access more information than there ever was in a library and in time, the entire world will have internet access. Even rural Africa has cell networks now and has seen triple the growth of global average in recent years. Are the countless lives saved by cell phones worth trading for the few who can't or won't adapt to their use so we can be "technologically moral" ? Trickle down tech has worked very well raising living standards overall for both rich and poor and will continue to do so. Without the wealthy funding new tech, the poor will never see it.

"There is an approximately 50% deflation rate for all information technology. That is why mobile phones were only affordable by the wealthy 15 years ago and now are dramatically better yet very inexpensive, so much so that there are approximately six billion cell phones in the world and about a billion smart phones. Technology starts out affordable only by the rich at a point where it does not work very well. By the time a technology is perfected it is almost free. Even physical devices will become almost free with the advent of 3D printing." - Ray Kurzweil

I dont really agree with his premise. He argues that the expectation is that all technology will flow downwards, but technology isn't an economic model, its a product or a service. The whole idea of the 'trickle-down' is a by-product and it isn't something thats built into a business plan. Sometimes a product becomes mass produced and cheaper that eventually most people gets access to, but sometimes not.. Hows that the consumers problem (or anyones problem, for that matter)? If you want to fix the problem then make more low cost items and coax companies into selling them to the 3rd world for little/no profit, don't come and bug consumers for buying technology..

My mind was hurting from so much economic illiteracy

I didn't like this talk at all. The library example is especially bad. When I went to a library as a kid, I could search on a computer to see what books were in my library, and if they weren't available at my library, I could see what other libraries around me had the book, and then either drive to that library (which required a car, public transit probably wouldn't get you there) or I could order the book and wait a week for it to get to my library. If that book were digitized, I could access it from the computers already at the library, no matter which library I went to, and even if someone else was already looking at it. Then being able to access the material from home or on a mobile device would become a perk for those who have that technology, but the base functionality is still there at the library itself, just in a different form. He's right in that we need to think about the impact of the things we design, but I think he's also being a little irrational. (Or maybe I'm just nitpicking one bad example, either way.)

Everything he discussed wasn't a problem with technology itself but rather a problem with how people utilize it and how laws protect people from those who can exploit it.

How many programming languages are inaccessable to the public and only in the hands of the few? It seems absurd, to argue that the field of technology does not trickle down. It seems like the LEAST tenible field to make this argument. We don't just recieve a trickle, if you havn't noticed, It's a flood.

I think this is only a temporary problem. We see older technology becoming more affordable and working its way down. Still, this is a good point to make to the technology innovators to take the distribution into consideration. By the way, does anyone remember back in the 90s, when Newt Gingrich suggesting giving computers to homeless people, and everyone just made fun of him, because what would a poor person need a computer for? Now it seems like he was just ahead of his time.

This is a really nice counterpoint to Silicon Valley's drive for innovation and profit. I hope we can still turn that trend around and shift our focus from the top end of the opportunity spectrum to the entire range of accessibilities...

This problem has existed since the beginning of recorded history hasn't it? The rich prosper while the poor do not? I completely understand how frustrating it is to see suffering, however I honestly don't believe in slowing our role in advancing as a society to compensate for all of those who may get left behind? That kind of thinking is pretty backwards in my opinion.

No, sorry, it's definitely NOT the job of engineers to consider these things, these are social issues. If someone doesn't have access to some important technology, that's not an issue inherent to the technology itself, it's just a side effect of some social problem, like the wage gap, or education gap, or take your pick! This guy is just conflating things together.

I disagree with his base idea. We should not worry about the ways of life that will be left behind while we try to make progress. I am in no way a Christian, but I learned in University that it was the true meaning behind the Kain and Abel story was not about murder, but the changing of a way of live. It was the settler killing off the nomadic life style. "Am I my brothers keeper?" was asking if the new way of life have to help the old way and hinder its own growth? I can't help but think it is rather Darwinian to just allow new ways to appear and for natural selection to take its course.

Awesome and succinct talk

This reminds me of that interview with Michael Lewis about high-frequency trading and jacking up prices milliseconds before stocks are bought using high powered computers. Tech can be exploited in many ways.

“We shape our tools and, thereafter, our tools shape us.” - John Culkin (1967)

Technology is a two edge sword. In one hand it giveth and in the other it can taketh away. And like every other material good, there will be "haves" and the "have nots."

Tech is already restricting employment opportunities in some ways, or at least changing the dynamics of the process

Aside from my severe disappointment that no one on TED was actually about to tackle the horrible idea of trickle down economics, I was surprised to find that this guy made some good points. Uncomfortable points, but points nonetheless.

Efficiency can be good, but it can also be incredibly bad when used as a tool for control. Efficient control over people will be the pursuit of those with power, this is human nature. Tracking what you eat, how active you are, what you read, what your politics are, what speech is politically correct, what websites are more trustworthy than others is a slippery slope for the rights of the individual, especially when that power is in the hands of a few. An individual tracking that information for themselves, is knowledge and it is personally rewarding, but an individual tracking other peoples behaviors for their own personal gain and power is wrong and its none of their damn business. That being said it won't stop the powerful from trying. I think technology is great, but while we go through technological changes ever more rapidly, we must ensure that our freedom is protected and without apology.

He went from how technology can affect people negatively at the beginning, and suddenly to how only privileged people get technology... He seemed to be all over the place. Giving laptops to poor communities in Third World Countries isn't bad, the key is education. The key to everything is education.

Inventing technology to 'include everyone' will do nothing to help those who refuse to help themselves.

If you cant afford a phone, you damn sure cant afford to go to the doctor...

I think the downsides of new technology he describes dont outweigh the benefits they offer

Why is there so many dislike?

Interesting talk, but technology does not become the problem simply because it doesn't happen to always be 'the' solution. Gosier's last example goes right to the heart of the true problem we face. Here land is being bought up in Africa by canny 'investors', emboldened and enabled somewhat by technology yes, but land grabs have occurred throughout history so clearly fundamental problem is our relationship to the land itself.. No one should own nor invest in land, which was made by no human endeavor, only investments in capital production can truly benefit society. Were the economic rents of this land collected and redistributed to the community via a citizens dividend (as happens with Alaskan oil revenues) then full private ownership right could be established without the damaging threat of land speculators. As technology reduces the need for 'jobs' we will need to further collect and redistribute this and other Ricardian 'economic rents' to guard against capitalism's Achilles heel of monopoly, or wealth will only accrue to an ever diminishing subset of passive owners.

I'm sorry but this talk is filled with poorly drawn conclusions.The worst part is that the examples he gave (bitcoin, cellphones ect.) are some of the best examples of things that were once only available to the upper classes and now are becoming available to nearly everyone. The natural lifecycle of tech is to scale and become cheaper and more accessible as time goes on. P.S. He can't even give any concrete solutions to this "Problem", and spoiler alert - it's because there are none. "trickle-down techonomics" is something we see everyday and we should all be optimistic about.

Gee. I have lack of access to a multi-million dollar mansion, a Maserati, vacations on the Riviera.... I Want My Maserati! Give me an Obama Maserati!

On topic though, I have just the right slogan which will save us all: "do no evil". Oh wait =P (good talk btw)

The problem with Trickle Down is that there is no such theory.

I don't understand how "trickle" has been made out as something good when the money is flooding up. Should it not be a fucking stream? I mean, really, a trickle is not enough...

Humans, you just can`t imagine and comprehend how little use and value you will have in the future, if current state of affairs will go on ...

He sums up at the end: "Real innovation is in finding ways to include everyone" This seems like a pointless and unfounded statement. He hasn't through what he is talking about and has no real conclusion. I don't see any value in this.

Gosier didn't even mention job loss because of "trickle-down techonomics". I suppose since he's a "tech investor", he doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him.

Pissing on the lower class isnt a great way to keep your head on your shoulders

The value of technology and of capitalism which allows technology to blossom is so pervasive it is invisible; like the value of water to a fish. (Fish can't appreciate water if it knows not of air). But a glimpse of the value of free markets and its use of technology can be seen by merely comparing the life of a person today at the threshold of what is considered "poor" a level which includes air conditioning, color TV and smart phones, with the life style of the kings of old. Heck of someone in the middle class even just 50 years ago.

I understand his point, but he makes it sound way too close to an excuse not to move forward. It scares me that he thinks we need to establish a legal code of ethics in the development of tech like we did for banking and business. Look how well that worked out.

"They" aren't making his life as easy as he thinks it should be.

Ethics vs efficiency/tech.

How many jobs have "HELPING TECHNOLOGIES " taken from American people and around the world? Grocery stores, offices, factories trading floors and on and on..... remember people ....Actions = Consequences.

We need to move away from out "earning"/resourcing each other to learning to live sustainably as a collective and have basic human rights be food shelter and internet access then we can focus all our effort to improving living conditions off all people in health and comfortability and expansion beyond earth. Basically a change from work to live / survive to work to thrive / explore.

This seems really dumb to me. Don't public libraries have computers with internet access? Aren't there devices capable of reading e-books that are dirt cheap? You don't need the latest overpriced Apple or Samsung product to benefit from technological advances.

HUGE assumption: tech improvements primary intention is to benefit everyone. Cars, televisions and lawnmowers are wonderful inventions but none of them benefit everyone. Does Jon Gosier say "something went wrong. not everyone has a lawnmower!" No. It does not mean anything failed or has a problem, any more than that when you eat everyone does not become full.

You have no idea what trickle down economics is. It is another phrase for how a free economy works without the government taking from the rich to give to the poor, to themselves or their corporate pet projects. If you have 12 minutes to spare, go to my channel where I have created a video explaining trickle-down economics in a simple way where it's hard to argue it's a bad thing.

I believe, he has few good thoughts. Piece of I. n

He really had to stretch to find his examples. I would have a much easier time arguing that technology has an overwhelmingly positive effect on the poor in terms of raising quality of life and providing avenues out of poverty, and that technology 'trickles' to the poor extremely rapidly in today's economy. For example, the original smartphone came out in 2007 and today you can get an equivalent phone for less than $50 without a plan. For proof that smart phones have a positive effect on society and the poor please watch any one of roughly half of all TED talks... :)

Survival of the fittest.

most techs are designed for profit.

what if in a few decades there is a worldwide collapse of the internet :( got to learn not to rely on the web(imo) 🙍

This talk seems ill-informed, pretty disaspointing for a TED talk. All of his examples assume that the price of tecnologies will be the same in the future when they are more expected to be used. This is obviously historicaly innacurate.

First comment

We need true trickle-down tehconomics; as-well as true trickle-down economics. Truly, we are at the brink of collapse.