It's shocking that only a minority of people in technology know about post-scarcity concepts. Un-employing others is our main goal and when we cannot sustain an income from supporting an application, technology has done exactly that to us. Support has either been crowd-sourced or enough able people are able to add enhancements themselves. We should be the ones that are most aware of these consequences and simply move on to new technologies and projects instead of artificially limiting our products.
It's not the technology workers that are getting hurt the worst by this change, though. It's all the other people in businesses affected by and attached to the tech industry, who don't have the flexibility to pivot quickly or at all.
Moving on to new technologies just puts more people out of work with nothing to replace their old jobs.
Additionally, technology is neutral regarding human nature. As we grow older, we are less comfortable with shifting around and there are attachments that make it more difficult.
Sure, it's great to be rootless and fancy-free when you're in your 20s, but when you hit 40 or 50, you have to start thinking about how it's all going to end.
So should we just stop developing technology because all those jobs have to be preserved?
You seem to take jobs as something that is inherent to the existence of the individual. The book recommended by the parent (and some others) question that position and explore alternatives and the transition from a society rooted in that belief and one that doesn't require the existence of jobs.
Technology is not about putting a few people out of "work", but about freeing people from it altogether.
Jobs are something inherent to the existence of individuals until we somehow trick the political class in to implementing basic income, which is absolutely not happening any time soon. All this talk of "post-scarcity" tomorrow ignores the fact that no jobs causes a lot problems for people today.
