The fact that technology brings both bounty and spread, and brings more of both over time, leads to an important question: Since there’s so much bounty, should we be concerned about the spread? In other words, we might consider rising inequality less of a problem if people at the bottom are also seeing their lives improve thanks to technology.

Income inequality and other measures of spread are increasing, but not everyone is convinced this is a problem. Some observers advance what we will call the ‘strong bounty’ argument, which essentially says that a focus on spread is misleading and inappropriate, since bounty is the more important phenomenon and exists even at the bottom of the spread. This argument acknowledges that highly skilled workers are pulling away from the rest—and that superstars are pulling so far away as to be out of sight—but then essentially asks, “So what? As long as all people’s economic lives are getting better, why should we be concerned if some are getting a lot better?” As Harvard economist Greg Mankiw has argued, the enormous income earned by the “one percent” is not necessarily a problem if it reflects the just deserts of people who are creating value for everyone else.2

Capitalist economic systems work in part because they provide strong incentives to innovators: if your offering succeeds in the marketplace, you’ll reap at least some of the financial rewards. And if your offering succeeds like crazy, the rewards can be huge. When these incentives are working well (and not doing things like providing huge, risk-free rewards to people taking inappropriate risks within the financial system), the benefits can be both large and broad: innovators improve the lives of many people whose purchases, in aggregate, make the innovator rich. Everyone benefits, even though not all benefits are the same.

The high-tech industry offers many examples of this happy phenomenon in action. Entrepreneurs create devices, websites, apps, and other goods and services that we value. We buy and use them in large numbers, and the entrepreneurs enjoy great financial success. This is not a dysfunctional pattern; it’s a beneficial one. As economist Larry Summers put it, “suppose the United States had 30 more people like Steve Jobs—. . . . [W]e do need to recognize that a component of this inequality is the other side of successful entrepreneurship; that is surely something we want to encourage.”3

Caveats aside, we do have some ideas about how to proceed, and how not to. We do not think the right policy would be to try to halt the march of technology, or to somehow disable the mix of exponential, digital, combinatorial innovation taking place at present. Doing so would be about as bad an idea as locking all the schools and burning all the scientific journals. At best, such moves would ensure the status quo at the expense of betterment or progress. As the technologist Tim O’Reilly puts it, they’d be efforts to protect the past against the future.1 So would attempts to protect today’s jobs by short-circuiting tomorrow’s technologies. We need to let the technologies of the second machine age do their work and find ways to deal with the challenges they will bring with them.

We are also skeptical of efforts to come up with fundamental alternatives to capitalism. By ‘capitalism’ here, we mean a decentralized economic system of production and exchange in which most of the means of production are in private hands (as opposed to belonging to the government), where most exchange is voluntary (no one can force you to sign a contract against your will), and where most goods have prices that vary based on relative supply and demand instead of being fixed by a central authority. All of these features exist in most economies around the world today. Many are even in place in today’s China, which is still officially communist.

These features are so widespread because they work so well. Capitalism allocates resources, generates innovation, rewards effort, and builds affluence with high efficiency, and these are extraordinarily important things to do well in a society. As a system capitalism is not perfect, but it’s far better than the alternatives. Winston Churchill said that, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.”2 We believe the same about capitalism.

While income taxes are not meant to discourage work and employment, they can still have this effect. Payroll taxes can lead to similar shifts, and by design mainly affect people with low and middle incomes.20 They can cause organizations to move away from hiring additional domestic employees, and instead outsource work or make use of part-time contractors. As digital technologies keep acquiring new skills and capabilities, these same organizations will increasingly have another option: they’ll be able to make use of digital laborers rather than humans. The more expensive human labor is, the more readily employers will switch over to machines. And since payroll taxes make human labor more expensive, they’ll very likely have the effect of hastening this switch. Mandates like employer-provided health care coverage have the same effect; they too appear as a tax on human labor and so discourages it, all other things being equal.21

We bring up these points not because we dislike Social Security or health care coverage. We like both of them a great deal and want them to continue. We simply point out that these and other popular programs are financed, in whole or in part, by taxes on labor. This might have been an appropriate idea when there were no viable alternatives to humans for most jobs, but that is no longer the case. The better machines become at substituting for human labor, the bigger negative effect any tax or mandate will have on human employment.

So in addition to subsidizing work via a negative income tax, we also support not taxing work as much in the first place and reducing burdens and mandates on employers. Like so much else at the intersection of economics and policy, this is easy to say and extremely hard to enact. How else, if not by taxes on labor, are expensive, popular, and important programs like Social Security and Medicare to be funded? How is health care coverage to be provided if not by employers?