He uses, I kid you not, professional chess teachers to illustrate how technology will create all these wonderful new high-paying jobs for all of us.
For more, read the comments here on Economists View. It always strikes me reading articles like this that the commenters tend to “get it” in a way that the ivory-tower intellectuals don’t, probably because those of us in the real world actually have to navigate the economy and can’t just deal with abstractions. See for example this comment:
But we'll all get jobs teaching chess to all those families that can pay $100/hour to learn chess. That's, like, millions of families, right?And: Note to ivy league intellectuals, when you are using professional chess players as examples of functioning markets you are losing your argument.
Yet another hand-waiving disregard for the employment situation coupled with a solution so stupid only an economist could have come up with it.