&gt;can you explain how you see Moore&#x27;s Law as relevant?<p>The author explicitly asks: &quot;In what sense does technology grow “exponentially”?&quot;  If the author wants to claim that the results of Moore&#x27;s law hasn&#x27;t trickled down to the common man, then he should do that.  Pretending to not know about Moore&#x27;s law just fails for me as a rhetorical device.  The wheat example seems weak as well (not to say that there aren&#x27;t many other weak point in the article).  To make it stronger, he should create a plot of the number of human hours involved in harvesting a bushel of wheat vs. the calendar year, for say the last 2,000 years.<p>&gt;In fact, by the markets-are-generally-good-at-things hypothesis, and the generalization of Moore&#x27;s Law that computing power that can be obtained at equal price is growing exponentially, we have a good reason to believe that the exponential growth of technical performance is not contributing at all to productivity.<p>On a totally unrelated note, proponents of &quot;Basic Income&quot; seem to also be relying on ever increasing technology productivity to replace human jobs, paying their dividends to all.  I wonder how those ideas square with each other, and how many of basic income advocates hold a technology-doesn&#x27;t-produce-productivity (I&#x27;m not saying you or the original author are proponents of basic income guarantees).