It's one thing to know that capital secretly delights over the commoditization of labor. It's quite another to watch a16z gush so openly about a future where we can be tossed aside.
Of course there's an underlying BS premise that "in that wonderful future humanity would be freed from the burden of non-essential programming work, and would move on to higher level problem solving" -- but in real life they could not care less if humanity actually moves forward or just rich companies have to pay less while millions suffer and fall from middle class.
What I don't understand is how someone who is so obviously wrong about the software craft and isn't even coherent within a short blog post can be a partner at one of the best VC firms. I sincerely hope he's there because of nepotism.
If you are a great engineer, then you are a walking capital by yourself.
If somebody with an idea, and no skills, hires you, then it probably needs at least 300-500k (even for a smallish prototype) to make it happen. If you are a full stack engineer, and pair up with a buddy, you can make it happen, with a lot less. If you are a great engineer, you are the capital!
It only seems that way because engineering is currently the most capital-heavy part of bringing a softwarebusiness to market. Once that ceases to be the case (which may take a while, but it's the future SG was gushing about) then as long as there is a single scarce or mutually-exclusive commodity necessary for success its price will ratchet upwards until it is out of reach for most engineers (after risk-adjustment).
Pertinent example: the implosion of the indie app dev market that's been all over HN this past week.
If the next most expensive thing is the marketing spend, so that the company gets the required exposure in overcrowded app stores (for example), then the VCs are painting themselves into a Hollywood hit role - at best.
It's great when both problem-solving and outstanding engineering exist within the same individual, in some positions even essential.
Realistically, problem-solving is the more uncommon natural ability of the two. If it were not, there would be a lot less problems with software by now.
Remember, capital has TWO strategies for earning money:
1. Investing in new ideas, hoping they yield a positive ROI
2. Collecting dividends on ideas that have already panned out
#1 might conceivably be replaced by algorithms, but I doubt it (has HFT eaten Wall St?). #2 is inherent in our economic system and will never become obsolete.
People talk as if everyone can become a creator, which it ain't so (partly because of the personal skills needed, partly because there's no economy where "everybody is a creator" -- for the same reason why not everybody can be a millionaire at the same time (money loses it's value then). Any large scale economy needs few sellers/creators and many buyers).
So what this trend does, it empower a few programmers/creators (ok, more than the past few large capital owners), and makes all the other programmers redundant or devalued.
Labor = show up, do your job, get paid. Capital = put money at risk without any guarantee of getting anything back, let alone earning a profit. Capital makes the rules because half of America is two paychecks away from bankruptcy (I read this somewhere credible) and can't/won't take any risk.