Which is basically that everyone bought into the myth that the only person who matters is the person at the top.
Trickle-down, baby. Trickle-down.
Work smarter, not harder. That's the way it has been going for thousands of years of civilization and social advancement. We still need low-skilled work, but those will be fewer and lower paying the more people compete for those jobs. And skilled jobs will grow and wages will increase as employers compete for those skills. The intelligence and education required to stay in the middle class will continue to increase.
There will be incentive to create tools and technology to use those lower-skilled, less expensive workers just as there are today. You don't need a comp sci degree to work on an automotive computer system to repair cars. The same gear-heads (I use that term affectionately) that worked on cars in the '70s do so today. Tools will make today's high-tech jobs require less skill to do more advanced work.
Who would have thought in 1970 that, 40 years later, functional literacy would require understanding of how to use computers? Or that we would all carry those computers in our pockets. In 40 years, who knows what "functional literacy" will look like? Everyone able to program a computer? Probably, but "programming" won't look much like it does today. The only thing that matters in the end is how fast an individual can learn and adapt to a changing world.
I find it rather abhorrent that the "Web Development" has become a mish-mash of technologies: HTTP, HTML, JS, CSS and extensions: DOM, AJAX.
Has become? Back in the day HTML was a mish-mash of tags and (eventually) DOM models that were abhorrent and incompatible across browsers.
As soon as you standardize one thing, then the big boys are on to the next big thing. You still have a myriad ways to generate web content, all of which should shield the developer from most of the madness. Standards are good for taking a snapshot of the state of the art at a point in time, allowing developers to say "I support this version" and browsers to guarantee they will render standardized versions correctly. I expect every browser on the market today to correctly render all standardized versions of HTML.
Even worse, there are jurisdictions where it effectively means "property of the state".
Do I want to go back to those days? Absolutely. Having that music in the public domain is part of cultural wealth of the United States. The copyright of performances of white artists playing music put in the public domain by black musicians and songwriters did not remove that music from the public domain. We are all wealthier together for the gift those artists gave us. Disney does the same thing with Mother Goose, Bros Grimm, HCA, etc. Those works are all still in the public domain. You are free to copy them and adapt the original stories.
Were there inequities? Sure. But I would argue that the we are paying a much heavier cost today. Besides, the music industry has found new and improved ways to rape and pillage the artists they purport to represent. The poor and uneducated will always be at a disadvantage. No one can argue that the IP regime we have today is a just system. Might still makes right. Whoever can afford the most lawyers wins.
We now have a place to easily and instantly publish ideas which provides permanent proof of what is in the public domain. Let's use it.
Because if the code is public domain, then you can modify it in any conceivable way and the original author(s) lose all ability to control not only use (which is the point of selecting the BSD license) but content, such as statements that "this code is public domain."
Who cares?!? Copying the code and removing the statement "this code is in the public domain" does not remove the code from the public domain.
How often I found where I should be going only by setting out for somewhere else. -- R. Buckminster Fuller