The correlation between software and large scale loss of jobs is far from proven. The US unemployment rate fluctuates wildly based on many factors [0], but ~30 years or so into the software revolution it isn't too much higher than it has been historically. Parkinson's Law may be the answer to the threat of large scale job loss. There's a long list of startups who have raised hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because "money is cheap right now" and proceeded to hire offices full of people with a wide variety of titles. If the leaders of the tech industry are willing to hire for the sake of hiring, the overall economy is probably safe for just a little while longer. The prevailing wisdom is that rational actors won't spend money to hire people that aren't essential to their business, and they'll opt to use software instead of people if the software is cheaper. In practice these so called rational actors often use any savings from software to hire more people, whether they are essential or not. Part of it is because there's always something that could be done, and another part is that having a lot of employees makes people feel good about themselves. Whatever the motivation, mass unemployment is most likely a problem that will take care of itself.
In the context of this essay the term "concentration of power" seems to mean the ability of a small group to have an outsized (and harmful) influence. This seems like a much larger problem than unemployment, but it isn't limited to technology. A network of a few hundred terrorists or just five guys in france can bring cities to a halt and affect the psyche of entire countries. It's just something that we're going through right now as a global culture, and I don't see any quick fixes. It is clear that the threat of malevolent AI is greatly overhyped, and I can't wait until the zeitgeist moves on to another flavor of the month criss du jour. There are very real threats facing the world right now and we shouldn't spend too much time worrying about something that might or might not happen, that we couldn't stop even if wanted to. Synthetic biology probably falls into the same category, though the ability to manufacture deadly viruses is based much more firmly in fact.
Guns, bombs, computers and the basic building blocks of life cannot be made illegal and confiscated en masse. One of the best ways to solve the threats posed by technology is to take the idea of income inequality, mentioned in this essay, very seriously. We've created a culture where people measure their self worth by the value of the companies they found. When I talk to people about technology, I don't hear about the large and small advances that make our lives a little bit better every day. I hear, "Isn't it crazy that Instagram was worth $XX billion dollars? I want to start a company and make that much too!". This is poison and it has to stop. If we place all the emphasis on who made what, we create a world where a lot of people get left out and forgotten. Then they spend their time in dark basements, watching extremist videos and working carelessly with dangerous tools. We need to turn technology into something that has benefits for everyone, in order to protect ourselves and our loved ones from some of its most dire consequences.
[0] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html