Make no mistake, whatever the goal is, the side-effects are unfortunate.
Last time I checked both of these still exist and wield massive power globally. Just because something is “illegal” doesn’t mean that it isn’t part of the system. The system was “designed”, it’s behavior is emergent. States institute laws which have side effects and those side effects are part of the system.
—-
[0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-the-foo...
There is actually fairly weak data to support the popular theory of a decreasing labor share of income (and thus an increasing capital share) causing more inequality and to the extent such an effect could exist its size is only a few percent of GDP over the past few decades.
As most people only offer labour and only a small group offer the more and more productivity gains of automation, it is true that the rewards end up being concentrated in that small group of productivity providing people. "The top" as you put it. That disparity is meant to incentivize you to develop your own technologies that increase productivity further instead of "wasting" your time selling productive-constrained labour, but in the real world it is unquestionably difficult to recognize where productivity can be gained.
The understanding of that was the basis for the idea behind pushing everyone into post-secondary schools, with a promise that higher learning would teach you how find solutions for increasing productivity, and thus increasing your reward for increasing overall productivity (a.k.a. providing you with a higher income). However, the real world is again messy and it hasn't really worked out. Despite a substantial increase in post-secondary attainment in recent times, the vast majority of graduates are making no more than they would have without having attended a post-secondary school (wages have been stagnant for decades upon decades) as they by and large end up only selling their productivity-limited labour.
Sure they can. Who is designing and building and installing all that automation?
I know that you recognize this since it's a key point of the rest of your post. But I don't think you've fully realized the implications. The problem is not just that post-secondary schools haven't lived up to their promise of teaching people how to increase overall productivity. The problem is that, fundamentally, increasing overall productivity is entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurship is not something that can be taught in schools. It's a fundamental change in viewpoint: you have to stop thinking of yourself as an employee, a wage earner, and start thinking of yourself as a business owner. But schools teach people to be wage earners, and as you quite correctly point out, there is no real growth to be had at this point in being a wage earner.
The work of designing, building, and installing remains constrained to the limits of human productivity. The only way to make those jobs more productive is to use tools, and, like always, those who control the tools are those who reap the additional spoils.
but that has been true since the first chimp figured out how to shove a stick into an anthill and get more tasty bugs than just picking off the ants on the surface. We use tools, better tools are how productivity advances.
Yes, yes, we have better tools than ever before, to the point where they don't look like tools. We can build a machine to do a thing and then leave, and only come back and tinker with it when it breaks.
Some time in the previous century basically everything switched over to assembly-line type production, where nobody built the whole widget themselves. the current switchover is to, uh, I guess you would call them robots. Tools that do the thing with one time input to guide them (and, of course, lots of ongoing maintenance)
But make no mistake, these "robots" we have are still just tools; tools that give massive leverage to the labor that programs those robots and that maintains those robots.
Even if a person can't provide productivity "on their own", productivity per person increases, and it's bad for that to be tied to an increase of wealth inequality.
And trying to have everyone invent solutions sounds like a weak justification for a broken system to me, along the lines of the temporarily embarrassed millionaire.
This idea that only management making the investment and shareholders benefit from productivity gains is wrong. People like myself and many others on HN that are engineers are major beneficiaries of the productivity gains because we’re the ones actually building the solutions responsible for those gains.
There is no issue with people using the tools. The issue is with workplaces where multiple people need to work together. People with jobs where they use the tools but don't need to be around others or very many others are generally still working.
Also, not all productivity improvements are from tools that still need to be used by workers. A lot is from automation.
Anyways, my point is that tons of people who are not at the top of the businesses experiencing increased productivity are reaping the rewards of productivity improvements. It's a falsehood to think that only those making the investments are reaping the benefits. It only looks that way if you myopically don't look beyond the firm whose productivity improved.
Your point literally misses the point. From the perspective of improving the lot of ordinary workers, "beyond the firm whose productivity improved" doesn't matter. What matters is peoples' paychecks.
Before the mid 70's, when overall productivity went up, wages went up. That is no longer the case. It wouldn't be a problem if things like housing (both home prices and rents), education, medical insurance, and healthcare services (which is still important even for those with health insurance due to out of pocket maximums and deductibles). Notice how all of these are basic essentials of life, some of which are essential enough to form the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? I also want to stress that people today have to fund their own retirement, because there are no more company pensions.
Things that have gone up at or below the rate of inflation since the mid 70s are, by and large, not essentials: cars, computers, airline tickets, phone service, TVs, and clothes. [0] Granted, clothes, and sometimes cars are essential, but the savings there don't come close to making up the shortfall in the other things.
> Also, not all productivity improvements are from tools that still need to be used by workers. A lot is from automation.
If anything, I would guess that automation has harmed workers by eliminating good jobs, rather than benefiting people overall. Yeah, we have free stock trades now, but who cares?
I'm open to being convinced otherwise on the automation point, but I have a hard time seeing how people like my mom and dad, neither of whom went to college, could make it into the middle class today if you waved a magic wand and made them 25 again.
---
[0]: https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strate...
As the tooling and automation got better, the skills contributed by the worker have been responsible for less and less of the productivity gains to the point where the worker is contributing almost none of the productivity gains.
From the perspective of improving the lot of ordinary workers, "beyond the firm whose productivity improved" does matter. You can still make it to the middle class life today, but you do so by taking those jobs that help improve productivity like being a software engineer. I'm middle class myself. I got there by contributing to productivity gains.
Make no mistake, even prior to the 1970s, there were plenty of jobs that would not have gotten someone into the middle class life. Those jobs that didn't get you a middle life back then have a lot in common with those that won't get you a middle class life today in terms of the amount of skills and effort required.
That's a transference of wealth from the wealthy to the wealthy -- possibly to themselves.
Low skill immigration. Without them McDonalds workers would earn $25 an hour in San Francisco like they do in Zurich since otherwise nobody would want to work there.