We are, according to the argument, not seeing a just portion of the gains technology brings.
but who paid for and took risk to create those gains? Why should the gains be "just" (aka, shared equally i presume), if the cost of said gains (such as the R&D cost, the risk, etc) wasn't also shared equally?
Even admitting that entrepreneurs and investors should get more of the gains[0], that's only gains on the particular thing a given enterprise brought. But even those people, at the same time, are short-charged by all the other tech being brought to market. There's a lot of ratcheting going on here, key aspect highlighted by GP:
> we're strongly pushed to the technological option because last-year's default is now significantly more expensive
This is the nature of markets and society as dynamic systems: they adjust to change, incorporate and fixate and eventually become dependent on any new capacity. And since we're not in Star Trek economy just yet[1], the cheapest things are the ones we're doing at scale. If a simple thing is displaced by complex one, over time that simple thing becomes more expensive and less available, until it's all but gone.
--
[0] - I have some issue with them getting it exponentially more, indefinitely, way after it paid back the risk - it doesn't seem fair. For extreme examples, see Disney, or various estates, (ab)using copyright to maintain passive income from works of art decades after their authors died.
[1] - With replicators and energy too cheap to meter, turning almost all physical problems into "print this document" problems, eliminating supply chains behind almost everything.