It seems you're telling me that stagnating wages for increased productivity is fine, because the extra productivity is from better tools, not more work, which means the workers don't deserve the extra revenue from their increased output, is that right?

So if you're a farmer, and you're given a new kind of tractor that doubles the yield of your fields, you'd be totally fine if your landlord just took the extra crop for himself, leaving you with exactly the same amount as you would have had without the new machine?

The average worker today produces far more in an hour than the average worker from the '70s did in the same time. And while I get that the increase is not uniform across all workers I am sure it is an increase.

What is the reason for keeping wage tied to time rather than productivity or work, other than a quest for ever increasing profits? And if the wage can't be increased why not decrease the time? This way the worker gets a reduction in time for the same wage and the employer still gets a hefty productivity increase over a few decades ago for the same wage.

I see some countries have actually kept wage and productivity tied to each other and it doesn't look like it was detrimental to the economy.

I'd appreciate dissenting opinions in a more productive format like counterarguments rather than a wave of downvotes.