It's not the worker's fault they can't learn the new tool (they absolutely can learn it). It's capitalism's fault for valuing workers only for the cost of their labor and nothing else.
Sigh. The value you're talking about here is the cost of their labour. This is like a business owner saying that employees should value their jobs differently to their salary.
You're right in the sense that capitalism is fundamentally "people make agreements and decisions within what's available to them" but what's the actual issue you want capitalism to solve, that doesn't create one of the massive downsides that any of capitalism's former rivals has?
E.g. monarchy can reward loyalty, but then so can capitalism. Monarchy can just also tell you to go die on a field if you don't kill the other king's people.
What makes you think that capitalism won't do the same to you? Capitalist[1] societies engage in pointless, bloody wars all the time.
[1] And communist, and other -ist.
Unlike monarchy/communism/fuedalism etc where power and organisation are by necessity mostly centralised, capitalism can (and wants to) be divorced from power. Constant realigning it with power (e.g. regulatory capture) is what corrupts it.
The sort of (limited) power capitalism creates is by creating value in some way: labour, capital, contacts, resources. It's not derived from strength, unlike the other methods.
Of course a government, that is fundamentally derived from strength, and must be, can still fight wars. It can do it much better in fact because its economy was organised by the most efficient manner anyone's ever discovered, and so there's a surplus to tax.
It has been shown time and time again that the majority of the powerful players in a Capitalist economy inherited their wealth or opportunities.
Capitalism can only function in an economy if a government allows it by setting up the necessary structures and allowing private property ownership.
Society can certainly be Capitalist by extension of the economy being Capitalist due to policies and strucutes set up by goverments.
Seeing as it's more or less the de facto world order it should ideally solve global alignment for the long term wellbeing of Earth-borne life
That doesn't align well with efficiency or top-down world political agreements. But it has lifted more people out of poverty faster than any other system in history.
The fact that this problem pops up all over the damn place should tell you something about our relationship to u**ons.
children used to work 10 hours a day and lose hands in machinery. hell, kids are dying in factories now, and the rules just keep getting rolled back further.
miners get black lung or asbestos exposure.
dudes boiled alive in machinery that didn't have fail safes.
company towns that only paid in scrip and then charged you 3x the price of regular goods.
people had to fight and die for an 8 hour workday.
the bourgeoisie programmer types who've never had to work actually dangerous jobs tend to forget just how incredibly brutal working conditions used to be.
Basically, a big, inflexible place is a good unionization candidate. A smaller, nimble org is a lousy place for a union.
"No, we'll hire them away from our competitors. Let one of them invest in training."
Of course this accelerates the business’s desire to adopt the new tool sooner, so they best hurry!
New tool makes a different wavelength of light by shooting high energy beams at molten tin and all your PhD research isn't relevant to that.
It's not like moving from Adobe to Figma, it's like moving from physics to chemistry.
Everyone in a tech field has to retain the ability to learn new things over time. AI might not take our jobs but it will likely change them. I guess it sucks if you have a fear of learning. Admittedly, at first learning a new thing can be kind of uncomfortable, like getting into a cold swimming pool. But once you get over the initial shock and start moving around, it's not so bad.