You’d simply give them the same pay and reduce their hours so they can live a better life while your margins still increase.

That’s what technology is supposed to do, make less labor for everyone not entrench power dynamics

So yeah I guess the answer is just so obviously singular that capital should be the primary beneficiary from technology

> give them the same pay and reduce their hours so they can live a better life while your margins still increase.

Not that I disagree that would be nice, but what's the incentive to the company owner to do that under capitalism? As a purely business decision, you'd fire the highly paid experts and replace them with lower-paid less-expert labor. Which is exactly what's been going on with layoffs in the tech sector, just without the magic productivity multiplying machine, so this is not theoretical.

Oh, well under capitalism (Blessings be to it) then you’re actually ethically required to do all those things on behalf of shareholders

So, carry on I guess?

Capitalism should incentivize efficient allocation of resources. If a job becomes easier or less in-demand, it should see a pay decrease. It's not the capitalist's job to pay above-market wages just because "they should". It's the government's job to redistribute wealth to compensate for unhealthy concentration.

> Capitalism should incentivize efficient allocation of resources.

Capitalism needs workers who can afford to buy the products, too.

Perhaps even using the word capitalism has become unhelpful since it's so charged. I think we're basically agreeing with each other. I just think this particular responsibility falls on the government rather than individual employers.

Why would an owner do that? The owners would be incentivized to increase production of widgets and try and find even more uses for their widgets, because the margins on them all just increased exponentially.

It's also not just capital that benefits. It's being able to direct capital that benefits. If it takes the same amount of skill and work to make a widget as it does to run a cashier, why should the widget-maker get a higher wage? The owners that direct capital towards widget making will benefit more than owners directing capital towards retail.

Because the system you describe structurally benefits one group exponentially more than the other group, exacerbating an already unequal society

That is bad for society in the long run

No, the structure of society matters little. Like I said, technology will benefit the people who are able to harness it.

The man who can make and use the spear and the atlatl will outpace the man still throwing rocks. It doesn't matter what the structure of society is.

“ No, the structure of society matters little. Like I said, technology will benefit the people who are able to harness it. The man who can make and use the spear and the atlatl will outpace the man still throwing rocks. It doesn't matter what the structure of society is.”

I upvoted you and I’m quoting here so that I can reference this later when somebody questions why we need things like unions to protect them from narcissistic psychopaths

That'd be great and all, but it's largely not the inventors making the money, either.

Did an early investor in Facebook do more work than an early investor in Pets.com?

The investor in Facebook, and the one in Pets.com could very well be the same person, making a very mediocre return. If, on the other hand, the investor manages to only invest in successful enterprises, thereby enabling a huge amount of consumer surplus, they should probably be rewarded (and permitted to enable even more consumer surplus in the future).

I agree with the point you're making but I think this is a less than ideal example:

>Did an early investor in Facebook do more work than an early investor in Pets.com?

It's quite possible that an investor who does more research, spends more time networking with smart young people, etc, would have to do more work in order to invest in better things.

And even if not, meritocracy means rewarding the quality of work, not just the quantity. Making smart investments should pay better than making dumb ones, even if it's not more work.

I own a machine shop in Houston. In 1980, our best machinists were making $20-$25 an hour using manual machines. In 2019 (pre-pandemic), they were still making $25 an hour while being much more productive on CNC machines. Forget real wages - they were making the same nominal wages after 40 years.

It's a hard truth that capital garners the majority of the additional profits from labor efficiency increases.

I struggle with this. Yes, it seems almost a law of nature that fitness begets more fitness. But surely we can structure society to be above mere nature?

So what's the mechanism to protect against it?

Market forces don't seem to work too well.

Corporate taxes would/should work, if our government weren't also co-opted by capital?

Unions?

UBI?

Any nation that doesn't lock the minimum wage to inflation doesn't care about its working class, IMHO.

Well-designed socialism, possibly including UBI, is the correct answer. Market forces are super useful and important, the government just needs to make sure competition is fair.

This is the "let them eat cake" of automation and if it becomes widespread it might end the same way.

By inventing such a machine you have created a bunch of new high-value jobs.

Why isn’t the craftsman a good candidate for overseeing/maintaining the machine and/or overseeing unskilled labor? If he becomes skilled in that regard, you will have to pay well enough to retain his services.

It is stupid too throw good, reliable people away especially in manufacturing.