> 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