> For efficiency improvements to create more leisure time or even more wealth (for the bottom 50%), society would need to be radically restructured so that its locus of control is not capital.

And even then, even a small percentage of bad actors who are selfish would likely restructure it back due to technology enabling them to do so! The fact is, the elite at the top is a steady state that is hard to leave if you worship efficiency. Only the Amish and some native tribes have realized that the only way out is not to play.

This seems circular… capital has become such an important gatekeeper in society in the first place because most people aren’t that trustworthy, and will likely betray any trust or faith placed in them if put under enough pressure.

So society has to depend on something fully independent of any specific person or group and that cannot be changed without leaving behind a long papertrail.

In other words nobody dreams of becoming a banker/accountant/auditor/etc. at 5 year old. Probably even double entry bookkeeping would be superfluous if everyone were virtuous paragons.

> This seems circular… capital has become such an important gatekeeper in society in the first place because most people aren’t that trustworthy, and will likely betray any trust or faith placed in them if put under enough pressure.

True, but it's also mainly because we have a society that is based on technological innovation with rapid transportation/communication. I was only responding to the other reply that seemed to imply that there was an alternative restructuring that puts less capital at the top.

>capital has become such an important gatekeeper in society in the first place because most people aren’t that trustworthy

Not really. It became that way because wealth begets power.

The narrative it tells us is that we should be terrified to change this because nobody else except the owners of capital can be trusted as stewards of our economy and political system (particularly not "government").

It certainly seems functional more than narrative… a long papertrail is physically costly to fake.

Try comparing Chinese and western industrial capacities.

Ours is a joke compared to theirs and we started off richer. The primary difference is that their government allocates capital.

Wasteful, indeed.

>This might happen one day, but for now, efficiency improvements get capitalized into the ponzi-esque stock market

That's a seductive narrative, but not backed up by data. The share of GDP that goes to labor is has held relatively stable in the past few decades. It has admittedly fallen, but it's on the order of a few percentage points, whereas the GDP per capita more than tripled.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPUSA156NRUG

>while the efficiency gains which could be realized at the bottom of the pyramid get "burned off" via inflation targeting of 2%.

But inflation-adjusted wages isn't negative or even flat, it has grown?

How do you square these “growing wages” against the zeitgeist which says more and more people are living hand-to-mouth? At what point do these statistics get tossed out because they have little to no bearing on the lived experience of the great mass of people? At what point does one acknowledge that these statistics seem like they’re compiled simply to muddy the waters to make reality seem different than it is?

Famously, one can spin statistics any way they wish. Prove to us this isn’t the case here.

> How do you square these “growing wages” against the zeitgeist which says more and more people are living hand-to-mouth?

Both can be true if the distribution has changed, which seems to be the case:

"Over the last four decades, the income gap between more- and less-educated workers has grown significantly; the study finds that automation accounts for more than half of that increase."

https://news.mit.edu/2022/automation-drives-income-inequalit...

Additionally, necessities like food and fuel seem to have jumped in price, outpacing wage growth over the past few years, while other important goods and services (housing, health care, higher education) have outpaced inflation for decades.

>That's a seductive narrative, but not backed up by data. The share of GDP that goes to labor is has held relatively stable in the past few decades

If you click that "max" button on your graph it does not show a stable share.

Appeal to status quo is seductive for those who are generally comfortable though, I get it.

>But inflation-adjusted wages isn't negative or even flat, it has grown?

Looks pretty flat to me:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/185369/median-hourly-ear...

If they weighted nondiscretionary housing, education and healthcare in the inflation basket properly and de-emphasized discretionary electronics and clothes I doubt it would even be flat.