undefined | Better HN

0 pointschii3y ago0 comments

> value is disproportionately captured by the already wealthy

value is generated using both capital from the already rich, and labour from the poor.

Over time, labour isn't increasing in productivity. It's capital that's increasing productivity, such as by improving labour's efficiency.

With this in mind, why is it that the rich shouldnt be the ones to capture the new/increased productivity? After all, it is their investment that would make such productivity possible. If you had told the rich that their investments would not actually gain them profit (because labour captured the increases that produces the profit), they would not have invested in the first place.

One way to break out of this cycle is for labour to provide something more than unskilled labour and merely using capital to produce goods/services. For example, research and development, knowledge/skill from education, etc.

0 comments

berniedurfee3y ago

Labor, both unskilled and skilled, drives all economic growth. Ideas have no value until labor creates the tangible embodiments of those ideas.

That laborers, both skilled and unskilled, tend to be fungible, is the reason that they typically have no individual leverage to earn their fair share of the value created by their efforts.

Laborers end up having to unionize to gain the leverage to claw some additional fraction of the true value of their efforts.

The value distribution pyramid is upside down. Ideas have no value until laborers produce a sellable product.

Management ought to be far more grateful and gracious to those who labor day after day to produce the goods we want and need.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse