I think the percentage of the cost of the final product sunk into labor acts more like a VAT. Sure, the manufacturer making carbon fiber canoes may spend more o

I think the percentage of the cost of the final product sunk into labor acts more like a VAT. Sure, the manufacturer making carbon fiber canoes may spend more on carbon fiber than the operator. But what percentage of the carbon fiber supplier's cost to manufacture is labor? And what about the the labor costs in the tools the supplier uses? Etc. It's a cumulative percentage, not just at the last mile. Similar to how VAT is calculated (at least in my admittedly limited understanding of VAT). I think this is in contrast to highly automated industries (tentatively). I think the train of thought is that lower labor costs results in a higher concentration of wealth as less wealth is distributed since there are lower labor costs. However, I would posit that the more direct measure is profit percentages. Hypothetically, if labor costs go down, and profit margins stay the same (ie if the savings are passed on to consumers), then I would imagine there would be an increase in consumption. Where the money gets back to workers may change (as increased consumption would mean increased demand for the materials McDonalds uses, which likely have higher labor costs). High profit percentages, however, typically benefit those that own some of the company. This is entirely conjecture, I am not well versed in economics. If there is some flaw in this (and I'm sure there are several), I would love to be corrected for my own education!