4 ms·

That "machinery and infrastructure" is on the assembly line, not in the C-suite. It is literally there to make the assembly line workers more productive, so it

That "machinery and infrastructure" is on the assembly line, not in the C-suite. It is literally there to make the assembly line workers more productive, so it takes fewer of them to do the same work. Now, you can say that the workers contributed nothing to the improvement, so why should they benefit? But the system is set up so they can't contribute improvement---they can't accumulate the capital it would take to upgrade the machinery and infrastructure because their wages are minimal, and there's no mechanism in place for them to capture the benefits if they could. Sure, there are token rewards for assembly line improvements, but those kinds of sporadic rewards are generally minuscule compared to the long-term benefit realized by the company.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's inevitable. The system is set up that way as an inevitable consequence of modern technology; automation and economies of scale are simply better at producing valuable things, so much better that an individual worker with no capital can't compete. We can change who has access to capital or reallocate the benefits of capital, but we can't change the fundamental problem that capital is required to get anything done under modern technological conditions. The most dedicated shopkeeper on the planet couldn't match Amazon's capital-intensive delivery network, nor could the best machinist on the planet make a better washing machine than Whirlpool's capital-intensive assembly line.
- vannevar 6y ago
  It's inevitable only if we decline to regulate capital. Just as it's also inevitable that a speeding truck will crash, unless the driver puts on the brakes at some point. There is nothing in the laws of physics that dictates that our financial system must be as it is. It is the result of our collective choices, and we can change it when it becomes in our best collective interest to do so.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The fundamental problem is, if you need a factory with 100 workers in order to effectively manufacture anything, then the ability to innovate in manufacturing is limited to groups who have sufficient capital to direct the efforts of 100 people. There are of course different ways to organize that capital. Capital can be owned by rich people, by corporate firms, by the government, by worker collectives. But it's still a finite resource. As a matter of mathematical inequality, there's no way to give everyone the power to direct a large factory.
    - vannevar 6y ago
      Sure. But there's a wide range between the concentration of capital we have now, and the notion of it all being somehow distributed equally. It's not so much about giving capital to workers, it's more about retarding the natural flow of capital to itself. If the economy were only made up of 100-person factories, then there might be enough competition and experimentation that more capital would find its way to innovation and labor, rather than being drawn to large concentrations of wealth. I'm not saying we need to go to that extreme, but there is much room for progress in that direction. Looking farther into the future, with AI and robotic labor, it's quite possible that everyone would have the capital to direct a large factory. As it stands now, it appears likely that any such robotic future would be owned almost exclusively by a tiny fraction of humanity.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I agree with what you're saying, but I think it's inevitable. The system is set up that way as an inevitable consequence of modern technology; automation and economies of scale are simply better at producing valuable things, so much better that an individual worker with no capital can't compete. We can change who has access to capital or reallocate the benefits of capital, but we can't change the fundamental problem that capital is required to get anything done under modern technological conditions. The most dedicated shopkeeper on the planet couldn't match Amazon's capital-intensive delivery network, nor could the best machinist on the planet make a better washing machine than Whirlpool's capital-intensive assembly line.

vannevar 6y ago
It's inevitable only if we decline to regulate capital. Just as it's also inevitable that a speeding truck will crash, unless the driver puts on the brakes at some point. There is nothing in the laws of physics that dictates that our financial system must be as it is. It is the result of our collective choices, and we can change it when it becomes in our best collective interest to do so.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The fundamental problem is, if you need a factory with 100 workers in order to effectively manufacture anything, then the ability to innovate in manufacturing is limited to groups who have sufficient capital to direct the efforts of 100 people. There are of course different ways to organize that capital. Capital can be owned by rich people, by corporate firms, by the government, by worker collectives. But it's still a finite resource. As a matter of mathematical inequality, there's no way to give everyone the power to direct a large factory.
  - vannevar 6y ago
    Sure. But there's a wide range between the concentration of capital we have now, and the notion of it all being somehow distributed equally. It's not so much about giving capital to workers, it's more about retarding the natural flow of capital to itself. If the economy were only made up of 100-person factories, then there might be enough competition and experimentation that more capital would find its way to innovation and labor, rather than being drawn to large concentrations of wealth. I'm not saying we need to go to that extreme, but there is much room for progress in that direction. Looking farther into the future, with AI and robotic labor, it's quite possible that everyone would have the capital to direct a large factory. As it stands now, it appears likely that any such robotic future would be owned almost exclusively by a tiny fraction of humanity.