4 ms·
You haven't responded (clearly) here to anything I actually said. You just posted two short, dismissive comments consisting of glib non-specifics. If you want
by cxr 3y ago
You haven't responded (clearly) here to anything I actually said. You just posted two short, dismissive comments consisting of glib non-specifics.
If you want to dispute what I'm saying, how about starting with the example I gave (an employee figures out how to automate part of their job, enabling them to either 1. deliver the same amount of value to their employer at a fraction of the effort, or 2. deliver something like 2x–10x or more value, owing to the fact that they've been able to automate it)?
- WalterBright 3y agoIf you automate part of your job resulting in a 2x improvement of your productivity, you have demonstrated a skill that you can sell for more money. That's how you realize the value you created. The wealth didn't "flow" to you. You created it.
- cxr 3y ago> The wealth didn't "flow" to you. You created it. Er, right. The "flow" here refers to what happens to the wealth after creation. If after you create it you or your employer then undertake some change to the work arrangement (e.g. imposing a higher quota on productivity—thus allowing your employer to capture the additional value that you created while keeping your net wealth constant, along with the day-to-day toil you the worker are subjected to, probably—or maybe even increasing it), that would be an example of wealth flowing upward. You created outsized value relative to needs of the employer. Your (wealthier) employer captured it and enriched themselves. That's wealth concentration.