If you provide a unique service or talent to a corporation, it is incentivized to use technology to empower you. This lifts your worth, and your financial situation.
If you provide a replicable service or talent to a corporation, it is incentivized to use technology to make you generic. This makes you easily replaceable, lowers your economic value i.e. your wages, and reduces management complexity.
In both cases, the corporation is incentivized to use technology to reduce the number of people it needs.
It is like a vertically oriented barbell, but with the bar getting longer, the balls at the end getting smaller. The people at the top are fewer but wealthier. Those at the bottom are more in number, but also often getting fewer, and definitely getting poorer (relatively).
The bar is automation. The implicit goal is for the two balls to shrink to the point that there is only the bar, only automation.
--
This isn't due to politics, or morals, or even greed. It is just an extension of natural selection.
Social solutions need to take into account more than just capitalism - which after all, is only part of the ecosystem of life - while still keeping the benefits of capitalism.
--
For instance, if untapped natural resources were considered a joint inheritance of all humans, then everyone would inherit at least a minimal base level income, providing a base line level of financial security and leverage. Resource extractors would bid to use resources, with the result of their bidding shared by all.
Charity is an alternative, but it doesn't present a clear structure for operating, and is notoriously difficult to rationalize consistently with capitalism. Charity is hard to scale and maintain without conflict, corruption and gaps in coverage where it is needed.
Whereas, equal shares of the inheritance of the resources, that the universe bequeathed to all of us, is a stronger, more orderly, non-coercive, structure for sharing wealth.
--
Taxing real estate based on the land, not the structure, recognizes that land is a limited availability common resource and treats land ownership more like renting, with the proceeds shared by all.
Since structures are not taxed, development of land is not disincentived with greater taxes, making it cheaper to increase land's productivity (i.e. adding and improving structures for businesses, more homes, etc.). And since unused land is taxed as heavily as used land, it becomes unattractive as a financial hedge (no longer useful like gold, or perhaps bitcoin), lowering non-productive financial-instrument demand for land.
Thus making land both more productive AND affordable.
The road ahead is going to be rocky, but there are ways it can be made smoother.