Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At the level of automation we've reached, labor is worth, per hour, way more than 100 years ago. The problem is just that this value is siphoned off by shareholders who do not have to work to receive the monetary value that should go to the worker. You are wrong, but so very close that it's understandable. What can be done with an hour of labour has gone up so very high. That it is true. But what has increased in v…
You're both wrong -- if you need two different resources as inputs to make something, and either missing makes the process impossible, it doesn't matter what your subjective opinions are when deciding which is more valuable. They are equally necessary and that's all there is to it. So how come some input resources are priced a lot more highly than others? How come sometimes, say, labor gets a big cut and capital a sm…
Equally necessary doesn’t mean equally valuable. So there is that.
The more tasks that are automated, the more easily a low level worker is replaced. And the less they will get paid.
Think warehouses, checkout attendants, gig workers, …
The masses of jobs don’t require unique humans. And the more is automated, the less individual worker skills matter. For most jobs.
This gives businesses huge economic leverage over their workers. They will pay them the minimum it takes, and since this is an economy wide problem, every drop in wages somewhere makes it easier for wages to be dropped elsewhere while still retaining workers.
Finally, any area where many workers manage to hold onto higher wages will have a target painted on it as a prime place for new business value to be made finding a way to commoditize their work with automation.
Businesses are rapidly growing the capabilities of their physical and informational automation. Human workers are not getting stronger, faster, or smarter. So they are forced to compete for jobs by getting cheaper.