> 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 value is the infrastructure of that allowed for the force multiplier. The actual value of labour thus goes down because it can be consumed so efficiently.
Since it's the infrastructure that provides most of the heavy lifting, the owners of it get the benefit.
If you need another analogy it'd be like a sport where players win the games, but it's really about the excellent coach that calls the plays. The players have no leverage even if they win all the games.
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 value is the infrastructure of that allowed for the force multiplier. The actual value of labour thus goes down because it can be consumed so efficiently.
Since it's the infrastructure that provides most of the heavy lifting, the owners of it get the benefit.
If you need another analogy it'd be like a sport where players win the games, but it's really about the excellent coach that calls the plays. The players have no leverage even if they win all the games.