> Automation, robots, software etc. they are all capital share.

I highly doubt automation and robots are a meaningful factor here, but IP and outsourcing have the exact same as automation.

Employee compensation comes from capital. And employees are working at companies that provide robots, etc.

There's a return on capital than is not spent on employees. That reflects how much capital is growing and how much can be spent on employees in the future.

The statistical evidence for your claim is not good. There is certainly a generational effect in that 5 year olds are typically not in the upper decile, simply because they generally have little to no individual wealth or income. But in the USA at least, most people die in the same decile they were born into.

This is bourgeois idealism. In reality, the people in the top 10% remain there and rarely fall

This is a good point I haven't considered in the past and worth to take into the overall discussion.

[dead]

Being a part of the "capital class" does not mean simply having passed a net worth threshold.

It means having sufficient liquid capital that you can invest it in uncertain outcomes, generally without fear of poverty or perhaps any real negative effects on one's life at all.

Owning a very expensive home in a very high cost-of-living place (or even in a not-so-high cost-of-living place) does not place a person in that position.

defining classes is complicated. if you do it based on income percentile it will always be arbitrary and never reflect actual economic relations.

the most accepted way to divide in socialist circles is based off where your income comes from, your relation to capital. if you have to work for someone else thats working class (proletariat), if you can be independent you are professional or middle class, if you own the means of production for others that makes you a capitalist. owning a house is only capital class if you rent it out.

from that pov almost all tech workers are professional or working class. with founder ceos its more complicated because they own capital but also work for themselves through their company so you can take them as either. i guess it depends on if you like that person.

Salaries aren't about what someone "deserves" or "should earn".

Those in control will try to capture as much of the return as possible. How much value the worker captures is based on their relative power (ability to move to a higher paying employer, scarcity of skillset, laws such as minimum wage, etc).

If using autocad does indeed make you more productive, then your 8 hours per day of labor generates more value for your employer.

Where the benefits of that end up is one of the most fundamental questions of politics. As you note, there are arguments for it to flow to any combination of several different groups. Deciding how much goes to each group is what politics is all about, in the end.

> Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?

In almost all of the cases the "innovators" are themselves workers whose share of the outcome has been dropping. And the "customers" have never gotten a piece of the profits; we are already past the point where reduced prices would have happened (competition) in this system.

And I think that by "firms" you really mean some combination of executives and investors/shareholders. That is where the gains have been centralized. Do you really want to argue that management and investors deserve to have more of the gains? What have they done that makes them so much more valuable than similar groups in bygone days?

Productivity is just aggregate output of the economy divided by the number of people-hours worked. You can argue about if that's a useful thing to measure or if the measurements themselves are accurate or if you should capture more of the output, but at root it's very simplistic. If you can use AutoCAD to generate more drawings than using paper which you (or your firm) sells for the same price per drawing, then your productivity did go up. Is that meaningful? Less certain.

> Should I capture the increased output

You do capture the increased output by benefiting from a society where the cost to build safe buildings has drastically reduced.

Just because you don't get an immediate financial benefit doesn't mean you haven't benefitted from the increased output.

In practice what happens is that on average the tool-user's wages go up slightly but most of the jobs in the field are eliminated, and the resulting large profit mostly goes to managers and financiers.

And many laborers have retirement accounts and pension funds that are also capital owners, so they benefit from increases in capital too.

r>0 is not the problem, r>g is the problem, and that one's a lot less morally ambiguous.

Thats a good list of questions here’s another good thought provoking line of thinking:

As someone trading labour for a wage should I adjust my productivity to match the tools I’m using? That is to say if I’m using CAD should I bother using the tool to raise my productivity? Or should I just match my old hand drafting productivity rates? Should I attempt to raise my productivity rates with these new tools to meet or exceed the best rates from my coworkers?

What can we do to align my interests with those of my employer?

yes, but wage growth has not tracked productivity: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1X020

household expenses have been increasing without commensurate wage growth, resulting in lower savings: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSAVERT

2% is average. 1-1.5% is considered a slump, while anything over 2.5% is considered a boom. for instance, the post-ww2 boom (1947-1972) averaged 2.9%. at that rate of growth, a country's total output per worker doubles in roughly ~25 years.

Is this inflation adjusted?

Construction notably has had productivity losses since the 80s afaik.

I own a Medicaid home care agency in 13 states. We serve low income families and our caregivers, who earn $12-18hr which is higher than minimum wage, absolutely struggle. We have created food banks and housing assistance because even working people are a few sick days or one car repair away from homelessness.

I would encourage you to go work with average Americans in average towns. The facts on the ground are stark and eroding.

I think “abject poverty” is probably overstating the case a bit. I do think quality of life is trending downward given the fact that housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse.

> Nor can I get behind the idea that quality of life for folks is on the down trend.

There is a pretty clear down-trend post-COVID here.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2025-economic-we...

If you have negative net worth and the bank's money, not yours, is buying your food and housing, you are in abject poverty, just that the system is propping up your survival for a while.

A lot of the US looks like they're doing great but fits into the category above.

Non-poverty would look like:

* You make enough money to pay for your own food, housing, and transportation in full, with enough buffer for emergencies, without needing to borrow a cent

* You make enough money to be on trajectory to save up to pay for your own food, housing, transportation, and medical expenses in retirement when you are physically unable to serve the workforce

Mississippi, the poorest state, has similar median income to Germany. I’m pretty sure 50% of the people there are not in abject poverty.

The homeless number under estimates people with unstable housing that aren’t on the streets.

I assure you that when your basic housing and nutrition are uncertain and missing even a few days of income will result in cascading effects of hunger and homelessness, the underlying stress is overwhelming.

It doesn’t have to be this way, we don’t let bullies steal all the toys on the playground and destroy the very ecosystem that they want to have fun in, why are we letting capital accumulate in the hands of the most effective capitalists at the risk of destroying the very markets that let them succeed.

I say that as a capitalist, if we lose the system because we allow unchecked Monopoly and wealth concentration, we won’t get it back.

Out of curiosity, what is your expected baseline of what the average person and family in the US should be able to afford?

> All the ones I know of use questionable methodology like: "being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage".

Well, that's (at minimum) what you need to raise a family and replace yourself in the labor pool.

It can be both. Look at the stress hormones people live with. Look at other stats like rising infant mortality, dropping IQ etc.

"Listen folks, it's no big deal if you can't afford rent or to purchase a house. Ignore my vacation homes in Aspen, Jackson Hole and Nantucket. Just think about how much better you have it than the people in Haiti and get back to work!"

This isn't relevant to this discussion. You're welcome to go complain on a message board in Mumbai about wages in the US.

If you’re only complaint is the word “abject”, I encourage you to try to live on anywhere from $7 to $15 an hour, in a part-time job that doesn’t guarantee week to week how many hours you’ll get.

That is a very common reality.

This is quickly going to devolve into 'nobody suffers unless their suffering as at least as bad as the worst suffering that exists', so let's just go ahead and get that out of the way and move on to something less pointless.

dozerly. "We have one of the worlds most prosperous economies, and half of the US is living in abject poverty while quality of life for everyone is decreasing." Hacker News, 30 Jun. 2026, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48734916

>the top 1% have nearly as much income as the bottom 80%

>link for "Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989"

income =/= wealth

no, he's almost certainly referring to labor productivity. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB

From outside it doesn't look like not being paid enough. It looks like affordability problem. Prices in general are too high.

Rents in general are part of this. Both for housing and commercial property. Somehow getting profit from both rent and appreciation is the goal of the system.

Well that is what population voted for and choose not to overthrow system for so maybe they deserve it.

Restaurant operations is one of the places where it's most clear the rent is the biggest problem.

You can say restaurant workers need to be paid more, and ok sure, but where is that money coming from? You pay labor, food suppliers, rent, utilities, taxes, and... where exactly is the money to pay workers more coming from?

With the number of empty storefronts in my city (not to mention restaurant closures) it's clear owners aren't making money hand over fist or there would be many more restaurants.

Restaurant workers in my experience are more likely to go to more restaurants and they can't because... their rent is too high and the price of food at restaurants is too high.

The common denominator with all of it is money being sucked away from people doing work and people hiring work by... rent seekers.

The "labor share of income" is exactly this. How much money is getting sucked out of the rest of the economy to prop up the do-nothing class. Retired people whose retirement investment was selling a house for much more labor than they bought it for and real estate owners doing as little as they can to maximize income they aren't earning.

If you build plenty of houses, they become affordable. The latest Affordable Housing is mostly gov-enabled scams, at least in San Diego. They are being made for greater costs than the luxury housing since the funding is guaranteed. Then the same developers are incentivized to keep all rates high by building less.

https://sdhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/107_Workshop_RAN...

Just tax corporate owned vacancy. In a slump there will be apartment buildings that are mostly empty because they refuse to lower the rent as lowering rent triggers property re-valuation.

Office buildings sit mostly empty for the same reason.

Tax the owners to punish the bad bets and eternal growth expectations of banks to force them to use the space to the benefit of the community or be forced to sell when they run out of money. Use zoning laws to prevent the destruction of units to avoid taxes.

repeated efforts to develop "dwelling units" on a large scale have collapsed in corruption. There are financial players who are very aware that there are vast amounts of monthly monies at play. This is not unique to the USA in fact it is a repeated theme in the capital economies.

The US Federal Housing and Urban Development Department was intimately involved in the Savings and Loan collapse of the late 1980s. It was punted around and repeated in the 1990s, but the stock market gains of the late 1990s diluted the news in public. That phase culminated with a dot-com bubble collapse and ultimately, the 2007 dollar credit crisis. Leveraged purchases of real estate were part of that financial soup. Many of the players from that time were "boomers" and their seniors, so living memory of those circumstances are now fading. There are many, many non-fiction books about these topics.