This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Unless capitalists are forced to share their gains, they won't.
The real reason is that monopolies or other forms of market power prevent competitive pricing, wages and rents.
Short review directly from this source for those, who don't want to read the whole article:
The Core Problem, Simply Stated
Technology is making distribution dramatically more efficient.
But efficiency gains are being captured by whoever controls the bottleneck — the platform, the marketplace, the search engine — rather than distributed to the workers who enable production or the consumers who fund it.
Without wages, workers can’t consume. Without consumption, capital has nowhere productive to go. So it piles up in buybacks and data centers. GDP growth slows. And we wonder why a world of genuine technological marvels feels economically stagnant for most people.
That’s the paradox.
As AI accelerates the substitution of capital for labor, the dynamics described here are likely to intensify rather than resolve. The question isn’t whether the technology works — it clearly does. The question is whether the institutions and incentive structures around it will evolve fast enough to distribute what it creates.
That’s the harder problem. And it’s not a technology problem at all.
The reason is rich people.
It's not a paradox, just good old fashioned robbery.
This isn’t just a “technology redistributes value” story; it’s a market design and incentive problem. Platforms didn’t accidentally capture the gains; they were structurally positioned to own demand, data, and distribution.
Also, the “consumption ceiling” feels directionally right for physical goods, but less convincing for digital and AI-native categories, which can expand usage in ways that traditional economics underestimates.
It makes the class pyramid narrower and taller at the top.
That's a lot of words for "greed".
Different system, same problem.
Computers cost 92% less than they did in 2000.
Until the current RAM, storage and GPU crisis.
Yes, RAM crisis will make computers cost 12,5 times more.
This is not adjusted for computing power.
Most people ARE richer.
Median wage growth since 1990 is over 40% and the quality of products significantly increased.
That's definitely true, but the cost of some things have greatly out paced that like housing or travel.
Hours of work/sqf ratio is pretty much unchanged since 1990, BUT the quality of housing now is much better than it was 36 years ago.
Travel cost almost exactly followed inflation in the last 36 years, but again, travel now is significantly better than it was back then.
Most of the percieved price increase comes from the lifestyle inflation and just idolizing childhood.
stem/"skilled" labor isnt benefiting from improved tech, it all goes to ceos, and billionaire/millionaires. in order o prevent the works from uprising, they use various methods of propaganda to dissaude any confrontation.
Who owns the means of production that make industris more efficient? Bingo.
I swear it‘s like people don‘t even know who or what Karl Marx is.
They don’t. Schools teach that “Karl Marx didn’t want anyone to have any money, and to be owned by the state. They quickly ran out of food because no one was motivated to work.”
Why do you think guys who purchased “Truck Nuts” all screech on Twitter about “socialism is when you do all the work and they take all the profits” when that’s exactly what capitalism is and they are too dumb to notice? Why do you think the Tetris movie wasn’t really about Tetris but instead about “Soviets bad”?
Your comment only works for those who don't live in ex-Soviet countries. Because it's western rose-tinted glasses of how USSR just had problems, but was generally fine.
USSR wasn’t really communist though, was it? They tried and failed to make a communist state, no?
No country has managed a transition to communism, all of them got turned into various types of authroritarian dictatorships. There is no known method for transitioning to communism and maintaining it.
To be fair, when they tried outside influences actively sabotaged the attempt.
Communism in its true form is unsustainable economically and defies basic human sociology and psychology.
Humans lived for 10s of thousands of years under communism. Capitalism was invented and within a couple of centuries the human race is commiting collective suicide with falling birth rates.
Would you know whether or not democratic socialism is a good prospect in that regard? A flavor of which that remains capitalistic, but using worker coops instead of the top down monarchistic approach to institutional governance?
There were a few years of war communism during, well, the Civil War, but due to all the hunger deaths it might not be what your usual USSR fan wants to think about.
Let me guess:
It's because all the money goes to billionaires.
Edit: Pretty much what it says. It's more detailed than that but yeah. Labourers get less, more value is attributed to capital (buildings, land) and collected by the rich.
amazing good maths
next they'll be writing articles about "if i vote for jill stein becaue palestine. why do fascists stay in power" level maths
Yep without even reading the article I was going to guess wage theft and billionaires.
Wage theft is not merely being underpaid relative to the work you do. It's actually not paying someone who worked
It's both and more.
Wage theft as only "not paid what was owed according to current law" is already the biggest form of theft and the least prosecuted.
Please don't help perpetuate capitalist exploitation by blurring it with the "value theft" inherent to capitalism
All of this is fairly obvious to someone not wearing a MAGA hat.
Productivity per person has increased since the 80's, but wages have not followed - rather they have remained largely stagnant.
As such, the increased profits are instead going into an increasingly small amount of very rich people's pockets
This reads like a lazily written article to me. The em dashes don't increase my enthusiasm. Just in the opening I noticed:
Consumer spending as a share of US GDP moved from roughly 61% in 1980 to about 68% today. technology is not meaningfully expanding the total amount humans consume
Of course, real GDP per capita more than doubled in this time period which means consumer spending also doubled (more since it increased by 7pp). Is most of this billionaire yachts? I have no clue, but if you want to convince me you should try to not claim total amounts when you mean relative amounts.
A physical bookstore in 2000 took in $100 from a book sale and distributed it roughly like this: about 60% went to labor (store staff, publisher employees, authors), 30% went to capital (owner profit, rent), and 10% covered other costs. The money circulated locally through wages.
Amazon today takes in that same $100. The distribution looks fundamentally different: warehouse and tech labor receives roughly 25%, Amazon’s infrastructure and profit captures around 55%, and the remainder flows to publishers and authors. Labor’s share of that transaction dropped by more than half.
... unless you count the publisher and authors like you did for the 2000s data, in which case it decreased from 60% to 45%. And that's persumably not counting the manufacturing of server farms, refinement of minerals, purchase of the actual reading tablet. Amazon has high margins but not 55% margins.
The labor share of US GDP fell from approximately 64% in 1980 to around 58% today — a 6-percentage-point shift. Applied to a $28 trillion economy, that gap represents roughly $1.7 trillion per year that once flowed to workers but now flows to capital.
Once again, since the GDP per capita has doubled the labor dollars per person has actually increased. The label for the $1.7 trillion is similarly misleading, those dollars never "once flowed to workers", they just would have if the economy had grown without any changes to its composition.
If I were the author of the article, perhaps I would say that since 1980, real median wages have only grown by about 20% which seems very slight given the technological improvements made in that time. But how much of that 20% increase would have been possible without technological improvement, and how much has the quality of the things people spend their money on grown in that time? No clue, that's beyond the thinking budget I have for this article.
EDIT: I've decided I'm not going to be overly charitable towards the article since it got an overall positive response from here. I'm very certain the article was written partially or fully by an LLM, and that it was written to advertise the portfolio of whoever wrote it. The article doesn't make a good effort to make an argument capable of convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with the thesis. The counter arguments are bunched up at the end and barely countered at all:
Absolute living standards have genuinely improved. Longer lifespans, better medicines, access to information that would have cost thousands of dollars in library fees
Free services — Google Search, Wikipedia, WhatsApp — create enormous value that doesn’t show up in GDP at all. The consumption ceiling argument partially breaks down for digital goods with near-zero marginal cost.
So does the article's author actually think technological improvements have failed to benefit regular people? They don't seem interested in arguing these benefits are fake, or outweighed by negative aspects. If they want to argue that the 1% have captured most of the growth that technology has given, their article doesn't support that. It gives a lot of explanations why this might happen but the first part meant to cement that it does happen is based on unfounded conclusions which the "What This Isn’t Saying" part then lists reasons not to trust.
Productivity means doing more relative to input. It is only a paradox to the those who know what it exactly means.
A rigged system is not a paradox.
