How would you determine if increased productivity is due to "labour or capital"? Are people themselves more productive, or are the machines just better?
Everywhere I have seen, machines are doing almost all work.
Everywhere I have seen, machines are doing almost all work.
* produce a financial projection?
* run a PCR sequencing?
* weld a steel beam?
* determine if an electrical installation is up to code?
* teach ninth-graders about calculus?
If the answer is "no" to any of these, then machines clearly aren't doing "all the work".
The required skill level when using older tools and processes (welding and other building processes) is typically higher than with modern tools. This makes workers more replaceable today.
Modern tools make productivity less dependent on the skills of workers. It's not a moral argument, just a fact that explains the observed phenomenon.
All these complaints that productivity growth has been matched by salary growth always seems to ignore that most of the productivity gains have been the result of capital expenditure, not of workers being better at their jobs.
The execs of each company didn't personally invent every machine and write every piece of software their employees are now using to be productive. Hell, a lot of it they didn't even particularly choose—so much of the productivity gains comes from basic stuff like "personal computers" and "Microsoft Office".
They are benefiting from the labour and expertise of others, and saying that means they deserve to get more money. Why? Why should those gains not be shared equally with the people who are actually doing the work?
That is, the shareholders who own the business and paid for the machines, not the employees who merely operate them.