Hacker News Reader

Comment by skew-aberration | Hacker News Reader

Capital != money. Confirmed that author does not have finance, economics or business background.

Yeah, my thought exactly. Capital is the firm. Labor is the workforce. Wages are the return to labor and profit is the return to capital. Labor and capital are in eternal struggle for their piece of the pie.

Capital historically meant 'that part of production set aside for future production'. Machines, land improvements, infrastructure, intellectual property. Now it tends to include all assets used to generate wealth - including things like land which were once in their own category.

Wages are just money and may or may not become capital according to the discretion and opportunities of the employee.

The balance is clearly out of whack in favor of capital.

It's not really out of whack, it's the normal trend, Karl Marx wrote it out in his labor theory of value over a century ago. The reason nobody learns that in school is because it's very convenient to the minority who accumulate money and power on the opposite end of the equation.

Anyone care to explain the downvotes? I am simply pointing out a glaring misuse of a word in the title, which made me curious about the author's background.

Although I'm non-downvoter, I doubt anyone thinks you're wrong. It's probably just that they feel that the comment is distracting or of uncertain relevance or something like that.

Your comment is too ambiguous. To you it might have a passive origin / intent, but readers assume you think the entire article is poorly written which in turn means your comment is just noise.

If you wanted to use this as an educational opportunity to say "income share of labor" and "income share of capital" you might have had a point, but I'm the one who has to tell you that.

It's ambiguous, because it lets the reader think for themselves about the implications of a straightforward fact?

If you do insist on being spoon fed - getting information about labor relations from Fortune magazine is like taking heath advice from a Luck Strike promotion. The article's cheery conclusion is: Yes, AI productivity is driving wages down - but we only need to be patient and wait for more jobs to replace them, not tax or regulate AI. Yes, unemployment is driving wages down - but more immigration will fix this, not make it worse. Yes, the deficit is high while corporate profits are up - but the solution is more jobs (how?) rather than more tax. Yes, smoking causes 'throat irritation' - but Lucky Strike is toasted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com