[rand_r]

This is a great point. Life is tough because we are all competing in a game. Tweaking the rules of the game so that each basket is worth more points doesn’t make the game easier for any player.

From Henry George:

> Now, to produce wealth, two things are required: labor and land. Therefore, the effect of labor-saving improvements will be to extend the demand for land. So the primary effect of labor-saving improvements is to increase the power of labor. But the secondary effect is to extend the margin of production. And the end result is to increase rent.

> This shows that effects attributed to population are really due to technological progress. It also explains the otherwise perplexing fact that laborsaving machinery fails to benefit workers

[Isamu]

>explains the otherwise perplexing fact that laborsaving machinery fails to benefit workers

I disagree, the reason why workers don’t benefit is because they are mostly paid to put hours in. Owners claim the gains of better machinery because they reason it is a capital investment at the business level.

Really I don’t see why see why this is perplexing. What is really perplexing is that some economists thought that productivity gains would somehow accrue gains for workers.

[llamaimperative]

You say this isn't perplexing while commenting on an article by one of the most important people in industry repeating exactly this fallacy?

HN is full of people who happily and earnestly propagate this "obvious" falsehood.