That’s a lot of words for “greed”.

It’s not a paradox, just good old fashioned robbery.

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.

It makes the class pyramid narrower and taller at the top.

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.

Computers cost 92% less than they did in 2000.

Until the current RAM, storage and GPU crisis.

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.

Productivity means doing more relative to input. It is only a paradox to the those who know what it exactly means.

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.

Didn’t read the article yet.

I have a good friend who is homeless and begs for money. He says his life is much better than the life of the richest people of just a few centuries ago.

deleted by creator

Inflation. You are putting your labor in and getting a money that your government can almost literally print for free in their basement. When you do it, it’s called counterfeit and you can be sent to jail for many years or killed. If they do it, it’s called inflation and is perfectly acceptable. STOP USING THEIR CURRENCY and your life WILL get better. Use Monero, Gold, or Silver. Since the government can’t print those things, they will retain their value.

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.