If computers increased worker productivity why are workers now less able to buy a house?

>>508727271 (OP)
Because with increased productivity you no longer need as many workers to produce the same amount of product.
If you no longer need as many workers, then more people are competing for less jobs.
The people who need jobs have less bargaining power when it comes to benefits like wages.

>>508727271 (OP)
Because all of the profit from those productivity gains was funneled upwards.

>>508727271 (OP)
Because wealth distribution productivity fell with computers

because your parents and grandparents were fucking losers

Denmark is one of the richest countries on Earth.
If you didnt inhert at least 5 houses and 15 summer houses from your parents and your grandpartents than they were simply evil. Evil people that hate you.

>>508727271 (OP)
more productivity less profit?

profit is fake and gay but, let's say you were the resources all along, by making more of you available you worth less.

>>508727271 (OP)

Capitalism is fundamentally a system based upon taking wealth away from workers, and giving it to capitalists. The people who produce wealth do not get to keep it, that belongs to the "owners" of capital property, who then give the workers back only as much as they need to survive.

All that extra productivity just gets priced in as the new minimum amount of work needed to stay competitive. Human labor is the only infinitely exploitable resource

>>508728078
>Evil people that hate you.
More like fucking morons, not really their fault.

>>508728412
The fiction of "capital property" is the basic structure of capitalism: you can work as much as you want, and you will still end up with nothing, because whoever "owns" the business takes all that you produce.

>>508727271 (OP)
because triple-nested-parenthesis

>>508728670
it's a structural thing: capitalism plays out the same way, regardless of race. the "owners" wind up with everything, and the workers get nothing.

wage-slavery is slavery: you are a slave, the capitalists are the slave-masters. you work, they do not.

>>508728078
>>508728628
It's becoming increasingly obvious that our inheritance was stolen from us. Whether our parents were tricked or traitorous is beyond the point. That's blame game and they want that instead of solutions.

The solutions is how we take back what is rightfully ours.

>>508727271 (OP)
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

>>508728997
the slave-masters fear rebellion: if a slave strikes his master, he has done nothing wrong.

they do not want you to know that simple truth.

the world's wealth belongs to all its people, but it has been stolen from them. the rich are all guilty.

>>508727271 (OP)
The housing crisis affecting basically every western nation should tell you it's not an issue isolated to any country's particular policies or economic situation.

is it wrong to shoot bankers, financiers, and landlords and other capitalist parasites? ... no, not really. anyone who does so would be entirely justified, as the history of modern China has proven.

>>508728634

>>508727271 (OP)
Greater productivity means you need to spend less money on your payroll and can maximize profits by kicking workers to the wayside.
The employer class then benefits because that increased labor pool has greater competition among one another for wages, allowing employers to drive down the compensation they're willing to offer in exchange for that labor, meaning lower wages/salaries and benefits.
Economically speaking, craftsmen were much better off than the factory workers that came after them, at least until factory workers organized to collectively bargain for better conditions.

>>508727271 (OP)

>>508727271 (OP)
Because they created us, we even work more now than in the past but earn the same. But schlomo got richer

>>508729575
being a rural peasant during the renaissance is utopian in comparison to what we're all living through

the sooner this society collapses, the better

>>508727271 (OP)

computers did not necessarily increase the production of houses

>>508727887
So its treason then

>>508727271 (OP)
guess who

>>508730097
We just need rollback. When our head is hurting we don’t cut it. Just give back unions, work stability and a living wage

>>508727271 (OP)
Because construction is still purely limited by man power. It's why everyone was so obsessed with 3d printed houses 10 years ago, and that went nowhere.

>>508727271 (OP)
Read marx or listen to marxist academics if you're actually confused about this.

>>508727271 (OP)

Jews

>>508727271 (OP)
Because increased productivity increases profits, and lowers labour cost. It's called industrialization. Fight it.

>>508730023
The shame is that we're brainwashed from birth to accept it.
I mean, yes, we have technology and advancements they didn't have. But even kings and lords didn't wield the powers accumulated by the capitalist class, who literally shape the way the masses see reality.

>>508727271 (OP)
>If computers increased worker productivity why are workers now less able to buy a house?
Bunch of reasons.

1. Land is fixed supply, so investment in land doesn't follow the usual pattern of more investment => more efficient production => undercutting => lower prices for consumers. Investment in land just results in accumulation, which means a smaller share of the pie remaining for everyone else, which means higher prices for everyone else.

2. Foreigners can buy land without needing to even live in the country. In the 1950s there were very few ultra rich people, companies, governments etc outside of the anglo/euro world, but now there are thousands of billionaires and billion dollar companies in china, india etc. They are able to treat your land as a speculative asset, which amplifies the effect of (1). Even foreign GOVERNMENTS can buy up your land.

3. Work is now highly concentrated in cities, meaning 99% of the land is worthless for living on since it isn't in commute range of a job. If only 1% of the land is livable then that makes it easier for speculators to monopolize it and squeeze people dry.

4. If computers drastically increase productivity then employers are going to want to compensate the people/companies/etc making the computers rather than the workers using the computers, since it was the computers that are responsible for the increased productivity rather than the workers.

5. Mass migration tends to reduce the value of labor across the board. Even if it's mostly low-skilled jobs, there is a domino effect. Low skilled jobs being flooded by migrants forces the people being replaced to either work for less in the same jobs, or to pursue higher skilled jobs instead. When they choose the second path, this leads to degree inflation, competition for higher skilled jobs etc, which then reduces the value of labor there too. The previous low-skilled workers become to higher skilled jobs what the migrants were to the low skilled jobs.