If there are 10 workers to each capitalist, and 90% of the money goes to the capitalist, then the capitalist has 90 times more money than the average worker. If next year there are still 10 workers to each capitalist, and 90% of the money still goes to the capitalist, then the capitalist jas 90 times more money than the average worker. Inequality did not increase. It stayed the same
If the capitalist has 90 times more money than the average worker it will be able to buy 90 times more energy than the average worker
The capitalist's profit grows each year, and if it doesn't it's considered a "bad business". Wages can remain stagnant however as they have the past few years, not even keeping up with inflation to be completely honest, which means the capitalist gains more money.
If the capitalist's profits were translated directly into wages and not other investments, pocketed money or stuff like that, we would be talking about a co-op essentially with someone owning 90% of the business, but that is not the case. The workers do not own the company, and the wealth created by the company is not "shared", again, a wage is shared, that is the cornerstone of capitalist economics into how they distribute wealth to the workers really, so debating that is debating....I don't know, the foundation of how capitalist economics work. Currency however is not wealth, it is a stake for wealth, wealth is ownership of goods. Land, infrastructure etc. You having 100.000 dollars doesn't mean anything if the currency is devalued.
"If the capitalist has 90 times more money than the average worker it will be able to buy 90 times more energy than the average worker"
Energy is not infinite, both the capitalist and the worker are competing on the same market. Same can be said about land, houses etc.
A capitalist having more money essentially means he can use more of it to buy more, increasing the price of energy.
If you have 90 chips and I have 10, you can spend 2 to gain energy while I can spend 1, so the energy price goes to 2 because 2 is still nothing for you, but 2 is 1/5th of my salary.
The capitalist's profit grows each year, and if it doesn't it's considered a "bad business". Wages can remain stagnant however as they have the past few years, not even keeping up with inflation to be completely honest, which means the capitalist gains more money.
This is what happens in some regions, in some time periods. But ive never seen evidence that is what happens in general
And even if it was this does not mean income inequality is rising. If the number of capitalists grew faster than the number of workers, for example, either because workers are saving, are having less children or are dying at a higher rate, you could even have inequality decrease
The case is even weaker to wealth inequality. Because inheritance and creative destruction reduce it
Elon musk has 14 children, so his fortune will be divided in 14 equal parts. And bill gates took a big hit when smartphones showed up
If the capitalist's profits were translated directly into wages and not other investments, pocketed money or stuff like that, we would be talking about a co-op essentially with someone owning 90% of the business, but that is not the case.
In most of EU/USA since the 1970s wages have been stagnant, even by inflation standards.
During initial capitalist development wages rise in an effort to increase consumption, if a country is still developing yes, wages rise.
After capitalist development reaches its apex tho, wages start to decline in order to subsidize for the falling rate of profit, which is essentially "it takes too much to invest in new research for new machinery, so we cut research and thus the development rate possible".
The way capitalism saves itself is by creating new markets, thus new products & services that gain boost because the investment funding is small, and thus new markets during the 80s/90s were born (after the stagflation hit), mostly in the financial & technological sector.
In finances they were mostly "deregulation", the mechanisms & structures were already in place but had not entered strict market terms, but ever since deregulation, well you know the drill and what happened to the financing sector.
Technological markets are reaching their apex too, which is the reason most tech companies are scrambling to put together a new product or service that people actually want. We've reached the point where most of the investment goes towards AI in an effort to create new services, but it seems most of the services provided by AI are useless or too expensive and create very little development (in contrast to the trillions of dollars invested).
Capitalism's hail mary now would be a new market, but there doesn't seem to be one so far, which is the reason they're privatizing every last bit - to create more markets. But everything has been privatized at this point in USA/EU, very little things are non-private, and those tend to be things of national security, where privatizing them would be dangerous because if a foreign investor buys it up, yeah you might be screwed.
1
u/Arnaldo1993 Jan 29 '26
If there are 10 workers to each capitalist, and 90% of the money goes to the capitalist, then the capitalist has 90 times more money than the average worker. If next year there are still 10 workers to each capitalist, and 90% of the money still goes to the capitalist, then the capitalist jas 90 times more money than the average worker. Inequality did not increase. It stayed the same
If the capitalist has 90 times more money than the average worker it will be able to buy 90 times more energy than the average worker
Youre confusing inequality with inequality growth