Productivity is not a virtue that brings entitlements to wealth, productivity is a zero sum game within the pareto boundary, for one to produce more some one else needs to produce less, therefore increasing ones productivity comes with a cost to someone else.
...
I think the crux is that Productivity is in most cases a zero sum game and only certain events increase productivity ie Industrial Revolution, Computer Revolution, Genetic Revolution and in my mind the individuals involved in those events that increase standards of living and total production capacity have a well deserved wealth.
The rest and more common people simply compete over who will take a piece of a fixed amount of productivity, this is showcased by never actually reaching full employment. If total production capacity was not fixed, ie not a zero sum game then there would be no unemployment.
But unbounded Total production capacity "impossible" due to the fact that production must balance Demand and that would be that Demand would be unbounded.
Planned obsolescence, ponzi real estate growth, black holing production are tricks we have played over time to keep Demand and thus Production up but eventually a plateu is reached.
The real argument though that plagues economy discussion and from which all arguments stem is: Demand drives Production? or Production drives Demand?. Me I think its like EM waves, They are entangled in a lockstep and this is why economy behaves in a wavelike pattern. Differential equations have not yet reached the minds of economists, math is too hard I guess.
I disagree. Events like the industrial revolution are massive strides forward and increase the standard of living in an obvious manner. However, small gains in productivity also increase the standard of living. Your distinction between types of productivity is undefined and appears entirely arbitrary.
Not only is productivity not zero sum misclassifying it as such risks the promotion of terrible public policy. Lets examine a hypothetical society and try to find these zero sum interactions.
Imaging for a moment the mythical society of Shoetopia. It is a stagnate society with limited technological progress a more or less stable population (ideal setting for zero sum conflicts). In Shoetopia there is a demand for 100 new pairs of shoes a day and each shoemaker requires a full day of labor to make a pair of shoes. Shoetopia therefore has 100 shoemakers working on an average day. Now along comes Bob. Bob is the shoe genius of his time and due to exceptional hand eye coordination and self-discipline Bob can make 2 pairs of shoes in a day.
Depending on the dynamics of the market one of two things will happen. 1) The price of shoes will drop until the price is low enough to that customers are willing to buy the excess shoes (consumers benefit) or 2) Some of Bobs less of efficient competition with shift their activity to some other market with the end result being less man hours of labor required for the production of the same number of shoes. If Bob is a one hit wonder his benefit to his society will be transient. If his shoe talent breeds true then his descendants will take over the shoe market and soon Shoetopia will only need 50 shoemakers
allowing everyone in society more leisure time or freeing up 50 laborers to explore new markets or find something more interesting to do.The last statement simply describes unemployment, and there is no sugar coating for it. 50 shoemakers having invested time and resources and will behind a lifetime of making shoes will not feel happy. They will think that Rob has robed them off their profession and stole their income. The last statement simply displays that Bob will not expand the market by his increased productivity, nor increase the Total aggregate productivity of shoes. One could argue that instead the 50 unemployed now shoemakers will exit the shoe market completely! Both as shoe
consumers as they will produce shoes for own consumption, as well as shoe
producers , making total market worse off. And Bob will be damned as the Bane of Shoetopia. The only remedy is for them to reenter marked with a different role, they might not be happy about that so reeducation camp may be needed. So what did Bob succeed? a restructuring of the market.
Now if on the other hand Bob's genius instead on focusing on increased productivity was focused on innovation, he could create the "Athletic Footwear". Now Shoetopia will add to the 100 new pair of shoes the Demand of 100 extra athletic shoes, that only Bob provides and his wealth and fame will be well deserved and he will be hailed as Hero of Shoetopia. What did now Bob succeed? The Creation of a New Market.
The toxic idea that personal productivity does not entitle one to the fruits of ones own labor is an indirect argument for massive statist intervention in the economy as that is the only way to enforce such a prohibition. In the case of Shoetopia anti Bob laws would need to be passed either selectively taxing him of 50% of his earnings, directly seizing his shoes for the public good, or perhaps banning him outright from the shoemaking profession. Bob might not be happy about that so reeducation camp may be needed.
Toxic as it may sound Bob could be simply under quota and allowed to only produce as much as any other shoemaker, taking full claim to the fruits of his own labor. And protecting him from his self, by allowing him to transform his talents of increased productivity to more leisure time or freeing up 50% of his time to explore new markets or find something more interesting to do.
