[wqaatwt]

Isn’t it the complete opposite? i.e. high automatization means that a single worker can create many times more value than before. However it reduces the demand for labor and worker bargaining power. So companies have no incentive to pair “fair” wages.

[aeternum]

That is true but likely only temporarily. Why is the single worker even needed?

We tend to have a pretty human-centric worldview so if there's a single human working to keep a hotel running, our default is to attribute all the generated value to them when it really isn't the case. You can imagine that hotel at some point in the near future goes from requiring 1 worker to keep it running to zero.

[wqaatwt]

> is the single worker even needed

Because he is? I do not expect for some sort of universal “AGI” to emerge within my lifetime which would supplant humans in every area (of course what do I know.. but still there is no real indication we are even remotely close to that currently)

> default is to attribute all the generated value to them when it really isn't the case

Certainly, you should attribute a significant proportion to the people who installed the automated system and even more to those who designed it.

[aeternum]

>Certainly, you should attribute a significant proportion to the people who installed the automated system and even more to those who designed it.

Indeed, but what happens if/when they choose to sell the system and someone else buys it? Now the owner is who is generating the value. Even if he hires some maintenance worker to come by once and awhile and check up on it, it is the system (aka the capital), not the worker that is generating the vast majority of the value.