I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but the answer is that the same mechanism that incentivizes all of this innovation prevents the gains from being distributed evenly. You can get fabulously wealthy if you can be an early mover in bringing important new technology to the market. But then you get to keep that wealth and you don't have to share it with anybody if you don't want to. So that's what ends up happening. There's probably a correct balance somewhere between incentivizing innovation and redistributing income and/or wealth, but then it's hard to preserve that balance because the wealth seekers always have an incentive to lobby for favorable policies, manipulate markets, etc. I do not believe that we as a society have managed to figure out the necessary institutions that could preserve such a balance on a multigenerational time scale.
The original capitalist philosophers were incredibly optimistic about how we could use the system to reduce scarcity. I agreed with that viewpoint.
If our current system is one where I put in a dollar of effort, and get 99 cents in return at best, it seems like that optimistic viewpoint no longer applies.
If that’s the case why should I continue to lend my energy to this system instead of lending it to one that gets me removed from the conversation because it’s against our current leaders desires?
