Sorry, but somebody is still producing that wealth through their labor. It’s just not your labor. Wealth in the sense that the author is using the word is when you collect the fruits of other people’s hard work.
No matter how you set up your economy, only a small number of people can live like that, so no, by definition this is not a strategy that everyone can use. Otherwise, who would be doing all the actual work?
The key is that machines (bulldozers, airplanes, websites etc.) multiply work to produce more wealth per unit of labor based on a productivity multiplier. Labor is a free market that can fail due to wages being insufficient or can be distorted by a minimum wage that may reduce demand for work to the point of significant unemployment. Need to model the whole system in detail to reach any conclusions. Single sentence observations are nearly always wrong in some respect.
As a corollary, I imagine that if I was a member of the class that owns things but does not work, I would not sleep well at night. After all, those who own wealth need those who work. The ones who work know how to make things, grow food, set a broken bone, build bridges, change diapers, do all the things that need to be done, but those who own things can’t do any any of that stuff on their own. In a way they’re like helpless children. They need us, for everything.
But do we need them? No. This article is literally saying that the property owning class can perform their function in society while they’re asleep. Well, if that’s true then they’re not contributing anything of value.
If I were one of those who own wealth, I would worry greatly that one day the people who work would figure this out. That’s the sword of Damocles that hangs over the heads of the wealthy.
This is a fallacious argument that ignores how progress occurs. Owners do not merely own, they create the process that produces the wealth. Without them we would still be in the stone age.
>Sorry, but somebody is still producing that wealth through their labor.
No, not necessarily.
E.g. You write a novel. It's selling every day online. Whose labor are you collecting?
If you say the customers' labor at their jobs - Yes, if you trace any chain of transactions far enough you can eventually find someone who did some labor. This is kind of meaningless though. It's true even if there's only one working human on the planet.
Basically, you're restating the labor theory of value which is generally not considered credible by economists.
How much of the economy would you estimate works on the "write a novel, sell it passively on a website you created/host/etc. yourself" model? Is this common in your mind or a very narrow example to make a point online?
Sorry, but somebody is still producing that wealth through their labor. It’s just not your labor. Wealth in the sense that the author is using the word is when you collect the fruits of other people’s hard work.
No matter how you set up your economy, only a small number of people can live like that, so no, by definition this is not a strategy that everyone can use. Otherwise, who would be doing all the actual work?