My rather incoherent take on this is that wealth is really not generated by people as much anymore. The things we use/want are really produced by machines plus a few workers. It is not really that worker producing the products, it is a combination of historical capital leading up to that machine and then some time the worker is putting in. Basically, we are moving towards a system where wealth is generated by machines but distributed by a weird combination of factors that is heavily historical (who spent the capital on this production to have it happen?). If you work in the stock market you get a certain share of that distribution, if your dad owns a hotel chain you get a certain share, if you collect aluminum cans on the streets of SF you get a certain share. It is all a heavily artificial system of distribution that is very historically based (more so than incentive based i think). Yes, being a successful entrepreneur will get you are larger share percent, but for the same effort/luck 1000 years ago (even if the political system was same as now and favorable to startups) the same share percent would be tiny compared to today. (kinda like bill gates added a lot of value but he got way more cuz its amplified by all the machines in the world) But my point is it is no longer about how much you produce directly but how much of that distribution goes to you.
Traditionally, a humongous proportion came here to the US and its workers, again due to historical reasons (and personally i feel deservedly so or atleast close enough). But it basically went like the US increase the whole pie so much that it got more of it. But as globalization happens it is apparent that unless you are a capitalist, your share of the distribution simply has no reason to grow but a lot of pressure to shrink so that it equalizes more globally.
so i think short of the US coming up with more things that just dramatically increases the whole pie again, theres only two choices to maintain your standard of living, have capital so you have the power to get your share, or support some form of socialism that hopefully doesn't reduce incentive to the point of reducing the whole pie.
The reality is that technology is making capital less relevant to capitalism. The world today is far more favorable to startups/good ideas than ever before.
If you have a great idea, it takes less money and effort to develop it and spread it around. Capital actively looks for you. Take any of the support services to business as examples (from printing to telecommunication - long distance fees anyone? mobile phones? to computing power to manufacturing). Who cares what percentage of the pie you have? It's your living standards that matter - and that's what's risen dramatically for almost every socio economic and demographic group with the exception of a few in places like Africa who live under horrific despots. I can't remember who first made the comment that the average 12 year old today gets more intellectual stimulation than Queen Victoria might have in her day.
You can lament the fact that even if you're extraordinarily successful you might not control as much resources as Bill Gates does as a percentage of the pie, but look a little further back in history to those like Rockefeller, JP Morgan, who controlled even more and wielded considerably more power. Is Bill Gates' life better than theirs? I would suggest that with the exception of the ability to use their power (which has declined considerably) nearly all other metrics would suggest this is the case. This, at least for the rest of us, seems like a good thing to me.
This idea that short term unemployment is relevant to anything at all is somewhat silly since it doesn't even begin to explain US unemployment versus Europe's chronically high unemployment rates. Further, while I can accept that industries change, this fear that technology results in less employment just doesn't track with history.
The pie grows with better ideas. With the average person increasingly being able to contribute directly to the development ideas, I suspect we will have a considerably brighter future than some of these pundits suggest.
While that's true, the advantage of investing in mildly stable developing countries is such that we will run out of developing nations faster than you might think. China has something like 40 years until it has US level consumption per person with India not all that far behind. When 50% of the worlds population has modern education and infrastructure the cost savings of shifting your work force around the world shrinks. Japan might be the poster child for this transition but without massive destruction there is little to slow things down.
PS: The ability for science and technology to progress has had a lot to do with the number of people who focus on such things, when 80% of the world is developed we might see 10 times as much research which is then quickly spread around the globe. And like the old VC equation having 1/3 of 50 trillion is worth less than 1/20th of 5,000 trillion.
Traditionally, a humongous proportion came here to the US and its workers, again due to historical reasons (and personally i feel deservedly so or atleast close enough). But it basically went like the US increase the whole pie so much that it got more of it. But as globalization happens it is apparent that unless you are a capitalist, your share of the distribution simply has no reason to grow but a lot of pressure to shrink so that it equalizes more globally.
so i think short of the US coming up with more things that just dramatically increases the whole pie again, theres only two choices to maintain your standard of living, have capital so you have the power to get your share, or support some form of socialism that hopefully doesn't reduce incentive to the point of reducing the whole pie.