Because they're eliminating the jobs of the least productive people and not paying the most productive people equivalent to the productivity gains, i.e. software developers and the technical folk. But those people are still getting paid heaps, so there aren't a lot of complaints.
If you read up a few more comments, you'll note that I'm the one that made that point.
> If you are a developer, you are partially responsible for this inequality in both pay and productivity. They tend to go hand in hand. Now, if you want to argue that software developers are underpaid, I certainly agree. But we're also part of the inequality problem, and pretending otherwise would be silly.
If I replace one staff member out of two with a machine that does half their work for them, that doesn't mean the other staff member gets a doubled salary.
This is why we don't say a software engineer writing an website should get paid all the money that it would've cost to build and run a data centre for the website, but didn't have to because you used the cloud.
> If I replace one staff member out of two with a machine that does half their work for them, that doesn't mean the other staff member gets a doubled salary.
So who keeps the surplus amount? It has to go somewhere, why not to the group that increased their productivity?
If the group bought the machine out of their own money then they would automatically keep the surplus in the form of less work. If the company bought it, then the company gets the saving, and it can choose what to do with that saving.
