"There's no universal answer, but in the canonical example of better machines, then part of the higher productivity is likely due to the judgment in recognizing where machines could be deployed, which is managerial labor."
And using those machines was labor labor.
"but I was just explaining why we shouldn't expect higher total output to mean proportionally higher wages"
But why not?
"If the worker is pushing the same buttons and the machine is doing more, wages should not be expected to increase and there's no mystery."
Why not? The company is doing better; why shouldn't those who contributed, including the workers who made the widgets, share in that?
"If the productivity is from workers becoming more versatile and able to handle a bigger variety of situations with the same capital, then we should expect higher wages without a higher return to capital."
And I just explained why (what you're unhelpfully calling) "labor labor" did not add more value than before, while managerial labor did.
>>but I was just explaining why we shouldn't expect higher total output to mean proportionally higher wages
>But why not?
For the reason I just implied by analogy: pushing a button is just as easy before and after, but finding the productivity improvement was non-trivial.
>Why not? The company is doing better; why shouldn't those who contributed, including the workers who made the widgets, share in that?
For the same reason (if it's not clear from the analogy) why Target shouldn't pay more for boxes of cereal from wholesalers if they have a better year than Walmart.
"And I just explained why (what you're unhelpfully calling) "labor labor" did not add more value than before, while managerial labor did."
But you didn't. You claimed they didn't add anything, without backing it up. More work was done, more widgets were produced. You need to justify why labor should not share in that.
And saying "labor labor" is no more unhelpful than you talking about "managerial labor."
"For the reason I just implied by analogy: pushing a button is just as easy before and after, but finding the productivity improvement was non-trivial.
You've not proven that, however. And, again, the labor is producing more, thus helping the company to be more successful. Without them, the company wouldn't be able to do any of that.
"For the same reason (if it's not clear from the analogy) why Target shouldn't pay more for boxes of cereal from wholesalers if they have a better year than Walmart."
That's not the same situation at all. In your situation, Target is paying the same amount of money, and getting the same amount of goods in return as they were before. Not at all applicable to the current situation.
And using those machines was labor labor.
"but I was just explaining why we shouldn't expect higher total output to mean proportionally higher wages"
But why not?
"If the worker is pushing the same buttons and the machine is doing more, wages should not be expected to increase and there's no mystery."
Why not? The company is doing better; why shouldn't those who contributed, including the workers who made the widgets, share in that?
"If the productivity is from workers becoming more versatile and able to handle a bigger variety of situations with the same capital, then we should expect higher wages without a higher return to capital."
That is almost never seen.