*puzzled* my reply wasn't meant to be arsey, sorry if it has come across that way
Just saying that the.idea that the powerful in society or those (marx again) who own the means of production are not generally known for mass acts of philanthropy that elevate the masses to their level of living.
I grant you all that, and it may be a difference of degree not a difference of kind, but at least the plutocrats of times past still needed
some of the plebs to work into an early grave and as a result there was bargaining power or at the very least some prospect for revolt. If the future is that the owners of the means of production won't need
any people to operate the means of production, I think this is probably a backward step. Are we still safe as long as we are needed to buy the things produced? How long will that last?
The odd Salt or Cadbury aside who did strive to be good 'landlords' & to educate & improve the lives of their workforce, but who still did significantly better out of the deal themselves.
"Enlightened self-interest", I think they call that. I'm reminded also of Henry Ford who (IIRC) whatever his other deficiencies did come up with the rather good idea that he should pay his employees enough that they could afford to buy one of his cars.