The proposition
Worker ownership could broaden capital ownership, but compounding can also widen initial differences.
People with better employers, more compute, stronger education and high-value roles may train useful + systems faster. Early advantage can then produce more time, more income and still better augmentation.
The uncomfortable possibility
A system built to protect workers could create an augmentation aristocracy.
If accumulated + capability becomes a hiring signal and economic asset, people excluded from the first wave may face both the ordinary experience gap and a new augmented-experience gap.
The design implication
Access is not peripheral to the model.
If worker-owned augmentation is ever meant to matter socially, affordable compute, education, verification and opportunities to build legitimate + experience may need to be treated as infrastructure rather than luxury services.
What remains uncertain
Where this argument can still fail.
What would change our thinking
The point is not to defend the Perspective forever.
Evidence of strong compounding inequality could force access guarantees or public-infrastructure assumptions into a future Core rather than leaving them as external policy questions.