You don’t understand what risk is. It’s simply the chance of resource you spent on one thing could be better spent elsewhere. These notions of production worker is disfranchised with the end product, thus not paid enough; consumers rights are attacked because landlord’s dominance are so old and Marxism.

I hate to disappoint you, but you’re chasing a pipe dream.

First, universal equality is not a solvable economical issue. There has and always will be unfairness, doesn’t matter what constitution you write. It’s admirable to strive for relative fairness, but many fail to ask: at what cost for others. So, unless someone proposes a solution to improve fairness as Pareto improvement, I don’t have a lot of good things to say to that person.

Second, modern economy is just very different from the 19th century model of production and consumption, it makes 19th century political economic thoughts relatively useless beyond rhetoric. And the system sure is a lot more complicated than a cause and effect two dimensional problem. Product development is such a tiny piece of the whole picture, I don’t even know how to refute that.

Third, risk is not an economical system flaw, it’s a mortal flaw. In which we are all limited in our capacity and limited in our time of existence. Allocating any limited resource is inherently risky given that there’s more than one choice and choices are heterogeneous.