Farlsborough

I'm still getting to grips with the Austrian school, please bear with me. What I'm trying to iron out is stuff about wages, because it's one of the most common objections you meet. If anyone knows of a resource which explains it well, I'd love to be pointed in that direction. What I don't understand is this: if a company uses their capital to make an employee more productive, why would they necessarily put the wages of that employee up? True, their output has increased, but why not take this revenue as increased profit (as is so often assumed to be done by the Left)? The company would be well within their rights to say that the employee is not bringing anything better or new to the job, and that without the capital goods, their productivity would not have changed, therefore the company deserves to be the sole beneficiary of the increased output. If the employee was disgruntled and wanted to work elsewhere, they would be back to square one with their lower productivity, unless that company also uses it's capital similarly, in which case the dilemma is the same. I realise that if they have to train and up-skill the employee to use the machinery, the labourer may demand more. But if it is literally the case that pushing a button creates five hats, and with the new capital, pushing the same button now makes ten hats... The output and profit has increased, but does this benefit the employee?