> If you're a bourgeois economist, you'd say it's the productivity
> miracle. If you're tinted pink or red, you'd say you'd say capital is
> strong and labor is weak. In either case, almost all the gains of
> economic growth have gone to profits and the very upper crust of
> individuals (whose incomes are mostly returns to capital).
If you're a bourgeois economist, you'd say aggregate wage growth = average labor productivity growth. But that isn't happening. Do they have something to explain this divergence from the textbook?
Seth