This is consistent with the observation that the top 10% have captured a disproportionate share of GDP growth over the past few decades.

https://equitablegrowth.org/new-data-reveal-how-u-s-economic...

"The past three economic expansions have largely benefitted the top 10 percent. In each, the top decile received between 47 percent and 59 percent of all income growth in the expansion."

> amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed

not true, labor productivity has been steadily increasing: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB

workers are simply capturing less of the economic value generated by their labor.

That overall drop in share of income since 2000 is related to the "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot warned about in 1992:

"It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care, that's the most expensive single element in making a car, have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south."

While Perot was warning about NAFTA, the jobs did go elsewhere: China and other countries with cheaper labor. Globalization led to labor competition, which increased the supply of workers.

Meanwhile, companies captured the value of the increased supply of workers. More cheap labor = more production, for a world that had latent demand for cheaper output. It ended up a net benefit for businesses (capital owners), and overseas workers. This is at least partially if not significantly where the growing gap between wage growth % and GDP growth % comes from.

The macro economists were right that globalization would be more efficient overall for the world, economically. But that came at the expense of the US labor that saw its wage growth eroded as a consequence.

> The situation on the ground is unchanged - the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed, but the overall pie has grown massively around us.

My understanding is that "fixed" costs like rent and groceries have gone up and taken more of people's budgets, while wages failed to catch up with this inflation.

If that's the case, it's markedly different from "situation on the ground is unchanged". I don't know how the overall pie is doing, but it has not grown enough to compensate for the labor share drops shown in the article. The slice on my plate is certainly lighter.

We have one of the worlds most prosperous economies, and half of the US is living in abject poverty while quality of life for everyone is decreasing.

>the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed, but the overall pie has grown massively around us

I don't see where the article made that claim. Are you making it yourself and can you support it? That sounds like something that would happen when technology improves. What the article does do, is pose a question that it never answers: "When the labor share falls, it means that productivity, prices, or both [which?] are growing faster than wages."

>the amount of labor being generated per person has not really changed

im not really understanding what you mean. i dont get how labor is generated, in particular. do you mean to say the amount of total hours dedicated to labor per person or something else?

It's just rent.

Rent for the homes we live in (including "rent" as mortgage payments to the bank)

Rent passed through as costs to the consumer for the businesses we patronize.

We're stuck at home more affording to be able to do less so the people who own don't have to work.

I don't know which people you're referring to, but the conclusion is pretty clear: the _share_ of the total pie captured by labor is shrinking. Productivity is increasing, but capital is capturing all, or almost all, the benefits of that increased productivity and economic growth.

AI is going to further exacerbate this inequality.

Time to re-read Capital In the 21st Century.

Since 2000 the biggest economic change is software. While most workers doing physical jobs have only made themselves slightly more efficient (or maybe mass immigration has maybe even reduced efficiency in some sectors), some workers (tech workers) have made themselves hundreds or thousands of times more efficient and captured the gains as equity (either in their own startup, their job, etc...). The positive is that growth overall has still lifted living the average living standard.

Benn Jordan just released a new video proposing that we are not in “late stage capitalism” and instead we are currently an offshoot of capitalism called “leverageism”.

In the video he describes how when people like Elon Musk get to the level of wealth that they are at, it becomes far more beneficial for them to take from (or stunt) the spending power of lower classes than it is to add to their own net worth dollar figure - simply put, the former moves the needle far more in their favor than the latter.

Definitely explained the idea of our slice remaining the same while the overall pie around us is getting larger.

*Edit: Benn not Ben