That paper switches out the CPI for a statistic of its own invention, "implicit price deflator for the output of the nonfarm business", which is far more charit

That paper switches out the CPI for a statistic of its own invention, "implicit price deflator for the output of the nonfarm business", which is far more charitable to its conclusion that workers have taken home a consistent percentage of economic growth since the 1970s. But the paper completely avoids the problem of how those gains are distributed across workers in the economy, that is, it doesn't address income inequality trends at all (the author was an economist for Reagan, so that's not terribly surprising). Even if the paper's statistics are taken at face value (that labor share of GDP has been consistent since the 1970s) it's simultaneously true that the majority of GDP growth has gone to those at the high end of the income distribution in the time period it covers. You might not call that an economic structure problem, or even consider it a problem at all, but many would reasonably disagree.