probably because the article is written from the perspective of labour/macro- economics rather than welfare economics. It's true it touches on where the wage g

probably because the article is written from the perspective of labour/macro- economics rather than welfare economics. It's true it touches on where the wage gains are going (although to me that looked rather inconclusive frankly), but I think it's primarily concerned with notions of wage stickiness in labour markets, not measures of productivity or real-wage gains or welfare. And to be fair, if the US is anything like here, official bodies have been having trouble modeling/predicting nominal wage growth and inflation over recent history.