Why does this matter? If we expand the timeline to the last 200 years, the gains in agricultural productivity have gone to a very small subset of the population

Why does this matter? If we expand the timeline to the last 200 years, the gains in agricultural productivity have gone to a very small subset of the population (around 2%). This is in fact the major reason you're able to write comments on the Internet rather than having to plow your field. I'd rather live in a world where we can maximize the productivity gains of the entire population and let us have more leisure than one which we jam the gears of the machines because we're jealous that any given productivity gain has a power law distribution. Your comment about "distribution of money" and "distribution of wealth" makes no sense, but let's assume that by "money" you mean "income." By definition, looking at the distribution of anything is zero-sum. The problem is, growth has nothing to do with distribution and everything to do with production. Production is not a fixed-sum game: you can have positive-, negative- or zero-sum production at any given time. The chief question of production is how do we produce more wealth using fewer resources, or more efficient combinations of existing resources? How we should distribute that wealth, income and control over the products made is an ethical and political question (though I am strongly opposed to any scheme that seeks to deprive a person from owning the product of her labor).