This analysis chooses to ignore the cost of employer benefits, which is unfortunate because it explains a large portion of income inequality as measured by this

This analysis chooses to ignore the cost of employer benefits, which is unfortunate because it explains a large portion of income inequality as measured by this analysis. Basically, because health insurance costs have exploded and it costs the same to insure a cashier as it does a corporate Vice President, health insurance cost increases has eaten away a lot more income gains at the low end than the high end. In numbers let’s say a cashier cost a total of $10k in 1970 with costs of $8k in pay and $2k in health care and a VP cost $50k with $48k in pay and $2k in health insurance. Now let’s say GDP per capita grows 3x but healthcare costs grew 6x between 1970 and 2020. Now the cashiers health care is $12k and base pay is $18k. The VP is $12k in healthcare and $138k in pay. Now the cost of both employees rose proportionally, but the income portion of the cashier only grew by 2.25x while the vps income grew by 2.85x. These aren't real numbers (I couldn't quickly find the paper I first saw with this analysis) but it is illustrative. Fixing the health care cost issue and dissocating it from employment ties directly to fixing income inequality (although it is not the only issue.)