Well, not everyone agrees with the conclusions made by the article. For example, here it is argued that the graph used by the article is suspect: https://econo

Well, not everyone agrees with the conclusions made by the article. For example, here it is argued that the graph used by the article is suspect: https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/01/17/debunking-the-productivity-pay-gap/ https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/01/17/debunking-the... > This wasn’t a matter of productivity, either: workers were more productive every year, we just stopped being rewarded for it. In particular, this point is being disputed. Besides, I object to the use of the word "worker" here; some workers are surely more productive, but I can think of many classes of work that are fundamentally the same as they have been in the 70s; indeed, this kind of thing has been talked about under the heading of "cost disease" already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease Note that the article still points out inequality as a problem.