What’s so bad about wealth without labor? It depends on who owns the wealth. Under capitalism, wages are how workers receive a portion of what they produce. That portion has always been small, relative to the rewards that flow to the owners of capital.
Actually, I think he’s an idiot.
Think about it just for a second. The capitalist makes how much from each worker? No, not the aggregate income of the capitalist, but how much from each worker? More or less than the worker?
We can even check this at the aggregate level. The capital share of the economy is usually in the 20-30% range, the labour share in the 55-65% range (no, rightly they do not sum to 100%). And the capital share includes paying for depreciation.
Who is getting more of the pie?
Man’s an idiot. For it gets worse, next sentence is:
And over the past several decades, it’s gotten smaller: the share of the national income that goes to wages has been steadily shrinking, while the share that goes to capital has been growing.
That sentence linking to this research which states:
The OECD (2012) has
observed, for example, that over the period from 1990 to 2009 the share of labour
compensation in national income declined in 26 out of 30 advanced countries for which
data were available, and calculated that the median (adjusted) labour share of national
income across these countries fell from 66.1 per cent to 61.7 per cent.
The labour share is more than half the economy. Thus the workers cannot be getting less of the value add than the capitalists, can they?