This is a very complicated subject. Here is an analysis that shows the contrary result: https://www.econlib.org/the-real-wage-myth. One important observation: looking at wages alone, like the article does, excludes the value of benefits such as healthcare:
> BTW, these time series understate the growth in total labor compensation, as the cost of fringe benefits such as health care has risen faster than nominal wage growth. Alternatively, if you believe that health benefits are nearly worthless (my view), then the nominal wage series should be deflated by a price index that excludes health care. That would show even more rapid growth in real wages.
Basically, at the very least you’re not comparing like with like. Either include the value of health benefits in compensation, or exclude the contribution of healthcare in overall economic growth. There are also numerous other mathematical complexities. You need to adjust wages for inflation (using some index) and convert GDP to current dollars (using some index) but generally different indexes are used for the two. You also need to pick a baseline. 1970 is often used, but that was a recessionary period. Counter-intuitively, the ratio of wages to the overall economy is highest during recessions. Also, it’s not just workers and owners in the pirate ship analogy. Landowners also get a cut and their cut is growing. Accounting for both effects, the share of income going to non-housing capital owners is up a bit, but was about the same in 2005 as in 1960: http://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromMay2014/lacav...
I’m not sure what the right answer is. What I’m sure about is that cobbled together vignettes sprinkled with uncited, unexplained numbers that are more garnish than substance does not help anyone understand the issue at all. It’s empty calories.