Anyone care to explain the downvotes? I am simply pointing out a glaring misuse of a word in the title, which made me curious about the author's background.
If you wanted to use this as an educational opportunity to say "income share of labor" and "income share of capital" you might have had a point, but I'm the one who has to tell you that.
If you do insist on being spoon fed - getting information about labor relations from Fortune magazine is like taking heath advice from a Luck Strike promotion. The article's cheery conclusion is: Yes, AI productivity is driving wages down - but we only need to be patient and wait for more jobs to replace them, not tax or regulate AI. Yes, unemployment is driving wages down - but more immigration will fix this, not make it worse. Yes, the deficit is high while corporate profits are up - but the solution is more jobs (how?) rather than more tax. Yes, smoking causes 'throat irritation' - but Lucky Strike is toasted.