I stopped reading at Someone who had just finished read A Farewell to Alms would respond "If American workers aren't better educated than they were in the 1970s, why would you expect their wages to rise?" (He hyperlinked A Farewell to Alms, which is a book he wrote.)
Whether or not American workers are better educated than they were in the 1970s, economists claim that productivity has been rapidly growing over the last few decades. Growth in productivity is direct evidence of room for compensation to grow as well. Therefore if wages haven't grown we need to look elsewhere than "the workers aren't good enough to justify higher wages" for an explanation.
The fact that he doesn't know basic economic facts about productivity and wages is enough that I have no interest in listening to his explanations of how to improve wages by making workers more productive.
I don't pretend to have anything like a full explanation for why productivity and wages are not more strongly correlated. But it is worth noting that during the last boom wages remained steady but money spent by employers on workers grew at a healthy pace. Unfortunately the growth in spending mostly got sucked up by higher health care premiums, so wages remained flat.
Unless you can fix economic trends like that one, I guarantee that the correlation between wages and productivity will remain weak.
The link between education of workers and their wages is indeed probably less direct and/or strong than he makes it out to be. However, the increases in productivity you mention have to come from smart people thinking hard about how to do things more efficiently, so you could argue for more education from that standpoint. If you read the rest of the article in that light, he makes some interesting points.
As for why higher productivity hasn't translated into higher wages, I think participation in the free market meant (and means) that gains in productivity are used to lower prices rather than increase workers' wages.
I am trying to find the connection with Philip Greenspun and Gregory Clark who wrote the book in question. Are they the same person and Gregory is his pen name?
So you claim that high labour productivity is fully reflected in money spent on employees, and just not reflected in wages?
He claims that competition from low wage economies means that higher labour productivity from technology and capital won't be reflected in wages. He claims that only the competitive merits for of US labour will be reflected.
I think some Democrats are looking at US health care costs and trying to address them, in spite of attempts mostly by Republicans to derail that process.
Whether or not American workers are better educated than they were in the 1970s, economists claim that productivity has been rapidly growing over the last few decades. Growth in productivity is direct evidence of room for compensation to grow as well. Therefore if wages haven't grown we need to look elsewhere than "the workers aren't good enough to justify higher wages" for an explanation.
The fact that he doesn't know basic economic facts about productivity and wages is enough that I have no interest in listening to his explanations of how to improve wages by making workers more productive.
I don't pretend to have anything like a full explanation for why productivity and wages are not more strongly correlated. But it is worth noting that during the last boom wages remained steady but money spent by employers on workers grew at a healthy pace. Unfortunately the growth in spending mostly got sucked up by higher health care premiums, so wages remained flat.
Unless you can fix economic trends like that one, I guarantee that the correlation between wages and productivity will remain weak.