Yeah, there have been huge productivity gains over the past 40 years, and most of it was siphoned off by the wealthy. [not bothering to look up numerical productivity gains atm]
I don't like some of the wording here though:
"At every income level up to the 90th percentile, wage earners are now being paid a fraction of what they would have had inequality held constant. For example, at the median individual income of $36,000, workers are being shortchanged by $21,000 a year—$28,000 when using the CPI—an amount equivalent to an additional $10.10 to $13.50 an hour. But according to Price and Edwards, this actually understates the impact of rising inequality on low- and middle-income workers, because much of the gains at the bottom of the distribution were largely “driven by an increase in hours not an increase in wages.” To adjust for this, along with changing patterns of workforce participation, the researchers repeat their analysis for full-year, full-time, prime-aged workers (age 25 to 54). These results are even more stark: “Unlike the growth patterns in the 1950s and 60s,” write Price and Edwards, “the majority of full-time workers did not share in the economic growth of the last forty years.” "
WRT to inequality, there will of course be some sort of normal distribution of wages in any economy; that isn't necessarily an inequality. Inequality is when the wage disparity diverges from some preset norm - as has happened over the past 40 years. IMHO.
That said - give us our money back (fat chance, I know).