I think it may have everything to do with how we're measuring productivity. The world in 1975 is obviously not the world today. The biggest difference being the personal computer and by extension the internet. How much of productivity gains are due to computers? Email can be near-instantaneous and although the paperless office is probably a pipe dream, filing and paper work have become less plentiful and are taking less time. Not to mention the advances in software which improve productivity. Of course, this is just in offices. You can go ahead and look at factories which are becoming more computerized and I'm sure the primary sector has benefited from computers too.
So, although workers of today are more productive - per dollar paid per hour/month/year, is it possible that people haven't actually been working harder but rather machines have been doing more work? Is it possible that these productivity gains represent value provided by giving every office an IT department rather than people working better (or harder or smarter)?
I think it is possible, but I don't think it is a satisfactory explanation. It could simply be the effects of supply and demand on the marketplace. Beyond a certain point, money doesn't buy happiness so I see no reason why the upper end of salaries would increase other than pure greed (which is consistent with lots and lots of increases in executive pay) and unskilled labour provides minimal value so why would machines making one interchangeable labourer able to do the work of two or three interchangeable labourers lead to an increase in the pay of interchangeable labourers?
So, although workers of today are more productive - per dollar paid per hour/month/year, is it possible that people haven't actually been working harder but rather machines have been doing more work? Is it possible that these productivity gains represent value provided by giving every office an IT department rather than people working better (or harder or smarter)?
I think it is possible, but I don't think it is a satisfactory explanation. It could simply be the effects of supply and demand on the marketplace. Beyond a certain point, money doesn't buy happiness so I see no reason why the upper end of salaries would increase other than pure greed (which is consistent with lots and lots of increases in executive pay) and unskilled labour provides minimal value so why would machines making one interchangeable labourer able to do the work of two or three interchangeable labourers lead to an increase in the pay of interchangeable labourers?