> Wages have grown at their fastest rate in history, globally, over the last 30 years:
https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/World/2016/0207...
It is only in the advanced economies where wage growth has slowed.

Exactly. Most likely as a direct response of MBA CEOs of advanced economies outsourcing manufacturing to foreign companies to increase their bottom line. Then a pandemic happens and you realise that you have no domestic manufacturers of medical equipment because government and enterprise have not fostered an environment of self sufficiency. And then academics scratch their heads and wonder why movements like Brexit gain traction. (For the record, I voted against Brexit although I am not sure how I would vote if the referendum was held again.).

> 1. Wages are just one component of employment compensation. When the nonwage components - which have grown faster than wages - are factored in, you see the line track productivity growth much more closely.

Maybe in America with its ludicrously expensive health system. In the UK with the NHS I'm not seeing anywhere near the increase in benefits to compensate for the loss in wages. And what real point is my pension when I can't afford to get on the housing ladder because my wages are too low to keep up with house price inflation? All of my pension will end up being subsumed by rent. If anything, the rise of freelance working shatters this argument because when you freelance you receive no benefits. Ask anyone in the EU who is earning decent wages and it is always the freelancers.

> 2. Another factor creating the illusion of a growing gap between productivity and worker compensation is the use of different inflation indexes to measure productivity and worker compensation. The indexes largely mirrored each other before 1973, but diverged significantly since then, leading to inflation-adjusted worker compensation growth appearing artificially depressed compared to inflation-adjusted productivity growth.

Again, I'm not buying this. If anything, most articles I read seem to use the lower CPI instead of RPI which I think is ridiculous. Perhaps the mismatch is to do with outsourcing manufacturing bases? Is productivity accurately measured? According to google:

"Productivity measures the efficiency of a company's production process. It is calculated by dividing the outputs produced by a company by the inputs used in its production process."

In an age where accountancy tricks are routinely used to minimise declared profits to shield against paying tax, are we 100% sure that the "outputs produced by a company" are accurately reflected in the statistics?

>And the solution to outsized gains due to housing scarcity is not to ban profiteering. It's to solve the housing scarcity problem.

Do not agree. Speak to any real estate agent and they will tell you that huge numbers of houses are being sold to foreign investors that then sit empty. There is zero point in building more houses if all the houses are just going to be sold to people with capital who don't even live in the country. You can build and build as much as you like but they will just snatch them up with above asking price offers fully in cash. First you have to ban people who don't live in a country for more than six months of the year from purchasing property. That in of itself might fix the problem. If it doesn't, then you need some kind of tax to make mass landlording an unprofitable business. If you don't, you just end up in the same situation where a few large companies with capital hoover up everything. You can't have an situation where a few giants effectively control everything with something as vital to survival as housing. There has to be appropriate regulation. An exponential tax on property ownership would be one such solution. And then finally, yes, build houses and ignore NIMBYs.