> That’s not magic or unexplainable. It’s explainable in very easy terms; humans are taking advantage of other humans.
I'd argue that the average employer is less exploitative today, and regardless, exploitation can't account for what happened pre-1970. Did a switch flip somewhere among all employers to make exploitation really strong starting in 1971? That isn't magic thinking?
> Economic theories are just another form of “god spoke to me, and said for every 10 widgets you produce, I own 9 to exploit for myself”.
Sorry, this is nonsense. Someone can have loads of valid complaints about economic theory, but "god spoke to me" is not one of them.
I have a theory: the policy changes since the early 70s have all been about shifting downside risk from a credentialed elite to the masses. When upside risk is decoupled from downside risk, and one group of people get to shift their downside risk to everyone else, then we should expect to see wages uncorrelated with productivity, an increase in inequality and less likelihood of upper middle-class and above to fall into poverty. We have observed all three. This tracks with an increase in the regulatory administrative state (especially decoupled from political accountability), the increase in university credentials as a sorting mechanism (and de facto insurance policy[0]) and the number of practicing attorneys[1].
None of this explanation comes "from god," but rather from data.
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/education/study-shows-col...
[1]https://associatesmind.com/2013/08/19/historical-growth-rate...