If you did, why would a company hire you? The idea is the employee must create more value than he costs. And the employee gets more pay than his labor is worth to himself.
That's why it's a win-win relationship.
Productivity has increased and wages have not.
But there is a huge risk the software will never make money. Billions have been spent on failed software, the employees got to cash out and not care. So you trade risk for reward.
In any case, neglecting the value of employee benefits makes comparing salary to productivity a completely worthless statistic. What needs to be included are the values of:
1. health insurance
2. retirement benefits
3. stock options
4. so-called employer contributions
5. all payroll taxes
6. 401k employer contributions
7. stock purchase plans
8. sick leave
9. vacation
10. severance pay
11. bonuses
12. profit sharing
These can add up to 50% more than the salary.
Don't overlook that the primary customer of the WSJ is not conservatives, but businessmen who are looking for accurate business information that will help them make money. If the WSJ just delivered pro-business propaganda, that would not serve their customers' needs.
I subscribed to the NYT for a while, and finally gave it up. Their business news was all propaganda, and of little use for things like picking a good company to buy stock in.