It is well documented that worker share of the income produced by productivity has fallen from what it was since at least the 1980s. This is a result of union busting, increased non-union service sector, and part time employment. Productivity per worker has increased the entire time, yet they see less of the benefit. So who gets this benefit? The corporation. Exploded CEO pay levels, corporate board benefits and those more invested in the financial sector. Why should all these folks reap the benefits or worker increased productivity? This isn’t a decision made by nature- it is decided by some people and it affects others who have no power to offset these decisions.

You are repeating the same circular claptrap which claims the “market" or “free market" is some natural system as if it were part of nature. It is NOT. To truly put it in frame, you should call it the “political economy" , not just economy and not just markets. The well connected, powerful etc skew the system by influence of legislation and sit back and say “hey its legal, that’s the system.”

MMT is NOT Marxism. It is disingenuous of you to use red-scare bb.s.and try to frame the subject rather than deal with a new understanding of the field of economics. Similar attacks were made on Keynesian economics when it was espoused.

Under your system, workers have no clout and business has all the clout. Even when there is a labor shortage they will hold down wages. This was well documented in Grand Rapids and west Michigan in the 1990s and early 2000s.