[andreaorru]

Thanks for sharing your perspective. I've read the entire article but it seems to discount the thesis that the technological revolution played a primary role.

It seems to me that like most macroeconomics issues, it's a multivariate phenomenon, so correlational studies can only get you so far.

Do you have books you would recommend on the subject?

[bildung]

The technology angle in the article is not quite what I meant. Alexander looked at how low-skill jobs and high-skill jobs developed, i.e. the new demand for high-skill jobs was not enough to get a higher share of the profits, but what I meant is that this also changed the landscape and structure of companies itself. The introduction of computers changed how companies organized themselves, enabled outsourcing etc. Companies before often were very vertically integrated, and the digitalization enabled organizations to spin off subdivisions into suppliers etc., which made it harder for unions to achieve higher wages. (A bit amusing that that went so far that vertical integration nowadays is all the rage again, with Tesla as the most vocal. We went full cycle after Ford started it 100 years ago :)

Sadly I can't seem to find the article anymore, but there was a publication by Robert Brenner that showed that the fundamental changes of the early 70s also affected Soviet Russia in quite similar ways.

Edit, sorry, forgot your literature question. I think the two important keywords are Fordism and Post-Fordism, as economic literature usually seems to use these terms to describe what changed before and after the early 70s. The Wikipedia article on Post-Fordism lists a few theory lines and their authors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Fordism