My understanding is that GDP or Piketty's review has no column for "Power".
If someone is counting influence as GDP and worker productivity, I would say that is a faulty measure, and worker productivity has not increased.
The "product" that the increased productivity buys is control over policy at whatever level of government, not more washing machines or tires.
If you have a company and worker productivity goes up 200%, where does the product go? Wealth created selling that product may go to the owner, and carry power with it, but that doesn't answer the fundamental question. Where is the product?
In a mature industry, there is no new product, because all else equal, the company makes the same amount of product and sells it on the market with fewer workers (aka layoffs).
Even in an industry serving growing demand, increase in worker productivity is not the cause of increase demand for product produced by that industry. Any growing enterprise knows it's more important to focus on demand than increasing productivity, usually by hiring workers at the lowest cost possible. Otherwise, your competitor will serve your customers needs before you do.
What increases demand for products is technological innovation plus a need/desire for more personal convenience, comfort, and above all: time, coupled with the funds to purchase those held by a growing customer population. Why have most companies have staked their future profits on the developing world's demand growth? Because the developing world has the desire for all of the above plus a growing population.
The question of where the new product goes has nothing to do with the question of worker productivity unless the workers have the funds to purchase those products. The product goes where the purchasing power is.
Capital's share of the return, however, goes into assets and as I described earlier, power. It doesn't go into purchasing any increase in product created.
That is my exact question, who is purchasing the goods? we have high employment and have supposedly high productivity. We dont have massive national export surplus. You say capital isn't purchasing the goods, so what gives?
Where is the black hole that is consuming all of the goods, if the workers dont get them, the rich dont get them, and they aren't exported.
Take new cars as an example. We are producing fewer of them [1], they are larger and more expensive, and they are mostly being sold to wealthier people. So yes in this case, capital owners (people more likely to have more wealth) are the ones purchasing the product.
Also, for a while we have been shifting towards a services based economy, so for a lot of this production growth, you won't see physical products. For example, you can't see the software IDE subscription I signed up for yesterday.
We also don't have a national export surplus because we import so many goods that are not worthwhile to manufacture here, while we export a ton of services, petroleum, and other raw extracted materials, all industries that scale with technology/capital/machinery and not labor.
I didn't say 100%, I said most (have a look upthread). Please don't misrepresent my words. I choose them carefully.
Greater productivity does not automatically equal a commensurate increase in products/services delivered, which seems to be the assumption you are unable to see past.
Here is a scenario.
A company makes 1M units of a product at a cost of $1/unit, and sells them for $1.50/unit. Profit/unit is $.50.
Productivity doubles, so the same million units can now be produced for $.50/unit. When sold for $1.50, profit is now $1/unit.
The $.50/unit increase in profit goes mostly to shareholders.
There are no new products, no new services.
In reality, demand varies over time, so product output varies with that, but the gains in profit mostly have gone to shareholders.
The only time they ever go to labor is when labor is in short supply or when labor organizes to demand a larger share.
Power.
Political power: policies written to benefit the highest bidder.
Financial power: more leverage in being able to dictate terms of borrowing by workers - and being able to force the government to borrow from capitalists instead of levying taxes on them.
Physical power: Being able to buy/influence law enforcement (themselves a type of worker) to protect the capitalist's interests over those of other workers.