A company can also be plenty healthy, but also do its very best to keep its wages down and its per-share profits inversely higher. On a case-by-case basis, that is likely a healthy company, but it is one that is part of a system that has kept wages from increasing with productivity. As CD notes about the median wage chart, that's the median--it isn't controlling for the differences in wage growth for various different earning groups. Particularly, the top 5% and top 1% have done extraordinarily well for the last forty years, while earners in the middle have not. And that's just in wages adjusted for inflation. If you look at wages vs. productivity, the middle has done much worse, i.e., productivity per earner has far outpaced wage growth. That, of course, fuels corporate profits (more productivity without more cost equals more profit), which--again--is good for the shareholder (although most Americans own some stock, more than 80% of stock is held by the top 10%).
What this means for our economy and our democracy are interesting questions that are probably not well suited to this forum. :-)
