This seems like the money quote:

> the broad-based prosperity of the past was not the result of any automatic, guaranteed gains of technological progress… Most people around the globe today are better off than our ancestors because citizens and workers in earlier industrial societies organised, challenged elite-dominated choices about technology and work conditions, and forced ways of sharing the gains from technical improvements more equitably

But this is just the same point I've been making: If you have competitive markets, this is what happens naturally because customers will prefer to patronize businesses that share the gains of technological progress with customers and employees will prefer to work for the ones that share the gains of technological progress with workers. The ones that try to keep all the gains for themselves get outcompeted -- as long as there is competition.

The problem -- which they largely recognize -- is that if you don't have competition, which has been the case in many instances throughout history, the incumbents become abusive. But since this is only possible when they have insufficient competition, that is the problem we have to solve.