r > g
There’s a number that came out in January 2026 that should have been on every front page in the world. It wasn’t.
Bloomberg reported that the share of US GDP flowing to workers — wages, salaries, benefits — dropped to its lowest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started tracking it in 1947. Not during a recession. Not during a crisis. During a period of record corporate profitability, all-time stock market highs, and unemployment still under 5%.
The same week, Oxfam published its annual inequality report. Global billionaire wealth crossed $18.3 trillion. Up 16% in a single year. Three times faster than the five-year average. The number of billionaires passed 3,000 for the first time. Elon Musk became the first person in history to hold more than half a trillion dollars in personal wealth. The 12 richest people on the planet now control more than what the poorest 4.1 billion own combined.
Read those two data points together. Workers’ share of national output: record low. Billionaire wealth: record high. Same economy. Same year.
These are not coincidences. They are the same phenomenon measured from two different angles.
And what I’m going to lay out in this edition is why this isn’t a political observation, a complaint, or a prediction of doom — it’s an investment thesis. The most important one I’ve ever written. The one that dictates everything we do at Macro Notes.
For most of the 20th century, economists treated the split between labor and capital as roughly constant. Workers took home about 64% of national output in the US. Capital owners — shareholders, landlords, bondholders — took the rest. The ratio held from the end of World War II through the Carter administration. It was considered so stable that Nicholas Kaldor called it a “stylized fact” of modern economics — one of those things you just assume is true and build your models around.
Then it started to erode.
By 2000, the US labor share had fallen to about 57%. McKinsey documented the decline across 35 advanced economies: from 54% in 1980 to 50.5% in 2014. And this wasn’t an American phenomenon. It showed up simultaneously in France, Germany, Japan, Korea, China, India, Mexico — 13 of the 16 largest economies on Earth. The St. Louis Fed, the BLS, the IMF — everyone was tracking the same downward curve.
The usual explanations covered part of it. Globalization let companies offshore labor-intensive production to cheaper markets. The decline of unions reduced workers’ bargaining power. Automation in manufacturing replaced assembly-line jobs with machines.
But all of these explanations missed the deeper structural force. The one that Thomas Piketty spent 15 years documenting.
Piketty assembled 200 years of tax records across 20 countries and demonstrated something that classical economics had been quietly ignoring: the return on capital — dividends, interest, rents, profits — has historically averaged 4% to 5% per year. Economic growth has averaged 1% to 2%.
The gap — r > g — is not an anomaly. It is the default state of capitalism. It means that money invested in productive assets compounds faster than the economy grows. Which means faster than wages grow. Which means that over any sufficiently long time horizon, the owners of capital pull away from the earners of wages.
The only period in modern history where this dynamic reversed was 1914–1975. Two world wars physically destroyed capital stocks across Europe. The Great Depression wiped out financial wealth. Governments imposed confiscatory taxation — top marginal rates above 90% in the US, 98% in the UK. Inflation ate into savings. The result was a historically unique compression of inequality.
Piketty’s essential insight — and the one that matters for your portfolio — is that this egalitarian period was the exception. Not the rule. The return to historical norms was always the default trajectory. And a 2025 study analyzing 16 developed countries from 1870 to 2020 confirmed it empirically: each percentage point increase in the r−g gap was associated with a 3.7% increase in the wealth share of the top 1%.
What Piketty could not have predicted when he published Capital in 2013 was the speed at which a new technology would amplify this gap.
Between 2020 and 2025, billionaire wealth increased by 81%.
The accelerant has a name.
AI Is Piketty on Fast-Forward
Two days ago — April 2, 2026 — The New York Times profiled a guy named Matthew Gallagher. He launched a telehealth startup called Medvi from his living room in Los Angeles. His startup capital: $20,000. His tools: ChatGPT for code, Midjourney for ads, ElevenLabs for customer service, Claude for analysis. His full-time staff: his brother.
Medvi posted $401 million in revenue in its first year. It’s tracking toward $1.8 billion in 2026 revenue. Net profit margin: 16.2%.
For context, Hims & Hers — the closest public comp — did $2.4 billion with 2,442 employees and a 5.5% net margin. Gallagher runs nearly triple that margin with two people.
Sam Altman has been running a betting pool in his CEO group chat on when the first one-person billion-dollar company would emerge. Dario Amodei gave it 70–80% odds for 2026. It happened before the end of Q1.
The Compression of Labor in Value Creation
WhatsApp at $19B acquisition: 55 employees Instagram at $1B acquisition: 13 employees Medvi at $1.8B run rate (2026): 2 employees Solo-founded startups (2025, Carta): 36.3% of all new ventures
Sit with those numbers for a second. In 2012, it took 13 people to build a billion-dollar company. In 2026, it takes two. And Carta data shows that more than a third of all new startups are now solo-founded.
This is not an anecdote. This is a structural shift in how economic value gets created and — more importantly — who captures it.
The logic unfolds in three layers. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
Layer 1: Labor Is Being Structurally Deflated
Microsoft’s 2025 internal data identified 5 million white-collar jobs facing direct automation: management analysts, customer service reps, sales engineers. When a $120,000-a-year manager competes with a $20/month AI subscription, the pricing power of human labor collapses. Not overnight. Not in every role. But persistently and directionally.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas confirmed it in February 2026: AI is simultaneously augmenting some workers and replacing others, but the aggregate trajectory points toward labor share compression. Venture capital firms like Exceptional Capital and Sapphire Ventures have publicly predicted that 2026 corporate budgets will shift spending directly from headcount to AI infrastructure.
Meta made it explicit in March 2026: 16,000 layoffs tied directly to a $600 billion AI capex plan. Revenue growing. Employment shrinking. Profits flowing to shareholders.
This is the pattern. Revenue up, headcount down, margins to capital. And it will repeat across every sector.
Layer 2: Capital Productivity Is Being Structurally Inflated
If one person with AI tools can generate $400 million in revenue, the return on deployed capital explodes. The economics of a business where revenue scales without proportional headcount are radically different from anything classical economics modeled.
US GDP in 2026 is growing because $660 billion is flowing into AI data centers, chips, and cloud infrastructure. That capital creates demand for steel, copper, concrete, semiconductors, and construction labor. It does not create demand for middle-management salaries.
Corporate profits are rising while employment stagnates. Economists call it “jobless growth.” I call it the preview of the next 20 years.
Layer 3: The Ownership Premium Is Compounding Exponentially
The S&P 500 has returned approximately 10.4% annually over the last 100 years with dividends reinvested. Adjusted for inflation, 7.3%. US real wages over the same period grew at about 1–2% per year.
A dollar deployed in capital markets has historically compounded 4–5x faster than a dollar earned through labor.
Berkshire Hathaway turned $100 into $6.1 million over 60 years. The S&P 500 turned the same $100 into $45,500. The average worker’s equivalent — career earnings channeled into consumption — turned it into a retirement gap.
Capital vs. Labor — The Numbers
S&P 500, 100-Year Annualized Return: ~10.4% S&P 500, Inflation-Adjusted: ~7.3% US Real Wage Growth (Historical Avg): ~1–2% Piketty’s r (Historical Average): 4–5% Piketty’s g (Historical Average): 1–2% Global Billionaire Wealth Growth (2025): +16% in one year
In the AI era, this ratio is widening. r is increasing — capital is becoming radically more productive. Labor income growth is compressing. The spread between owning and earning is expanding at a pace that compresses a century of historical drift into a single decade.
This Is Not a Pessimistic Thesis
I want to be precise about what I’m saying — and what I’m not saying.
I’m not saying work is worthless. I’m not saying employment is dead. Entrepreneurship, specialized expertise, and creative labor will continue to produce enormous value. The Gallagher story itself proves that a single founder with the right vision can build extraordinary things.
But the proportion of total economic output captured by labor is declining structurally. And the proportion captured by owners of capital — especially owners of the infrastructure, platforms, data, and energy systems that power the AI economy — is increasing structurally.
Piketty’s prescription was political: a global wealth tax to redistribute capital income. He was writing as an economist speaking to governments.
My prescription is different. I’m writing to you.
Learn to allocate capital. Because the economy of the next 30 years will be defined by those who understand where value is created and destroyed — and who deploy capital on the right side of that equation before the crowd arrives.
That’s not “invest in AI stocks.” That’s not “buy the dip.” It’s something more fundamental. The structural relationship between labor and capital is shifting permanently. The rational response is to develop the skills, the frameworks, and the analytical infrastructure to invest intelligently — across public markets, private equity, venture capital, and alternative assets.
That is the thesis behind everything I publish at Macro Notes.
What’s Coming: Three Revolutions, One Direction
Between now and 2040, three converging forces will deepen the structural advantage of capital over labor. Each one is already underway.
Cognitive automation. AI is not replacing muscles — it’s replacing judgment. Management analysts, financial advisors, legal researchers, software engineers, marketing strategists. BCG’s April 2026 research across 1,500 occupational roles and 165 million US jobs estimates that the majority won’t be eliminated — they’ll be reshaped. Fewer people needed for the same output. The economic value of individual human cognition is being repriced downward in real time. Companies that deploy AI successfully will see margins expand while headcount contracts. This pattern is already established.
Physical automation. Humanoid robotics, autonomous vehicles, drone logistics. NVIDIA runs 100 AI agents per human employee internally as of GTC 2026. When Jensen Huang tells you his own company operates at that ratio, the rest of the corporate world restructures. The companies that build, deploy, and maintain physical automation become the tollbooths of the real economy. Warehousing, construction, food service, healthcare delivery — every “safe from software” category gets repriced.
Abundant energy. AI data centers are consuming power at rates that reshape the grid. The demand for baseload electricity — nuclear, natural gas, next-gen geothermal — is creating a new class of essential infrastructure assets. Energy is the substrate of the AI economy. Without it, nothing computes. The companies that own power generation, transmission, and storage sit at the foundational layer beneath every AI application on Earth.
The convergence creates an economy where value creation is increasingly automatic. Thousands of startups will be born each month. Most will fail. The ones that succeed will generate returns that flow almost entirely to the capital that funded them and the infrastructure that enabled them.
This is the economy of abundance. Not abundance of wages. Abundance of output. And the distinction — who captures that output — is the investment question of the next two decades.
Why This Changes How You Should Read Macro Notes
Every article I publish, every thesis I track, every ticker I analyze — it connects back to this structural framework. The 100 investment theses we maintain across energy, defense, biotech, AI infrastructure, robotics, emerging markets, commodities, fintech, space, and advanced manufacturing are not random stock picks. They are positions on a map of where value is migrating in a world where capital compounds faster than labor income — and where AI is accelerating the divergence.
When I write about European defense suppliers, I’m writing about a sector where geopolitical necessity is forcing capital deployment into physical infrastructure at rates not seen since the Cold War. When I cover nuclear energy and HALEU supply chains, I’m writing about the energy substrate without which the AI economy doesn’t function. When I analyze space sector equities or critical materials like copper and rare earths, I’m mapping the physical bottlenecks where capital must flow and where pricing power concentrates.
This is not reactive commentary. It is thesis-driven research. We track these theses over time. We update conviction when data changes. We admit when we’re wrong.
The old promise was simple: work hard, save, retire comfortably. That promise is being renegotiated by forces larger than any individual, any company, or any government. The new reality is: understand capital, allocate it intelligently, and let the structural forces of the 21st-century economy work for you instead of against you.
That’s what I’ve spent the last three years building Macro Notes to help you do.
And it’s why the best research we produce — the thesis breakdowns with verified tickers, the entry zones, the scenario analysis, the risk matrices, the Playbook, the Index, the Thesis Board — is behind our Premium section.
Because in a world where capital wins, the quality of your investment research is not a luxury. It is the single highest-leverage decision you make.
“Wealth no longer belongs to those who work the hardest. It belongs to those who understand where value is created — and deploy capital there before everyone else.”
Sponsor Macro Notes
PS: If you want to get your brand in front of 64,000 active investors, sponsoring my newsletter is now possible! The pricing is simple: $100 CPM, which means between $2,000 and $2,500 per placement based on an average 35% open rate. However, for your first placement, there is a special launch offer with a fixed maximum rate of $1,500. Contact sponsorships@altis.news to learn more and reserve your spot.
April reservations are filling up quickly, and there are only two placements per week (as I don’t want to overwhelm readers with ads). If your product is a good fit and could interest our audience, I would be delighted to collaborate.
Macro Notes Premium — Built for Capital Allocators
If this thesis resonates with you, Premium is where the work gets done.
The Playbook — Our methodology for identifying invisible monopolies: companies with 70%+ market share in essential B2B niches, structurally mispriced by a market focused on headline names. Every thesis, verified tickers, entry zones, and scenario analysis.
The Index — Real-time performance tracking of the Macro Notes thesis framework against the S&P 500. Full transparency on what’s working and what isn’t.
The Thesis Board — 100 active investment theses mapped across 10 sectors. Current conviction levels. Specific triggers that would change our assessment.
The Predictions — Public, dated, specific. We put our analysis on record so you can judge us by results, not rhetoric.
The Weekly Signal — Premium deep-dive published every week. One thesis. Full breakdown. Actionable.
The Community — Direct access to the research process and the network of investors building alongside us.
Early lock-in pricing: $150/ first-year (rising to $300 once we close the founding cohort).