I think Paul Krugman is currently circling around some interesting territory with his concept of "capital-biased technology", but contrary to the title, I don't think the data presented in this article - on the share of GDP going to labour - really has much to do with that.

Unless he's arguing that recessions are correlated with rapid technological change, a more or less conventional shock doctrine explanation serves much better: At times of crisis dish out austerity to the poor, and fiscal stimulous (or "money", as it's sometimes known) to the rich, with predicatable consequences. Then as the general economy improves, labour's share of GDP recovers somewhat, though not to previousl levels, and repeat the process when the next crisis hits. In fact, it also seems from this distance that some of the sharp drops fit very well with other public policy initiatives such as the "Reagan revolution" and the Bush tax cuts.

While I don't think it's the primary cause, I don't doubt that the long term trend is to some degree a consequence of technological change, in so far as new technological developments favour the interests of capital over labour. Since it is overwhelmingly capital that controls the allocation of resources to research and development, it's hard to imagine how the inverse might come to pass. And Krugman's prescription - to maintain the level of social spending at something like it's current rate by funding programs through something other than taxes on labour, perhaps even (gasp!) new taxes on capital - is perfectly sensible. (Though how he squares this with his advocacy elsewhere of a consumption tax, I don't know.)

A more fundamental solution to this trend would be to fund research and development in the public interest, perhaps through government agencies incorporated for that purpose. I recall Australia used to have one of those, before it was turned into a primarily commercial entity and patent troll.