This article is badly reasoned. Here are some bad statistical sleight of hands it engages in: 1. He claims “Prime age” (25-54) participation is at an all time

This article is badly reasoned. Here are some bad statistical sleight of hands it engages in: 1. He claims “Prime age” (25-54) participation is at an all time high. It is, but overall labor force participation is at a 40 year low. 2. Median income has risen in the past 4 years than at an point since the 90s. This is such a cherry picked stat, I don’t even... How about this, real wage growth has barely moved since the 70s (source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...) 3. Companies that invest in IT experienced hiring growth. Sure, but we’re talking about the entire labor supply not individual company success. Success at one company often comes at the expense of failure at another (a competitor who is made irrelevant, etc). 4. Productivity gains. This is getting insanely hard to measure, as others have pointed out, but it also seems to be a straight lie. Productivity has increased since 2010, so I can’t make out what he’s saying there. Also, why narrow the timeline to 2010? Brief periods of stagnation often occur within larger trends. Like productivity. This is just another “head in the sand” think piece, by someone who is part of a group of people that are desperate to convince everyone that this economy is actually working fine. Well the labor market hasn’t really recovered since the last recession, so this wish fulfillment is just wrong. Manufacturing increased productivity and profit over the last decade while employing net fewer people. That is the first time in human history that that has ever happened. We need to take it very seriously.