I never said there was not an increase in compensation (vs. wages). I am saying that's not relevant to the economic picture of the American worker today vs 50

I never said there was not an increase in compensation (vs. wages). I am saying that's not relevant to the economic picture of the American worker today vs 50 years ago. To be perfectly clear: I don't care if "total compensation" has increased with productivity; what I care about is "Is the American worker better off today, in dollar terms, than they were in the 70s?" Again, I literally don't care what my employer spends its money on in this calculation, other than my paycheck, and discounts on things I would use anyway such as health insurance they pass along from bulk buying. So, you can't say, "well, if they didn't offer insurance, and instead passed along savings in your paycheck, then your income would increase." Yes, I still need to buy insurance, so only the discount I get from obtaining it via my employer is relevant -- my literal bottom line does not change. (Actually, my bottom line is worse in this scenario because I don't get the tax break, but let's just ignore that). And, if a benefit isn't something I would use (let's say a childcare allowance, if I don't have children), that also goes on the company balance sheet and could potentially increase my "total compensation," but literally does nothing for me, hence its value to me is $0. You seem to be talking past my point, which is that the American worker is getting screwed from all sides by stagnating wages and skyrocketing healthcare, housing, and education costs. In America, for most employees, those expenses come out of wages, so wages are what we ought to be concerned with.