A more apt comparison would be incomes vs. (GDP / size of labor force). Therefore GDP growth should always be higher than individual income if the size of the l

A more apt comparison would be incomes vs. (GDP / size of labor force). Therefore GDP growth should always be higher than individual income if the size of the labor population is growing. However, the article is more-so comparing how this number has changed over time, which should be even more accentuated if you make the population adjustment, since the population was growing faster in the baby boomer period. The article is just presenting data, but if you're interested in why this phenomenon exists, research Bretton Woods and US inflation figures over the 20th century to the present. Surprise: when you make your currency inflationary and wealth management becomes more complex than saving money in a mattress, those at the top will fare exponentially better than those at the bottom. Working class people shouldn't be forced to become "financially literate" to accumulate meaningful wealth (which is simply not realistic -- public market investing is game theory and some elements of it are zero-sum), but in today's society it's a prerequisite.