This is somewhat embarrassing. If GDP is calculated correctly, it should correspond to mean income levels It doesn't! https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014

This is somewhat embarrassing. If GDP is calculated correctly, it should correspond to mean income levels It doesn't! https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/12/why-gdp-is-not-an-accurate-measure-of-economic-growth/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/12/why-gdp-is-not-an-acc... the growth in average personal consumption, which has risen about 950% since 1950, clearly indicating that Americans today have far more disposable income than in the past. Or it means they have less savings! https://www.statista.com/statistics/246268/personal-savings-rate-in-the-united-states-by-month/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/246268/personal-savings-... note the spike where covid relief matches the dip in expenditure. data sources oftentimes only include people's after-tax take-home pay, after deducting worker benefits like health insurance. When you try to include these benefits, the growth in real income has been much larger than these statistics generally show. Of course, because healthcare costs have gone completely insane, so providing ANY in total comp can make anyone look rich! https://img.datawrapper.de/UxUUj/full.png https://img.datawrapper.de/UxUUj/full.png Then we're treated to "don't worry, old people will die," "college and healthcare are like jewelry," "everything is fine because old people are buying multiple houses," a truly bizarre assertion that home prices have gone up because new houses are bigger, completely failing to explain why older, smaller house prices have risen at a faster rate, everything is fine because the millenials are in ten percent less debt than GenX, and then we throw out the Gini coefficient because taxes are satisfactory wealth redistribution. The confidence with which bizarre, stridently incorrect conclusions are drawn from single charts is breathtaking. I predict a rapid growth in subscriber count for this newsletter.