>>You mean the adjustment from the post-war period of 1945-1975? Just like the one you referenced from 1870-1900? I just explained that the 1945-1975 period wa

>>You mean the adjustment from the post-war period of 1945-1975? Just like the one you referenced from 1870-1900? I just explained that the 1945-1975 period was not the same as the 1870-1900 period. The latter was associated with massive gains in the market position of US industry. The former was associated with the degradation of the market position of major US industrial firms, making those wage gains unsustainable. >>The post-war boom in wages here, that you can see many times in history, occurs due to demographics. Why would demographics cause the post-war boom? I see you reference death ("they're in fact dead"), which I take to mean you are implying that WW2 caused a large enough decline in the working age population so as to explain the large post-war wage gains, but 420,000 military deaths out of a total US population of 139 million in 1945, cannot explain the magnitude of wage growth in the post-war period. >>And what does this deadweight loss thing mean exactly... coming from someone who studied economics? This is the Wikipedia page defining the term if you're unfamiliar with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss It's a basic economics term, and has nothing to do with "casual libertarian groupthink". Maybe you should assume good faith and debate on the merits of the arguments, instead of caricaturing me as a member of some group of libertarians "who got rich and conveniently stop believing in society". These kinds of comments are NOT grounded.