3 ms·

I don't get how that graph is compatible with this one: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gdp+per+capita+united+states+1970-2000 http://www.wolframalpha.com/

• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• taw 14y ago
  First, you want this one (inflation-adjusted): http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=real+gdp+per+capita+united+states+1970-2000 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=real+gdp+per+capita+uni... Second, women's participation in work force increased (data the article quotes is per worker-hour not per person). Third, hours worked per person increased (and quoted figure is per worker-hour not per person) Fourth, share of wage in compensation decreased drastically. Larger part of GDP goes into non-wage compensation (health insurance, retirement funds etc.), smaller part goes into wage. (and article quotes wages/hour not total compensation/hour). So far so good. Except that's only stagnation, not any drastic collapse. Fifth, the article lies outright and uses conspiracy theory inflation figures from shadowstats. You need to use the blue line on their graph (which shows stagnation is hourly earnings - that much is true), not conspiracy theory green line.