I agree with the rebuttal that the site seems to conflate economical developments with changes to social norms without any reasonable connection. E.g. apart fr

I agree with the rebuttal that the site seems to conflate economical developments with changes to social norms without any reasonable connection. E.g. apart from the end of Bretton Woods, the beginning of the 70s also had the ongoing civil rights movement and the protests against the Vietnam war, both events that caused large-scale change of social norms. ...but I also had to stop reading the rebuttal when he got to the wage growth chart: He argues that inequality was rising (no objection) which causes the average income, pulled up by a small number of extremely high earners, to be overestimated vs the median income (no objection), which means... we should ditch the median and rely only on the average (wtf). Because I guess then the wage stagnation doesn't look as striking as it does otherwise? It also doesn't debunk the "what happened in 1971?" question: If he doesn't want to talk about wage growth, fine, let's talk about inequality. Why did that increase so much after 1971 then that it starts to affect other statistics?