Comment by eru

> The primary thing that matters with indexed values is self consistency - their values are independent. The primary reason that these values are drifting is because median wages are in no way whatsoever keeping up with GDP growth. You yourself just, perhaps inadvertently, demonstrated such with the labor share of GDP graph.

> The reason that graph is so stable is because labor compensation includes all forms of compensation for all 'workers'. So for instance Elon hitting his milestones will result in direct stock compensation in the ballpark of $1 trillion - those 22 million years of median income (not even wages) are then counted as 'labor compensation.' That's obviously an extreme example, but there are countless smaller scale examples that collectively distort the figure even more than Elon.

> This is a big part of the reason why I think lifestyle descriptions are so much more useful than numbers. The stories of the boomer generation sound like fairy tales now a days - somebody putting themselves through college, buying the first car, and even having enough squirreled away for the down payment on their first house - all on the back of a part time job that didn't even require a college degree. It sounds impossible, but you can indeed work out the math from wage and cost data at the time (okay kind of backtracking on the numbers don't matter aren't I?). It's real. But the fact it sounds impossible goes a long way towards demonstrating the soundness of the data I've shown.

If you use price levels measures that grow at different rates, indexing to set them equal at one point in time doesn't save you.

You are weakening your own point by screwing up the stats: even after we correct for the difference in inflation measures, there _is_ a widening gap between mean and median worker income. (Where, yes, worker includes Elon Musk as CEO of Tesla.)

> This is a big part of the reason why I think lifestyle descriptions are so much more useful than numbers. The stories of the boomer generation sound like fairy tales now a days - somebody putting themselves through college, buying the first car, and even having enough squirreled away for the down payment on their first house - all on the back of a part time job that didn't even require a college degree.

Well, see Caplan's Case Against Education (https://www.amazon.sg/Case-against-Education-System-Waste/dp...).

Of course, the kind of crappy cars that boomers were driving aren't legal to buy anymore. Their houses were also much smaller, etc. It's a separate discussion of whether we should legalise crappy cars and small houses again. (I'm against the former but in favour of the latter.)

You'd want to correct for these quality differences to make your point stronger.

Also keep in mind that the boomer's "Golden Age" was the pinnacle of inequality. In the decades since, inequality has drastically shrunken. Mostly thanks to people in India and China moving from dirt poor and starving to merely poor (for India) and medium income (for China).

I would not want to go back to that supposed Golden Age, just because super-rich Americans were slightly less well off comparatively than today. Median and average Americans are still better off in absolute terms; and approximately everyone else on the globe is massively better off in absolute terms today.