You're viewing part of a thread.
You're trying to ignore the peak by choosing arbitrary time periods and pretending like they happened in the past so we can ignore them. Like somehow going from 1994 -> 2024 is valid, but going from 1973 -> 2019 is invalid because it's in an arbitrarily different slot.
It's not arbitrary to use the peak and compare that to modern data. The reason being it allows the assessment of what real spending power the median worker had at their best in the last 60 years, and highlights how that wage growth was taken away to such an extent that it took half a century of scraps just to get back to the same spot.
It's not like something physically happened in the world that reduced total access to capital or wealth and it took society 60 years to rebuild, it's just the contradictions of capitalism taking real aggregate spending ability away from workers to massively inflate profits, as the data you've provided showcases so clearly.
The opposite happened, Japan started producing more goods in the 70s and women entered the workforce in the 80s.
1973 was just peak male American worker
That data doesn't exclude people based on sex, there are women in my family that had jobs in 1973. They were included in the data you sent.
Japan didn't destroy the global economy to such an extent that it took 60 years to recover. Neither did an increase in the number of women working. But even if we took your fantasy views as undeniable fact, it's still absolutely ridiculous that having more goods and more workers in a capitalist system would destroy the American economy to such an extent that it took literally half a century to recover.
In reality, it was simply heightened profit extraction. Stock buybacks were brought back, taxes were lowered for the wealthy and corporations, and so these companies had massively increased access to capital, and could use said capital to artificially inflate the value of their own stock instead of investing in the company (e.g via jobs, desaturating the labor market and increasing the value of labor).
You seem to think workers got shafted because something bad happened to the world economy. It's the opposite, rising Asian economies pulled billions of people out of poverty and they competed with the American worker. It's because the world economies caught up that the average worker had to get more education to keep up
Did you read my message? I literally said workers got shafted despite nothing bad happening to the world. That's precisely the problem.
It's fine for the economy to decline in response to negative material realities, e.g a hurricane wiping out a city, the local economy being a reflection of that physical tragedy makes sense, in some regard.
The problem is we took half a century to recover from literally nothing devastating on a materialist level, it was specifically regulations being laxed and allowing the natural tendencies of capitalism to flourish. This was always the goal of capitalists, they just emitted enough propaganda and exerted enough influence to finally get what they want. Having a class constantly trying to extract as much from workers as possible, and literally succeeding for so long, is a problem that needs to be solved. That class needs to be eradicated.
The money went to foreign workers and decreasing the be female wage gap. It's not like there wasn't a reason for it