> number is meaningless unless compared to productivity
No, it's not. Productivity adds a dimension to the question: it tells us the pie got bigger without more ingredients. But that isn't relevant to the absolute size of one's slice. Real wages are meaningful without preference to productivity.
> wages have comparatively been flat since the 1970s
Flat isn't falling. Taking into account benefits, per your Pew article [1], they're up. (Barely.)
The real economy grew in that time, and the rich got richer with it. That's a problem. But it's not a problem of falling real wages.
If wages stay flat and capital makes gains, then in the most true general sense wage-earners are earning less of a % than before. Also what’s the story with purchasing power which seems to be way down.
I think those are much more important to highlight and less pedantic.
> in the most true general sense wage-earners are earning less of a % than before
Yes. The fraction of GDP paid out to labour has fallen. This is a problem. But it's a problem of dividing gains, not of anyone being materially worse off than they were before.
> what’s the story with purchasing power which seems to be way down
It's not. It's flat to slightly up over the last half century. That's what real wage measures: the real purchasing power of the median earner's wage.
But there are tricks there aren't there? I'd want to look at home and car purchasing power, education, healthcare. If it's bundling in some tricks around technology as I've seen, it's very misleading IMO. And also the bundling of weird home tricks like nicer technology in the home is another misleading factor. Ultimately I think people are happiest with sq foot and location. From what I've seen a single wage earner in the 50s was far wealthier than even double wage of equivalent prestige jobs today, I don't really think a bigger and brighter TV even begins to touch the happiness achieved by having your family in a bigger house.
No, it's not. Productivity adds a dimension to the question: it tells us the pie got bigger without more ingredients. But that isn't relevant to the absolute size of one's slice. Real wages are meaningful without preference to productivity.
> wages have comparatively been flat since the 1970s
Flat isn't falling. Taking into account benefits, per your Pew article [1], they're up. (Barely.)
The real economy grew in that time, and the rich got richer with it. That's a problem. But it's not a problem of falling real wages.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...