Clearly. The 40-80% growth in real income for the bottom 50% has been terrible, in contrast to the 0-60% income growth achieved by the top 25%.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/01/...

2008 is 8 years ago right before that second dip. Clearly that chart is trying to sell you BS.

"From 1948 to 1979, productivity rose 108.1 percent, and hourly compensation increased 93.4 percent. From 1979 to 2013, productivity rose 64.9 percent, and hourly compensation rose 8.2 percent." http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-americas-pay/

Figure 3: (1979 - 2013) Top 1% up 138% Bottom 90% up 15%.

As far as I'm aware the World Bank doesn't collect this data very often. If you have more recent data feel free to post it.

The data you are citing is restricted to a slice of the top 20% of the world. Indians and Chinese (i.e. the bottom 50% or so) don't count?

Also note that you cite data on productivity for the economy as a whole, but hourly compensation only for "production and nonsupervisory workers". That's a weird comparison to make - what if the increase in productivity was caused primarily by people outside this narrow group?

I think I found the source of that chart. When we line up all individuals in the world, from the poorest to the richest. http://www.voxeu.org/article/global-income-distribution-1988

So, it says just about nothing about the US income distribution.

PS: I suspect that bump is basically China + India, and the Dip is the US/EU middle class. Yes, outsourcing and free trade is great for other people.

What tipped you off, the label on the X-axis?

It's not great for wealthy people who were enjoying economic rents by excluding desperately poor people from the global economy. So what? Do people earning $2,000/year (1/10 of what a poor American consumes) not count?

Helping the global poor is a great soundbite, but there are plenty of ways to do the same thing without harming the vast majority of Americans.

Of note the rich got a free ride while breaking the US middle class. That's actually bad for long term economic growth. It also entrenched and entrenched authoritarian governments around the world ex: China.

Improved per-worker productivity metrics down not mean workers are working harder. It means you can now Google something in 30 seconds instead of spending 2 hours at a library - and similar effects with other tasks.

The timers at grocery checkout does not 'aid' productivity. It sure does cause people to work harder. There are a lot of these computer based taskmasters out there for a huge range of jobs. Scheduling assistants very closely match number of workers with expected and observed demand. So, now every hour can be rush hour.

etc etc.

Either : "The timers at grocery checkout does not 'aid' productivity."

Or: "It sure does cause people to work harder."

Both of these sentences cannot be true at the same time.

/drove a checkout part time for 4 years a while back, proud of my scan rates. There is an art to it the mastery of which brings great satisfaction.

They mean different things. Productivity 'Aid' generally reduces effort required, such as google search or a nail gun. Playing music is a classic motivator that does not reduce effort.

PS: I am sure the company’s bottom line loved your metrics. But, again that’s just driving corporate profits not middle class incomes.