Your graph shows a wage increase as well. So does the original source which your article cites (2 links deep).

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_displa...

The key graph: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/07-09/figure2.jpg

I take it we are in agreement?

It shows a wage increase for women, but a wage decline for men by 17% over 30 years.

yes, CEOs got huge wage increases, the bottom half was flat. That's how averages work. If Bill Gates walks into a homeless shelter the average net worth of the 10 homeless people and billyG is over a billion!

Did you even look at the graph that you posted? It shows an increase in median wages, not mean wages. Bill Gates walking into a homeless shelter does not affect the median wage. The article it is based on also shows an increase in compensation even at the lower percentiles. From the article:

"Wage growth rates at the 10th and 20th percentiles were only slightly below the median growth rates, increasing by 17 percent and 18 percent, respectively."

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_displa...

Your link makes my point for me.

"As noted, some economists have argued that relatively large wage gains at the top end of the wage distribution drove the increase in average wages, while median wages grew little if at all. I have shown that, in fact, median wages increased appreciably since 1975—by 28 percent—once benefits were included"

When he says that median wages increased, he is including the insane amount healthcare costs have risen. He is counting what employers pay for health insurance as compensation for workers. This makes sense on some level, but it also makes it clear that the take home money of average workers has stagnated while it has sky rocketed for the super rich. The fact that employers are paying more for healthcare (and we are paying more for it too) is not a sign that things have improved for average workers, in fact it's a sign of the opposite.