gdp per capita is not a good proxy for wages.

Labor share of GDP went from 64% in 1950 to 58% today. That means wages grew slightly slower than GDP per capita, that’s certainly not enough to mean wages grew sub-exponentially.

For wages to grow linearly, labor share of GDP would have to fall exponentially towards zero.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2017/article/estimating-the-us-...

Analyses like this show why we need to teach statistics in place of calculus in high school.

not really. the key mistake here is treating gdp is a proxy for wages when there is no direct connection between the two. in a pathological case, you could have a $1T GDP and have zero wages paid. the question of whether mean or median figures are more appropriate when talking about wages (what I assume you are alluding to with your statistics quip) is a side issue. no amount of statistics knowledge will help someone who insists on comparing apples to oranges.