How do you square these “growing wages” against the zeitgeist which says more and more people are living hand-to-mouth? At what point do these statistics get tossed out because they have little to no bearing on the lived experience of the great mass of people? At what point does one acknowledge that these statistics seem like they’re compiled simply to muddy the waters to make reality seem different than it is?

Famously, one can spin statistics any way they wish. Prove to us this isn’t the case here.

> How do you square these “growing wages” against the zeitgeist which says more and more people are living hand-to-mouth?

Both can be true if the distribution has changed, which seems to be the case:

"Over the last four decades, the income gap between more- and less-educated workers has grown significantly; the study finds that automation accounts for more than half of that increase."

https://news.mit.edu/2022/automation-drives-income-inequalit...

Additionally, necessities like food and fuel seem to have jumped in price, outpacing wage growth over the past few years, while other important goods and services (housing, health care, higher education) have outpaced inflation for decades.

>That's a seductive narrative, but not backed up by data. The share of GDP that goes to labor is has held relatively stable in the past few decades

If you click that "max" button on your graph it does not show a stable share.

Appeal to status quo is seductive for those who are generally comfortable though, I get it.

>But inflation-adjusted wages isn't negative or even flat, it has grown?

Looks pretty flat to me:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/185369/median-hourly-ear...

If they weighted nondiscretionary housing, education and healthcare in the inflation basket properly and de-emphasized discretionary electronics and clothes I doubt it would even be flat.