>Since it is economic fact rather than self-serving fiction [...]

You deride the weak justification for trickle down economics, then proceed to link wtfhappenedin1971.com, a site that tries to argue for the reintroduction of the gold standard through a gish-gallop of random charts?

▲

smallmancontrov 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The gap between productivity and wages is striking, isn't it?

I'm not perfectly aligned with gold bug politics. Their faith in the Kindleberger world is misplaced and their tax aversion can make them useful to my opponents, but at the same time they tend to take the Cantillon Pump and Balance of Payments mechanisms seriously while my traditional allies do not.

No, I don't mind borrowing their charts. Why? Do you have a better go-to link for The Wedge?

▲

gruez 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>The gap between productivity and wages is striking, isn't it?

It's not. The (in)famous epi.org is flawed for all sorts of reasons, from excluding noproduction/supervisory workers (the highest compensated ones!), to excluding non-wage compensation (eg. benefits), to different deflators for compensation vs productivity. If you adjust for all of that, the chart is unremarkable.

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/gr...

That incidentally, is the exact problem with the site. It presents a barrage of charts, without regard to relevance or rigor, and tries to persuade through sheer volume alone. Yet, if you scrutinize any of them, it quickly falls apart. That's probably why the site doesn't even bother justifying the charts, or even state the thesis, for that matter.

	▲	smallmancontrov an hour ago \| parent [-]
		This smells like the think-tank "CEO comp justifies worker underpayment" and "health care inflation is wages" arguments, I'll look into your source but I can't pretend to have high hopes. As for "gish gallop," right back atcha: those billionaire-funded think tanks firehose a lot of nonsense into the economic discourse (and curricula!)