I'm not talking about a category of employment as in "delivery driver," I'm talking about a category of employment as in "jobs accessible to bottome 50% of people." If relative wages are declining in that category, it's hard to make a case for increased prosperity, unless you're just talking about the other half, or about increased work hours.
If relative wages are declining in that category, it's hard to make a case for increased prosperity...
I think you meant to say "if absolute wages are declining". Increased prosperity could easily make relative wages decline - the bottom might increase by 10%, while the top might increase by 20%.
But forget the bottom 50%, lets look at people below the poverty line. Even most people below the poverty line today have a house (with 2 rooms per person) and a car. And that house has all sorts of amenities that were uncommon even for the mid to upper classes in the 1970's.
The numbers suggest the lifestyle formerly characterized as "middle class" is now accessible to virtually every American. I.e., we have more now than ever before.
Anyone below the poverty line with a house is probably not paying for it themselves. If they're more likely to have houses now, it's probably because they're getting Section 8 now instead of apartments in the projects.
