"Real hourly wages (your preferred metric)"
No, my preferred metric is non-adjusted, flat U.S. Dollar wages.
I entertain inflation-adjusted metrics simply to humor the inevitable Marxists who tromp onto Free Republic claiming that by this or that calculation we are "progressively impoverishing ourselves" each year.
And lets face it; that's what you want to prove. Each of you wants to somehow find some arcane calculation by which you can show that Americans get poorer and poorer each year.
You probably don't even realize that what you are trying to do is to promote and advance Marxism, but "Capitalists getting poorer each year" is *precisely* what Karl Marx claimed in Das Kapital.
Southack post #50
No, real wages in the U.S. have steadily increased even after inflation. Southack post #167 Did "real" U.S. wages go up or down?"
Then you affirmed your selection of hourly real wage data in:
Southack post #164 Yes, the point of contention was whether hourly *wages* had risen or fallen, after all. And your source shows an inflation-adjusted *gain* in U.S. wages.
And I asked you in my post #168 to be specific about "inflation adjusted wages" - to which you never replied.
But now I'm supposed to believe that unadjusted wages are your preferred metric.
Southack post #241 No, my preferred metric is non-adjusted, flat U.S. Dollar wages.
(those last would be called nominal or current dollar wages)
Regardless, you have no credibility at this point. Let's face it. You don't know what your position is or was. You've changed it repeatedly to deflect scrutiny of your weak argument.
Each of you wants to somehow find some arcane calculation by which you can show that Americans get poorer and poorer each year.
I'm using the same 'arcane' data you used, just graphed, no calculations.
You probably don't even realize that what you are trying to do is to promote and advance Marxism,
And now the Marxist straw-man argument. I accept your ad-hominem attack as your concesssion.