[nickff]

We have a lot to show for our increased productivity, though the 'things' may not be what you care about. Fancy televisions, nice food, great cars, and a lot more travel are the current 'mindset'. If you think people should be happy with less, you shoud try to convince them; if that fails, you can also lead a less consumption-driven lifestyle on your own!

Why do you want to force me to follow your priorities?

[aahhahahaaa]

This is false. I do not understand how so many people are coming in here peddling this theory with 0 sources. It doesn't even follow basic logic. You're positing that we're spending more while also earning less? Where's that money coming from then?

It's objective that productivity has increased while pay and leisure time have decreased. This isn't a result of any increase in material goods. People are spending less because simply because they're getting paid less.

In 1956 the federal minimum wage was $1 (roughly $10 adjusted for inflation). Today it's 3/4 of that at 7.25.

[kortilla]

Minimum wage is irrelevant in a discussion about averages. Also, you’re forgetting that increased productivity has led to decreased prices for things that used to be manual labor intensive.

It’s possible to both make less on average (inflation adjusted) and have access to much nicer things. The equivalent computing power of an iPhone would have cost you millions of dollars in 1990. Food is cheaper, any automated manufacturing output is significantly cheaper, etc.

When so many people point something out to you that you think “doesn’t even follow basic logic”, it usually means you’re making a bad assumption somewhere.

Unless a corporation (or cartel) can monopolize an increase in productivity, society will reap the benefits through lower prices even if wages don’t increase. Competitive forces ensure that. If you’re interested in learning more, check out what happened with the mini mills and steel prices.