[alex_young]

Well, for the most part you can't compare the minimum wage of 100 years ago since it didn't exist, and subsequently excluded most workers until much later.

In 1966 the federal minimum wage was amended to include most workers, so a comparison at that point can be made.

In 1967 the minimum wage was $1.40, or $10.92 adjusted for inflation. The current minimum wage is $7.25, so in dollar terms the cost of goods, especially housing, really is much higher in minimum wage terms.

[jvanderbot]

What I'm saying is comparing wages is meaningless. If you compare what a month of work gets you in USA, it's astounding compared to what it go you 150 years ago. Imagine buying a beat up car, internet connected computer, cell phone, refrigerator, etc. That's where the productivity growth went: Into better stuff, not into bigger piles of shells.

[alex_young]

I don’t disagree that the quality of many goods is much higher, but when you start looking at what the lowest quartile can actually afford to consume the results are pretty starkly worse than they have been in our relatively recent past.

A huge chunk of lower income is dedicated to housing, to an extent that many cannot actually afford housing at all.

The gains of our productivity have been distributed in a most unequal manner.

[jvanderbot]

I think everyone from 1850 would trade their favorite toe to live in the lowest quartile in the western world.

When I lived below poverty line I still had internet, a computer, an apt, access to high quality food and medicine (by 1850 standards), plenty of friends, and a television. I just had to live with 3 other people.