[bluefirebrand]

> I guess, to me, all else equal - that is, for the same work at the same company, without getting promoted or taking on new responsibilities or switching into a new role at a new company (or a different organization within the same big company)

Seems a bit of a strawman to me, because I don't think you can realistically stay in one place this way without taking on anything new or extra over time

Some new tool is built or purchased that makes you 5x more productive, so half your team is cut and now you're doing the work of multiple people. Or maybe they just downsize and toss extra responsibility onto you. Or you get promoted just because of seniority. Or frankly, because of seniority you now have knowledge few people do so you are responsible for mentoring

The "static, never done anything extra, no new responsibilities" is not realistic

And the productivity thing is massive too. Computers mean that one person can do the work that entire teams used to, in a lot of industries. But they aren't earning as much as entire teams. Workers have captured basically none of the value of our increased productivity

So, yeah. I think it's actually just plainly obvious that our real money incomes should have grown faster than they have

[sanderjd]

> Seems a bit of a strawman to me, because I don't think you can realistically stay in one place this way without taking on anything new or extra over time

Yes, this (and the rest of what you said about this) is true for an individual. Certainly, individuals should expect their real wages to rise over time, as they gain experience and seniority, or take on new roles at new organizations.

But that's not what is tracked by aggregate wage / income data. In aggregate, as one person is getting raises based on growing experience and seniority, other people are filling in behind them, all the way down the line until you get to new entry level people coming in. So absent any other effects, that would all balance out to no real growth.

But you're right that the missing variable is productivity growth. (Which is also what drives real gdp growth.)

So yeah, that's the answer to my question about what makes sense to anchor expectations for real wage growth on. But, to out myself as a capitalist monster, I think it is actually reasonable for a larger portion of those gains from productivity growth to accrue more heavily toward the top of the income range. But, to remind you of my comment above about how I think inequality is very bad, I do think those gains have been and have a tendency to be way too concentrated toward the top.

So I guess the upshot of all of this for me is that I am actually sympathetic to people who hold the view that "the economy" has always (or at least, for generations) been "bad" because of this problem of inequality. But I'm not so sympathetic to the view that the economy of 2024 is comparatively bad. I think it is, and has been for a little over a year, quite good relative to any recent period.