I think there's some confusion here because often when talking about "flat" or "stagnant" wages people are referring to the idea that inflation outpaces wage increases (which is wrong, and the point I was addressing). But even taking into account how you're referring to "flat" wages, the logic is still wrong. If we take a worker today who earns the same wage, in inflation adjusted dollars, as a worker in, say, 1985, today's worker has a hugely increased standard of living, better healthcare, longer life expectancy, etc.
> If we take a worker today who earns the same wage, in inflation adjusted dollars, as a worker in, say, 1985, today's worker has a hugely increased standard of living, better healthcare, longer life expectancy, etc.
Is this actually true? In the US, healthcare costs in particular have outpaced inflation meaning that a worker earning the same in inflation-adjusted dollars is getting worse care. This is backed up by the fact that life expectancy has started to decline[1].
Finally, saying that "you're better off than 1985" does not address the fact that the economy has not just kept pace with inflation. That growth is going somewhere and it's not into the wages of the middle class. Inequality is not just bad for the people at the bottom. It has a tendency to destabilize politics as people realize that the game is rigged and swing towards the political extremes.
