Reply #7: In 2004 it was pointed out that wages were stagnant and

[Igel]

a smaller portion of GDP.

The conclusion that wages and benefits had been keeping up with inflation, if not a bit ahead of inflation, was accurate.

The key is in what's being described. Papau shows, correctly, a chart that looks at take home pay. It's irrelevant to Brooks' claim, which concerns wages and benefits: this includes health insurance (which, to be sure, isn't evenly distributed), day care, tuition reimbursement, and more.

Brooks' may be wrong; I haven't seen information relevant to his claim since 2004. Or maybe 2003. I moved to Houston in summer '04 and read the 'wages + benefits' business before I left NY State.