zlacker

>>vermon+(OP)
The author espouses this economic knowledge on his twitter feed:

"Never could have guessed from the name that the Communist Party of China wouldn't be all that interested in having a credible stock market."

That's all you need to know about reading this article.

This entire piece is relatively baseless. It's relatively trivial to say "If trends had continued in a straight line, things would be different, but they didn't, so they aren't."

Also, talking about average household income is a waste of time. Talking about average anything when you are talking about the working class is foolish. The average net worth of a household is five times the median.

The demand for automation slowed precisely because the demand for labor plummeted. That's the exact same thing as saying "The demand for oil plummeted because the cost of relative demand for natural gas plummeted."

Reading this article was a waste of time.

>>debacl+wj
He's talking about average rather than median precisely because his point isn't that "the economy grew, but the growth was captured by the wealthy," but rather "the economy hasn't grown much per capita." So you want to look at average, not median.

And he isn't saying that trends didn't continue, he's saying trends went one direction, but the policy discussion is as though the trends went in exactly the opposite direction, and that that's important.