on the one hand yes, this illustrates a huge shift in paradigm of the degree to which laborers are woefully undercompensated in a trend toward a massive wealth gap favoring the wealthy.
on the other, it sort of implies a “good old days” ideal which is utterly unrealistic. as though somehow before 1971 laborers were fairly treated, and if we could “just get back” to that point, everything would be fine.
oppression under capital has existed for centuries, not decades. the implication that Nixon or Reagan are the root of absolutely all of current economic suffering, while enjoyable and tasty to say, is patently untrue.
this graph and that one website are often presented as raw evidence, but the reader is left to draw their own conclusions as to wtf this all means for policy.
best case, the reader gets a “fuck Reagan and the capitalist conservative party” vibe.
worst case, you get totally led astray into thinking that bringing back the gold standard is going to fix every problem with wealth inequality and white supremacy in america or something.
Woah, woah, woah. Here I am just spitting poorly thought out ramblings and you come back with coherent argument! :D
So yes, I totally agree. There is no good old days! Workers were treated like shit. Working in modern day WFH, to put it simply, I'm pampered.
I cite this graph more in context of nobody below a certain age being reasonably able to afford a house (or anything really), unless their parents make the down payment.
"oppression under capital has existed for centuries, not decades.", yes the parallels between today and serfdom are evident, apart from the rather much better living standard (for most of us).
Gold standard sucks, I am just advocating for a new and different system, certainly not an old and worse one!
Laborers weren't fairly treated (in terms of wages, at the very least) before or after that date. It got worse, actually. The problem is that some of those who lived through those times are also saying that the minimum wage is currently too high.