"You persist in the fallacy that averages tell you the significant things without looking at distribution. Products may be cheaper, but if real wages have fallen so that it requires two people to earn enough to buy these cheaper products, that is not an improvement. The benefits accrue at the top. Doug gave the figures that matter,w why do you ignore them?"
I don't ignore the figures Doug gave. He showed that median household income rose by 15 per cent between 1973 and 2005.
He also showed that hourly wages fell by 11 per cent. But given that those dollars (as my table shows) bought more goods, hourly wages measured in consumer goods as opposed to dollars have not fallen. I don't say that the changes are phenomenal, only that they are sufficient to show that there is no decline in absolute wages, only a decline in wages relative to other incomes.
This is demonstrated by the fact that households spend proportionately less on basics like food, and more on luxuries, over time. Of course that trend could be reversed by a recession, but you seem to miss out of the account that the seventies, eighties and nineties were marked by severe recessions. In the UK the economy continues to grow, albeit modestly. Is the US in recession?
Like you, I am sceptical about the growth of credentialism in the labour market, but I have to point out that far from being the case that people cannot afford to put their children through college, many more of them do. In fact it seems I have to amend the figures and say that now more than a third go to college, whereas before, only a quarter went. But before you say that they have no choice, bear in mind that most people still don't go to college.
I am interested in the fact that the LBO list has erred on the side of characterising working class consumption as excessive in the past, whereas, today it seems to be erring on the side of exaggerating austerity. That seems like interesting data to me.