> But the best number shown is 23% growth over 31 years, 1979-2010. I think that qualifies as lack of growth. For reference, the GDP grew 230% in those years.
The video states this too near the end - that 23% over 31 years can also be seen as not much.
I think the main argument is that using the CPI-U or the PCE changes things significantly (from -7% to +23%). There's so many variables in any economic analysis that it's hard to trust any figure that someone shows you.
That looks like a big difference if you take the numbers out of context. But consider how much the economy has changed since the 70s: there has been a doubling of output through revolutions in technology, finance, energy, medicine, everything. Equitable growth would be 100% growth over that period.
True, there is a margin of error between different methodologies. CPI shows about half a percent more inflation per year than PCE. Similar arguments apply to measurements of climate change. They miss the forest for the trees.
The video states this too near the end - that 23% over 31 years can also be seen as not much.
I think the main argument is that using the CPI-U or the PCE changes things significantly (from -7% to +23%). There's so many variables in any economic analysis that it's hard to trust any figure that someone shows you.