I never claimed that workers get 100% of the increase in productivity. I said that increased productivity leads to increased wages. Increased productivity is in fact a _requirement_ for wages to go up (note that I am _not_ claiming that in increase in productivity _must_ result in increase wages. It is necessary, but not always sufficient), or else there is no where for those increases to come from. So when you claim that productivity increases _only_ result in worker wages increasing in the co-occurence of a worker uprising, that is the same thing as claiming that worker uprisings are a requirement.

So I showed you an increase in worker wages. If there is not corresponding worker uprising, your original claim is false.

And,again, you keep ignoring that the plot I showed is already inflation adjusted. It is a real increase, not a nominal increase.

> Increased productivity is in fact a _requirement_ for wages to go up

No it isn't. This is an extremely naive understanding of how any of this works

You even say it yourself, with the silly graph you keep posting

That graph doesn't show productivity it just shows "real inflation adjusted wages", like you keep harping on about.

But in general a person is not increasing their productivity year over year. So why would their wage go up to match inflation if, as you say, wages only go up when productivity increases? That doesn't make sense

The reality is that people already provide their employers with vastly more productivity than they are paid for. Their employers are capturing the majority of the value from that productivity. If someone's wage goes up to match inflation, their productivity hasn't increased, inflation has increase the value of their current productivity

You seriously don't seem to understand how any of this works

Given that economists almost universally agree with me, I'm going to have to suggest that it is in fact you who don't know know how any of this works.

You keep shifting the goal posts, you keep talking about unrelated things, and you keep not addressing the core claims, and you keep not responding to the main refutation of your own original claim. I'm done beating my head against this wall. I hope you have a nice day.

> Given that economists almost universally agree with me

I'm amazed you've found that all economists that can universally agree on anything. Economists don't know how any of this works either. Economics is not a science, and you can find data to support basically an unlimited number of arguments.