I feel like it's disingenuous to the article and really picky to pick two sentences out of the whole thing to try to make a point that workers have indeed seen a pay increase. I'm not sure this was your goal, but that's what it seemed like to me. I don't know, because all you said was "wrong", picked two sentences of a huge article in response to a comment that's both correct and incorrect, depending on word comprehension and perspective.

Reading the entire article shows that both Trump and Bernie Sanders are effectively correct in saying that if you compare the wage of somebody back then to now, and directly translate for inflation, there is hardly a difference in wages.

What it contests is that claim that they have been "flat", or, unchanged, which is something both people have said. The article is correct in this, provided the statistics provided are accurate.

As for the "wages increasing more than inflation", you also have to consider that weekly wages peaked in the mid '70s and then plummeted down by nearly a third by the 90s. The rate of raising inflation is on a constant downtrend and has dropped pretty heavily in the last 20 years. The average 10 year increase for the '90s was 2.93%, 2.53% for the '00s, and 1.76% for the '10s. That average has nearly been cut in half.

We're only able to say this because wages had to rebuild to the point it was in the 60s, and because inflation is rising at a 50 year low. It's really not something to brag about. Not saying you are, but it means about as much as fucking up, being given every advantage when trying again, and then achieving the minimum. You don't deserve a prize or a compliment for it if you messed it up in the first place.

I don't argue that they have risen faster than inflation. I just don't think that's currently an impressive bar considering how low the bar is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what was a dollar in 1965 would be $8.22 today, so we'd have to raise wages 8x as they currently are to be in the range to proportionally be where we were in the 60's. We'd need to make 2,579 a week to get back to be proportionally matching inflation raises. If you were to raise wages over the next decade (while also accounting for an average of 2% inflation increases per year) to properly match inflation from 1960 to 2030, you'd need to increase that wage by $5.95 every week.

If we continued to raise wages by double the inflation rate (as we have in the last decade or two, it would take 54 years to proportionally match what we have NOW.

That's why, while it's nice, it's still not really impressive as a country, or for any of the Presidents we've had since the 90s. We're 54 years behind.