Just a note, this idea that wages have been flat relative to inflation is true. But that doesn't mean quite what you think it means. Inflation (at least CPI inflation) measures the cost of a basket of goods in dollars. But that basket of goods has grown over time! So the same wage now buys more stuff.
Incidentally, Elizabeth Warren is a propaganda artist. She has "hard stats", but they often don't mean what you think they mean. Read Todd Zywicki's debunking of her to get a flavor for how she works:
I'm not claiming the video you cite is right or wrong (it's 57 minutes long, I'd rather just skim the paper), just suggesting that she deserves Michael Moore levels of skepticism.
But I do recommend watching the whole presentation if you have the time -- especially before you start calling people "propaganda artists". That implies deliberate deception and razzle-dazzle to con the unwary.
If she's really trying to foment unrest among the working classes she's kind of doing it wrong, with a rather unfashionable pantsuit and a series of dull charts and graphs. I get the sense she honestly believes in her data, but perhaps she is simply honestly mistaken? Anyway, something to think about.
I'm asserting that she does something along those lines.
I'll take one example from her medical bankruptcy study. This is the study, widely described by the media as asserting that 50% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills or serious medical problems.
You need to actually read the study rather than listen to her talks to discover that "medical problems" includes "alcohol or drug addiction" and "uncontrolled gambling."
This is far from the only example where she plays games of this nature. Read Todd Zywicki's debunkings of her, she seems to make mistakes like this all the time.
I suspect that congress and the media, rather than the working classes, is her target.
The study you and Warren cite does group alcoholism, drugs, and gambling under medical problems. But, even combined, they form just 3.7% of bankruptcies observed. Even if you threw these out, that wouldn't affect the main conclusions.
Now, I'm not saying that this study was flawless or Warren's use of it beyond criticism. But the criticism you made was indisputably worthless. It seems to be designed to inflame passions and exploit stereotypes in a few words, and to be difficult to refute without long explanation. You should go on FOX News.
Or perhaps you did not read the study, as you advised me to do, but merely quoted someone else's critique? If so, I suggest that you re-evaluate your sources.
Like I said, "I'll take one example". The study is utterly flawed even conceptually (1), but that flaw might just be a result of some law prof not understanding basic statistics.
The example I provided is merely the simplest and most egregious misrepresentation she makes.
(1) To estimate the number of bankruptcies caused by "medical reasons", you need to compare Pm = P(bankrupt | medical cause) to Pnm = P(bankrupt | no medical cause). The number of medically caused bankruptcies is then (Pm-Pnm) x (number of people with medical cause). She only measures Pm x (number of bankruptcies with medical cause).
Incidentally, Elizabeth Warren is a propaganda artist. She has "hard stats", but they often don't mean what you think they mean. Read Todd Zywicki's debunking of her to get a flavor for how she works:
http://volokh.com/posts/1108558247.shtml
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_04_27-2008_05_03.sht...
I'm not claiming the video you cite is right or wrong (it's 57 minutes long, I'd rather just skim the paper), just suggesting that she deserves Michael Moore levels of skepticism.