You didn't read the link, did you.
I did, but it seems you didn't read what I wrote. To quote myself: Inflation as a statistic is rigged to make things look better than they actually are. The link's thesis—the idea that "real" wages increased and therefore low-wage workers' finances materially improved—relies on the false assumption that "real" wages are real, or equivalently that core inflation (which is the method used to calculate inflation in the united states) reflects price changes as experienced by the common person. This assumption is false, because among other things core inflation excludes food and energy, which is... uh... what? Now don't get me wrong, there are things core inflation is good for, but measuring the lived experience of the working class is not one of them.
Here's one example off the top of my head: The retail price of beef rose 33% from 2019 to 2023. More relevant to the election, Energy rose 30% between 2019 and 2024. Get the idea? This is what people actually feel in their day to day lives.
How much, in your world, did wages change for people in that 80%? Median or average, it's up to you. I want to know what you think the numbers are. Not the vibes, the numbers.
Reverse engineering from the article's numbers got me 22% for nominal wages, 3.3% for "real" wages. Sure as hell not keeping up with the price of meat.