Yea, it's great that housing and healthcare have only grown by 1% per year in costs since 2000 as well.
Accepting that housing and healthcare costs have outpaced wage growth, that mathematically implies that costs of other goods and services were outpaced by wages by an even larger (appropriately weighted) margin.
See https://medium.com/@6pranavk/insight-of-the-day-cost-disease... especially the graph.
> costs of other goods and services where outpaced by wages
You're implying that all people consume the same basket of goods as calculated by the article. Wage growth and spending is not even across society, so most people could be worse off while all of the above math holds true. labour productivity rose by 75% in America from 1973 to 2016, while average pay rose by less than 50% and median pay by just over 10%. which is largely because between 1979 and 2016, pay adjusted for inflation for the bottom fifth of American earners barely rose at all.
Further, many goods like computing power have gotten vastly cheaper, but that savings mostly end up with people who have disposable income. Spend a lower percentage of your income on such goods and the benifit decreases. This means the the bottom half of the work force is worse off than you might think.
Or do you mean that wage rises should be compared against only a part of inflation?
People in rural areas where housing costs are not increasing might be experiencing a little wage growth, but there are fewer and fewer future work opportunities.
People in urban areas where housing costs are increasing rapidly, but wages are not increasing rapidly enough to make them feel secure...but they need to stay there in case they're laid off or need to find another employer.
Either situation isn't what's wanted, but the overall statistic is that real wage growth is positive.