This is actually one of my hot buttons. Anybody can write an editorial, but if there's no underlying analysis, it's just an argument.

Lots of maths in the FT and the Econo. It's not like they ever pull an argument out of thin air and try to make it convincing by repeating it over and over, even if it's nonsense.

If you're looking for quantitative support, consider:

1. Relative incomes
   
2. Relative taxation
   
3. Relative debt burden
   
4. Income changes over the last thirty years
   
5. Practical - i.e. High Street and Main Street - inflation increases.
   
6. Dot com, oil, and housing bubbles.
   
7. The current credit crunch.
   
8. Fradulent trading including BCCI, Enron, and the current crop of bandits.
   
9. Cultural changes and increasingly abusive work practices.
   
10. Union busting.
    
11. Deliberate use of outsourcing and immigration to drive down wage prices.
    
12. Constant media calls for 'reform' - juxtaposed explicitly againts worker income and job security.

Of course, apart from all of those - and it's not a complete list by any means - there's no evidence of a problem at all.