To deny progress, the Times series claims that "for most workers, the only time in the last three decades when the rise in hourly pay beat inflation was during the speculative bubble of the 90's." Could anyone really believe most workers have rarely had a real raise in three decades? Real income per household member rose to $22,966 in 2003 from $16,420 in 1983 (in 2003 dollars)--a 40% gain.
This is an obviously bogus argument. Given the well-documented surge in income for those at the top of the income distribution, real income per household member (a mean in the statistical sense) would go up dramatically even if everyone else's wages were stagnant. In addition, real income per household member will necessarily increase as more women enter the workforce. Finally, Reynolds is comparing apples and oranges -- the sentence he criticizes says workers didn't gain much relative to inflation before the 1990s, then he uses 1983-2003 data, which includes the 1990s, to claim that the Times is wrong.
And if we look at the data, we find that the Times statement is, in fact, correct. Consider this table (PDF) from the Economic Policy Institute, which lists the inflation-adjusted salaries of workers in the 10th, 20th, etc. percentile of the wage distribution from 1973-2003. And, sure enough, the distribution of workers' wages was largely stagnant from 1973 to 1989 before rising during the 1990s. So what is Alan Reynolds talking about? Does he even know these data exist?
(Note: When speaking about wage or income distribution data, it's important to distinguish between the changing distribution of wages/incomes and changes in wages/income over workers' lifetimes. The Times is clearly talking about the former, and while it's possible that Reynolds means to refer to the latter, the real income per household member statistic that he uses seems to indicate that he's talking about changes in the distribution.)