LordKalvert
Banned
The main point however is that Russia was heading for tousling times but perhaps not revolution. And it should be noted that wages were lower than in 1905. A point you miss is that the quote dons't argue revolution in 1914 but maybe later on and that Russia wasn't settled from 1905 as the Duma had no power and was dismissed twice for being too progressive(Despite most member being nobles). Also to note that the Tsar awarded unites that used violence against protesters! So tan original wages strike put down harshly had the potential to become political. And the upper class was becoming distance from the Tsar for his association with the sex addict Rasputin (murdered by nobles in 1916 in an attempt to save the Tsar's reputation.) So the cards weren't in his favor.
That the Duma had been dismissed twice without incident pretty much shows how little support in the country that institution really had
As for real wages, that is always a very difficult measurement. They probably had for St. Petersburg since it was the center of the metalworking industry and those workers were earning a huge amount of overtime in 1905 due to the pressing need of fulfilling orders for the Japanese War.
The wave of strikes that hit St. Petersburg in July 1914 was a short lived event, peaked at about 20% of workers (26% if you believe pravda) A lot had to do with some violence commited by the strikers- in particular the attacks on trams led the tram workers to refuse to go out without police protection. When the Cossacks escorted the trams, the workers returned
The strike was strongest in the metalworking plants (where workers were highly paid) and lowest in the textile industry (where they weren't)