Lack of better education? Complacency with their current (back then) position in the world? The water boiled very slowly?
Barriers to work were broken down in the 60's. When you say "working class" in the 70's that was mostly white males getting paid well. Now women and minorities supply a lot of work, so while it may have seem as the good old days, it was not that great for all Americans. But probably most important, the growth of non labor income (Capital gains) and the need for college education. https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...lege-grads-and-everyone-else-record/96493348/
At some point this can be brought back to the Information Revolution - a significant amount of this is due to that, though politically I’d say the US is far more exposed than most Social Democratic western nations.
Once again, it's not your fault middle class: https://splinternews.com/why-income-inequality-in-the-us-is-way-worse-than-in-eu-1827959329
How on earth can anybody in the U.S. middle class vote GOP? That post-1980 graph is driven by Reaganomics. Bubba and Obama had mostly GOP Congresses and did little to reverse the policies, while W of course increased them. This has been going on for 4 decades and half the middle class hasn't yet figured it out. Slap my head.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/04/24...-countries-but-it-is-losing-ground-in-places/ The USA has a lot of Rich people, but in a winner takes all and losers go fvck your self system, this creates a lot of losers at the bottom. But some good news, while ti seem that the share got smaller, at least a few more people are getting part of the high share than those getting dropped at the bottom.
Here is an article that was probably the source of the article in your link, more information for nerds that like this type of shit. https://wir2018.wid.world/executive-summary.html
And I might be misremembering but in Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, wasn't this the goal of the Chicago School economists?
Never saw this coming: Some of the biggest winners from President Donald Trump’s new tax law are corporate executives who have reaped gains as their companies buy back a record amount of stock, a practice that rewards shareholders by boosting the value of existing shares. A POLITICO review of data disclosed in Securities and Exchange Commission filings shows the executives, who often receive most of their compensation in stock, have been profiting handsomely by selling shares since Trump signed the law on Dec. 22 and slashed corporate tax rates to 21 percent. That trend is likely to increase, as Wall Street analysts expect buyback activity to accelerate in the coming weeks. "It is going to be a parade of eye-popping numbers,” said Pat McGurn, the head of strategic research and analysis at Institutional Shareholder Services, a shareholder advisory firm. That could undercut the political messaging value of the tax cuts in the Republican campaign to maintain control of Congress in the midterm elections. Since the tax cuts were enacted, Oracle Corp. CEO Safra Catz has sold $250 million worth of shares in her company — the largest executive payday this year. Product development head Thomas Kurian sold $85 million. The sales came after the company announced a $12 billion share repurchase https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/30/eye-popping-payouts-for-ceos-follow-trumps-tax-cuts-747649
Well yeah. The corporate tax cut helps stock owners. It doesn't do jack for everyday voters. Whatever portion of the extra corporate take-home goes to workers will be more than offset by the cost of funding the newly increased deficit. Another big victory for the top 1%. You made that happen, "economically anxious" Republican voter. That was your call.
Don’t leave a hole in the wall JohnR... Trump-supporting soybean farmers say they'll gladly suffer "to the death" for his trade war https://t.co/cBrcRFJ2A0 pic.twitter.com/rg08J9YZgT— Newsweek (@Newsweek) July 29, 2018
Suckers!!!! https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-change-helps-executives-afford-pricier-planes-1536763868 https://images.wsj.net/im-25807?width=1260&aspect_ratio=1.5 Tax Change Helps Executives Afford Pricier Planes Jet sales soar as business owners take advantage of new tax write-off Marcus Adolfsson, an executive and licensed pilot, bought a used Embraer Phenom 100 in late December for just under $2 million. ‘The timing was impeccable,’ he said of the full deduction he took for 2017.
Keep your skillz up, Olds! And IIRC these type of senior financial instability issues led to the passage of the Social Security Act: That means that as people reach their mid-60s, they either have to dramatically curtail their spending or keep working to survive. “This will be the first time that we have a lot of people who find themselves downwardly mobile as they grow older,” Diane Oakley, the executive director of the National Institute on Retirement Security, told me. “They’re going to go from being near poor to poor.” One primary culprit? DIY retirement, sucker workforce: Today’s seniors are so reliant on Social Security in part because companies that once provided pensions began, in the 1970s, to turn the responsibility of retirement saving over to individuals. Rather than “defined benefit” plans, in which people are guaranteed a certain amount of money every year in retirement, they receive “defined contribution” plans, which means the employer sets aside a certain amount of money per year. This switch saved companies money because it asked employees, not employers, to take on the risks associated with long-term investing. This means that the amount people receive is more affected by the ups and downs of the stock market, their individual wages, and interest rates. In 1979, 28 percent of private-sector workers had participated in defined-benefit retirement plans—by 2014, just 2 percent did, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit. By contrast, 7 percent of private-sector workers participated in defined-contribution plans in 1979—by 2014, 34 percent did. OK, so it's mainly DIY since the 70s. Let's see how wages have done to finance a 401(k): But even people who emerged from the recession relatively unscathed may have a hard time saving, according to a 2017 report from Government Accountability Office. Average wages, when adjusted for inflation, have remained near where they were in the 1970s, which makes it hard for workers to increase their savings. This has had a significant impact on the bottom 80 percent of workers, for whom average wages have remained relatively constant, even as income increased for the top 20 percent of households in the past three decades. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2018/02/pensions-safety-net-california/553970/
Here's the top marginal rate versus the 10-year growth rate in per capita GDP (right axis) since WWII (using 10-year to smooth out business cycle). No relationship, or if anything positive 3/ pic.twitter.com/i9nwG8O6HG— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) January 5, 2019 Something about high taxes and growth..
The Wall Street Journal bred the GOP's anti-science. Lied about supply side economics, lied about the effect of minimum wages, lied about the effect of regulatory policies. Year after year, decade after decade, of science denial. Eventually the habit of ignoring scientific findings bled through to every aspect of the GOP, such that it's now an international laughingstock. But it all started with economics.
So... basing economic policy on political/religious beliefs doesn't work? Man if only we had the resources so that we could look back into history and see where it also didn't work.
And everyday whites will still carry their water, while snickering about how clever they are in owning the libs. Now that is getting played, bigtime.
Then WS will think that aggregating them and selling shares of it is a great idea: There's a new type of mortgage aimed at people with bad credit and issuance is surging https://t.co/wEEBpDVppH— Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) November 4, 2019