It's. The. Capitalism.
post
And to make that happen:
- The gilded age made some robber barons insanely rich (though not as rich as the current American oligarchs)
- There was a huge economic crash, called the Great Depression, during which the excesses of the rich were incredibly unpopular and the rich felt in real danger
- To get out of the Great Depression, the US Government created all kinds of "socialist" programs to help people get back on their feet, strengthen unions, regulate business, make massive investments in US infrastructure, etc.
- Right as the Great Depression was ending, WWII began
- For a while the US was "neutral", and was manufacturing war materiel for the various countries at war, though mostly for the Allied side. This involved huge amounts of government spending.
- Then, a few years after WWII began, the US entered the war, and spending ramped up even more.
- Virtually every other modern economy in the world had its infrastructure destroyed during the war. Britain was bombed relentlessly, Germany was flattened, Japan was nuked, France was turned into Rubble, the USSR's factories were destroyed as Germany advanced and partially rebuilt in the middle of nowhere.
- The war ended and while every other country was rebuilding their shattered infrastructure, the US infrastructure was running hot and able to supply the world's needs
- American workers were massively in demand because it was almost the only remaining industrialized country with intact factories
- American workers still retained the massive worker benefits and union membership that was the result of the New Deal economy
So, take that sequence, and for a brief moment a white, male worker in the US could support a family on a blue-collar salary in a way they hadn't ever done before that. Once other countries rebuilt their infrastructure, the US lost that edge. Once American businesses pushed for the roll-back of worker protections, blue-collar workers lost that benefit. Bit, by bit, the world returned to the way it has normally been, where the lowest class barely survives and both parents work hard, while the rich benefit.
You can blame Reagan for a large part of this, among many other issues.
I'm only in my 30s. My dad supported our family on a high school education. I don't have a college education but I did two different certification programs to work in my field. I'm single with no kids and live alone and I'm still struggling. I don't know how anyone has a family right now. I can't even afford me. I'm so mad that my dad raised an entire family and bought and paid off a house and I can barely pay my damn rent and buy groceries with a better education and job than what he had.
Roseanne was a show in the 80s about a hard-working blue-collar family that was often struggling to get by.
They had a house with a detached garage and 3 kids.

Another example is Al Bundy in Married With Children. He was a shoe salesman with a stay at home wife and two kids but managed to own a nice home.
But they joked about money all the time! The struggle!
Oddly enough, they don't joke about that in shows as much anymore. Wonder why?
Malcolm in the Middle

Massive by today's standards, though I think it was fairly typical house in the 2000s at the time
It's an interstate show that takes place in the middle of the transition to more modern situations.
Lois specifically works at a terrible job part-time. I remember her going on a rant mentioning that she works 39 hours a week, which is them saying the store works the staff as hard as possible while denying them full-time benefits. But they also manage to pay for boarding school for Francis for a few years of essentially 1.5 incomes.
But even after Francis has moved out on his own, Malcolm and and Reese have to eventually get jobs to help support the family.
As an "elder millennial", I too, saw this happen. I grew up in a very middle class home. About the only thing we didn't regularly do from the list in the OP, was modest vacations.
My dad was a teacher.
We didn't have anything overly special, but we had what we needed and we were not struggling. I have two siblings, and the entire family was a family of five. My mother did not have a job throughout my childhood and well after my teenage years, and I'm the youngest.
Now, I can't fathom having a kid. I can barely pay to keep myself alive.
I'm a middle-aged american.
When I was a kid, my high school educated dad worked in a machine shop and I had a stay at home mom. There were 3 of us kids. Back in the late 80s my parents bought the 4-bedroom home with a 2-car garage on 1+ acre of land that they still live in today. The size is still great for hosting holiday gatherings and with the extra bedrooms they can have play rooms for the grand kids and an empty bed for when my brother visits from out of town.
Once I was in high school and could be home alone, I remember my mom getting a job for a few years.
Today, I have a small family and my wife is a stay at home mom and helps at our son's elementary school and stuff. But there are some differences!
My family is smaller, 1 kid vs 3.
My education and field of work are much higher up the percentiles. I have three university degrees from big schools and work in tech. He was a high school educated machinist that eventually worked his way up into management when I was older.
My house is smaller. I own a small single-floor home with no basement or garage, a standard 1/4 acre lot, and I live in a blue collar neighborhood that's sprinkled with elderly folks and young families.
We have two cars and they are both basic non-luxury brands and they are both over 10 years old.
I was intentionally being pretty conservative with my finances, and to be fair we were in a pretty good situation with an emergency fund and no non-mortgage debt and all that. But then in the past several years I've had three different financially cataclysmic events where any one of them would have obliterated the safety buffer. Two of them were thanks to covid.
Today I am in the same house and in much better health and mental state, and I even have a much better job, but our finances are a fucking nightmare.
Looks to have been brigaded by some fasc types with next to no post history tbh
Which is also why there's suddenly a lot of deleted comments, they were patently obvious and the mods deleted that shit
You know a sitcom that could realistically contrast the two lifestyles could be interesting
Al Bundy supported a house full of degeneracy in a shoe salesman's salary.
Those same people also had pensions for life once they retired in their 50s. They also didn't have to pay for health insurance.
My folks got married in the 60s. They bought their first house in the early 70s for 32k. 3 bed / 1 bath house with a big backyard in a decent neighborhood (albeit on a busy street). My mom and dad both worked, but my mom stopped when I was born (early 70s). House was tiny, about 800sq ft. They upgraded in the mid eighties for 120k. Bigger place on a quieter street. Mom was back to working again but we were able to take multiple vacations a year. Camping, Disney, etc. Today, I'm not sure they could do it. Sure they would be making more but the first house? 640k. Thats a 1900% increase. Thats about 6% increase year on year compounded. How has the salary growth been for the same period? 1% - 1.5% compounded yoy (inflation adjusted). Fucking gross.
When I was a whipper snapper you could go to the two screen movie theater that got the movies once they left the new theater and watch a double feature matinee for a dollar. But not if you had an onion in your belt.
Why not? It was the fashion at the time.
At that point, it became to them as a child yelling "6 7" has come to us.
Not sure about you but when i hear "6, 7" i make the hand gesture and smile.
It wasn't even that long ago either. It was still relatively common to have single income households in the 80's when I was born.
My mum wasn't working at all when my older siblings were born, and she only started working when I started preschool.
Also, her minimum wage income boosted my parents savings so much they were able to buy an investment property and drop money into other things.
Not to mention how much other stuff was stolen from young people, like how awesome the internet was in the mid-2000's before it got absolutely destroyed by corporations - game consoles that didn't require 35 accounts to play a game ONLINE ONLY and a subscription to EVERYTHING in your life. Sure, it's always been bad (because capitalism) but not THIS bad. And it'll only get worse as the population becomes less tech literate.
Kids just go with it now, and it's really sad, they don't know anything different.
Adjusted for inflation, an NES would cost $600 dollars today. An NES game would cost $150. You had to go to the mall to buy the games.
Thanks to spotify, youtube, and piracy music is now essentially free and available almost everywhere. Adjusted for inflation a CD/tape album you bought in 1985 would cost $30. You would had to travel to the mall, but an entire album just for that one song you liked, and listen to it on repeat for an entire month or stay up late to tape a particular song from the radio.
Don't glorify the past too much. We have never had such easy and cheap access to such a wide variety of media and games. Napster and early torrenting worked well, but the quality was often shit for plenty of stuff.
Guys! It's ok! We can't buy houses, we no longer own our own computers, and everything we have is rented, not owned.......but it's ok! Because now music is freeeeeeeee!!!!!!
we no longer own our own computers
What are you even on about?
Phones, computers and screens are still very affordable from a historical perspective and compared to the 2000s, you can easily pirate all media and games and own them in perpetuity, and it's incredibly affordable to buy stuff online direct from the manufacturer. Buying second hand components and stuff has arguably also never been easier. If you're not an idiot, it's also still relatively (RIP specialised forums) easy to find the information to repair most things yourself online too. Especially with parts being so readibly available. Freeing yourself of Microsoft has also never been easier.
I went to a shop recently, was quoted 2500 for something. Twenty years ago I would have had no alternative. Now, I simply went on the internet and ordered direct from the manufacturer for 500.
everything we have is rented
I mean, housing is ridiculously expensive, sure. But what are you renting except your home?
a subscription to EVERYTHING in your life
I mean, honestly... You're quite clearly too young to have been paying bills in the 2000s aren't you?
Streaming is getting more expensive, but if you adjust for inflation, it's still cheaper than cable/internet was back in the 2000s. I mean, my mobile plan costs me 5 euros a month for limitless calls, data, and calls. Back in the 2000s I would have been able to send 20 text messages for that amount.
And it's not as if you need to pay for streaming. You need an internet subscription, a phone plan, and a VPN (which is also incredibly affordable).
Also, a reminder that hetero white male America is not the world. It really wasn't that great in the 2000s for a lot of us.
Sometimes I feel like the difficulty of access for old video games and music made it even more exciting. When everything is a button click away, it loses some luster.
My kids can watch literally anything on tv. I try to tell them about a time when, sure, there were 30 or 40 channels, but only a handful of them catered to me. Maybe TGIF on ABC, or Sunday nights on Fox, and Nickelodeon was always good. Disney was pay to play. Might get lucky and get something good on TNT. When you flipped to a channel and something good was on, it was awesome. Even when they started putting guides on the channels, or the TV Guide channel, you could get lucky and find something, and that was nice.
Obviously same goes for radio, and not counting the whole station not coming in and the song being half static.
If you were white*
Yuuge detail
Even if you weren't. The economic boom of the 20th century gave birth to lots of prosperous minority communities.
Only problem was that if you ever got too prosperous, neighbors might come by to burn the place down.
But a lot of the so-called economic anxiety kicked off by mass migration to California, Texas, and Florida (and to London, Paris, Berlin, St. Petersberg, Beijing, Tokyo, and Mexico City) was the result of war refugees, political dissidents, and victims of a shifting market economy finding real serious economic benefits to relocating inside the fence of one of the world's premier powers. You didn't need to be white to achieve a marked improvement in quality of life, you just needed to be within arm's reach of all the advanced industrial capital and its benefits.
The Two Income Trap that began to rear its head in the 80s/90s was a consequence of housing, higher education debts, and child care costs that prior generations hadn't historically dealt with. One could plausibly argue that the extended adolescence of college demonstrates an overall improved economy, as people are no longer joining the workforce in their teenage years and trying to outproduce a historically high infant mortality rate.
But the benefits of the economy have gone disproportionately to the leisure and professional managerial classes, while the working classes absorb higher debts/rents and defer accessing the industrial improvements until much later in life. It isn't that non-white people never see them. It is simply that they are much older when they finally do and enjoy the benefits for less time, due to higher mortality rates.
The two income family came as a direct result of Nixon's Vietnam spending.
Kennedy's Vietnam policy was containment; we supplied 'military advisors' and propped up the South to appease the French. We were focused on the soviets and Vietnam was a sideshow.
LBJ wanted a massive knock out punch to wipe the Viet Cong out fast. Instead he got a quagmire. Johnson had to print money to pay for the war because he didn't want to raise taxes. Nixon ran as a 'peace candidate' and then doubled down on Johnson's spending. Remember, we were dropping something like a dozen Hiroshimas a day on jungle.
Inflation is getting bad, and then OPEC hits the US with the Oil Boycott. That devastates the US economy. All those cool loft buildings in places like New York's TriBeCa and SoHo? Those were originally small factories. They emptied out because the owners couldn't afford to runt them anymore.
The two income family came as a direct result of Nixon’s Vietnam spending.
That's more complicated, since the Vietnamese War-Time economy was itself a driver of domestic growth. Stagflation by way of the OPEC crisis didn't force people into second jobs so much as it put the breaks on 50s/60s era rapid industrial development and the modernization of the consumer economy. Women in the professional workforce was more a novelty of the 1970s and the Feminist wing of the labor movement. And that's when a woman's college degree began to matter more, women were able to take on personal debt legally, and birth control allowed women to have sex without getting pregnant (thus ending the Baby Boom era).
Had Nixon not dropped billions onto Vietnam, we'd have spent our petrodollars somewhere else. Military Keynesianism wasn't the only kind.
All those cool loft buildings in places like New York’s TriBeCa and SoHo? Those were originally small factories. They emptied out because the owners couldn’t afford to runt them anymore.
They emptied out because businesses transitioned manufacturing outside of the major city centers. Mass transportation innovations allowed more and more labor to be moved across state lines. More of the urban economy became sales/marketing, banking, and bulk shipping. Its not like the jobs disappeared. It isn't even as though these businesses failed. They just migrated closer to the agricultural source material (which - conveniently - was where employers could find cheaper labor).
They emptied out because businesses transitioned manufacturing outside of the major city centers.
The 'transitioned because the price of being in a city was too high. The businesses first moved to the American south where the Unions were weaker, and then overseas. I live in New York and you still hear stories about how fast it happened. "SoHo" was a name dreamed up by the artists who started moving into the empty factories. All the folks who'd been priced out of Greenwich Village started moving in.
Also, Vietnam didn't 'grow' the economy. It was more like steroids. The old steel mills that should have been renovated years before were now running 24/7 to make enough bombs.
When the US mills couldn't produce enough for the Germans and Japanese markets, those countries started building their own plants. These new plants used way less oil than the older American plants, so when the Oil Crisis hit German and Japanese cars became a much better bargain.
If Nixon hadn't been pumping money into the steel industry it might have transitioned to lower cost plants on its own.
Well, large parts of the US had literal apartheid, concentration camps and what amounted to slavery of black people well into middle of the 20th century. So some were definitely automatically exempt from that prosperity from the moment they were born on account of their skin colour.
This is why the GOP hates Unions.
There were plenty of non-white people who got good jobs through Unions.
Now its your fault you can't make ends meet if you don't even have a "side hustle."
Living in cars is now such an accepted lifestyle, that I recently read about a college that was building a multi-level parking lot for students who live in their cars. They could build an affordable living facility, but it's better to normalize living in your car when they are young. And in college. That way, when that college degree that you went $60K in debt for doesn't turn into a real job, and you are working a minimum wage retail job, and door dashing, living in your car will feel perfectly normal.
I saw another post by guy discussing his strategy of living in his car for a few years, so he can save up the money for a house. We used to do stuff like that, too, except we wouldn't live in our car, we'd just get a roommate.
I have no doubt that soon we'll be seeing YouTube videos about couples living in cars, and even raising families in cars. Look how resourceful they are!
And kids today think that's normal.
I was making 15 an hour when Clinton was President, no degree. I had to have roommates, it really wasn't that much money where I lived.
There are something like 40 MILLION workers making less than 17 an hour now.
And for the "but most are teens" crowd, number one they are not mostly teens, and number two teens need to be able to afford housing, transportation, food, and the doctor, like everybody else, and their family needs the money too because minimum wage is freaking seven bucks an hour.
Sorry kids, we need a new ballroom and you would not believe how much gold paint.
The idea that it was common because that's what was depicted on TV ain't really so. Think about how many shows right now, and over the last 30 years, have had people living in NYC, in huge, modern apartments, while working as a cab driver. Or a waitress.
The truth is that our standard of living has increased; real purchasing power has gone up. But we also expect to do more, and have more. And the cost of essentials has increased faster than the cost of non-essentials, which makes the gains feel like they're being chewed up and spat out.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/comparing-the-costs-of-generations.html
Growing up, it was very possible for ONE minimum wage worker to be able to afford a mortgage on a modest home in my city.
Huh. We were stuffing 5 minimum wage workers into one house to make rent, which was a little lower than a mortgage was at that time. Early 1990s.
College, though? I did cover that with the Pell Grant. 3k a year. Just the classes - I did have to work to live. Nobody now is able to cover their classes with the Pell Grant now because it's still about 3k.
You could work part-time in a retail shop while paying for an apartment and college.
At no time was that ever possible
I had a big break in my college years. My first year of college in 2002 at a state school, tuition, dorm, and a meal plan combined came out to about 10k a year. I remember that the dorm and meal plan combined was $1419 a semester, and ALL unmarried students with fewer than 60 hours under the age of 25 were required to live in them unless they had immediate gamily within 30 miles.
By the time I went back to college and graduated in 2016, just the tuition at the same school was over 1,000 an hour, and the dorms were like like 4k a semester with no meal plan and there was a lottery to get to live in them because they tore most of them down to cut costs and increase rent.
The answer to why resides in the way wealth is allocated in society. If you look at the graph of the wealth of the 0.1%, the median income and the economical growth, those three numbers were growing at a steady pace up until the 70~80s. Now our economies are growing at a similar rate but median income plateaued/is decreasing while the wealth of people at the top has skyrocketed.
It's not hard to figure out where all that growth went.
We could still afford such a lifestyle. Or we could learn to share more and end poverty and respect the Earth. But instead we're allowing a small village of cunts to each have more money and power than entire countries.

The Rand Corp issued a report in 2019 on income inequality, and the situation is far worse than most people think. The median salary of $43K in 1975 had increased to only $50K in 2019, while they would have been making $92K if the tax code hadn't been steadily re-written to enrich the wealthy at the cost of the middle class and poor.
In that same time period, the mean income for the top 1% went from $289K to $1.384 million, while they would have been making $630K under the old tax codes.
Thats a 17.4% increase in the lower median, and an increase of 321.6% in the 1% median. Clearly there has been an upwards distribution of wealth at the expense of the middle class since the tax codes started to be re-written in 1974 to favor the top economic tier. The Trickle Down Economics that everyone thought was Ronald Reagan's great idea, was baked into the tax code in 1974.
In addition, the Federal minimum wage was last increased to $7.25 in 2009. Previous to that, it was raised to $5.15 in 1997. The Federal minimum wage was only increased twice in the last 28 years, for a total of a measly $2.10. And yet corporations and their owners SCREAM like their nuts are being carved out by a red hot, dull, rusty spoon at even the mention of a raise in the minimum wage.
When there are threats to raise it every 15 years or so, there are always two responses, as if they are the ONLY possible options - prices will have to go up, or jobs will have to be cut. There is never a mention of the third possible option - that corporations and their owners might have to make a slightly smaller profit. That option is absolutely unthinkable. Unmentionable.
"But less profit means the stock market would be impacted!" is the standard cry. Yes it would, but so what? The stock market hit its recent low in March of 2008, soon after Obama took over the presidency in the midst of a free fall caused by the Bush Economic Crash - about 7500. Today it is over 40,000. Corporations are clearly benefiting in today's economy, even during a global pandemic when millions of American families were facing homelessness and food shortages through no fault of their own. They were the helpless victims of government edicts which forcibly and ruthlessly shut down their only ways to make a living, while doing NOTHING to help them survive because a few rich Republicans are upset that poor people might get more money than they deserve. So they fought to a stalemate over $400 or $600 per week, while their Sociopathic Oligarch slavemasters chuckled smugly while metaphorically lighting their cigars with $100 bills and demanding more corporate welfare.
So what if smaller profits (because workers got paid their value) meant the stock market was only at 20,000, or even 15,000? Those corporations and their stockholders would still be wealthy, but there would be enough money in the treasury to pay for health care for all, college or trade school for every qualified student, to forgive all student loan shark debts, to cover those whose jobs have been essentially declared illegal because of the pandemic, and more. Sure, corporations would have to live with less profit, but instead of that money being tied up in enormous stock portfolios or in offshore bank accounts, it would be in the hands of people who would buy houses, cars, furniture, vacations, retire to make room for the next generation, etc.
The Trickle Down Economic Theory never worked. As anyone could have predicted (and many did), instead of spending those tax profits on new factories or new opportunities or higher pay scales like we were promised, the Sociopathic Oligarchs only accumulated it at the top. When they did spend it, they spent it on political leverage to get more corporate welfare so they could accumulate even more wealth, at the expense of the working class, creating financial hoards which they sleep on like a Tolkienesque dragon.
Its time to give Trickle Up Economics a try. Make more money available to those at the bottom and middle, and see what happens. Raise wages, forgive student loans, offer free college and trade schools, give every citizen health care, etc. and it will create millions of jobs and stimulate the economy. Sure, the Oligarchs appreciate the efficiency of transferring the money directly from the government to their savings accounts, but the money from the Trickle Up stimulus will eventually reach them anyway, they just have to be a little patient and wait for it to help American families and the American economy first.
If they don't cooperate in this, then our society will spontaneously pivot to a Robin Hood Economy, and the Sociopathic Oligarchs won't like that one bit. We're already seeing the beginnings of it.
Read more about it :
New York Mag: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2020/09/rand-study-how-high-is-inequality-us.html
Fast Money: https://www.fastcompany.com/90550015/we-were-shocked-rand-study-uncovers-massive-income-shift-to-the-top-1
I am pretty old & my mom and dad both worked at jobs. My grandmas did not BUT their moms did, so I think the one income nuclear family thing was a blip in history. Mostly people lived in larger family groups, more than one person was working even if someone was at home.
I would suck at being a housewife, don't mind working but yeah it should mean we are raking in cash, not just surviving.
Ah yes, the art of "Enshittification" i.e., profit over product. And obviously you are the product for the billionaires and vertainly not other way around. https://www.themurrowproject.org/p/the-enshitification-of-everything
Which people lived this life? Is how we are organised today incompatible with the way they viewed the world?
And the people who didn’t have kids got Ferraris! Where the fuck is my Ferrari?
top 88 comments