Western World Inc.; Malpractices, Coverups and Controversies

[Peter]

The difference between America now and America in the 40s-70s, is that the American middle class was much, much bigger in the prior period, while being much, much richer comparatively.

What you effectively have in USA now, is a much stronger & richer plutocrat class ( enabled by Raeganism mainly), the impoverished class has been massively reduced, but at the cost of middle class wealth.

What you had in the US in the goldilocks period, is effectively a 15% class of dirt poor people, 5% class of very very rich people and 80% class of rich people.
What you have now, is 5% class of dirt poor people, 50% class of almost poor people, 40% class of average people and 5% class of ZOMFG 'can buy an entire country if i want' plutocrat people.

Oh and assimilation is slowly coming to an end and i see no reason to assimilate into the host cultures of anglosphere. Their values are inferior to ours, their performances are inferior to ours ( and by ours, i don't mean just Indian, i mean nearly ALL asian, which is 60% of humanity) and they can't sustain their numbers. So they should be culturally and ethnically replaced by us, not us turning into house negroes and trading in our superior values for their shittier ones.

Once again this depends on what your metrics are. The data I gathered from Pew Research Centre contradicts this.
More people are now in the middle class income bracket than previously. However the definition of middle class has itself changed. The American middle class has now more wealth than ever and spend more on leisure and other activities than they had done in previous decades. Their real wages might have been in a slump but their quality of life has improved vastly over what a middle class family had in the 1950`s. The growth of welfare might have remained stagnant but that is expected as there has to be a plateau or decline at some point.

Once again I would like data to contradict me in this point, especially data of the 1970`s versus 2010`s.

How the American middle class has changed in the past five decades

The share of adults who live in middle-class households fell from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2021, according to a new analysis.

www.pewresearch.org

Are Americans better off than they were a decade or two ago? | Brookings

Ben Bernanke and Peter Olson ask if Americans are better off than they were a decade ago, and tackle the question using a new, more-comprehensive measure of economic welfare that takes into account changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality.

www.brookings.edu

As I mentioned previously era matters, the 1970`s era middle class and it`s priorities differ vastly from 2020`s middle class. There is capital which accumulates over generations and America is simply not losing that. You can say America is stagnating as seen in real wage growth but the decline from a debauchery and hedonistic lifestyle is yet to be seen. Also immigrants like us are further pulling up the economy.

As for the immigrant cultures superseding or replacing them that is yet to happen. Most second generation Indian or Chinese Americans I have observed are hardly observant of the cultures of their native lands and are more white than the whites themselves. Also US encourages immigration from all corners of the world and Latin American immigration remains at an all time high. I would much prefer the Anglo-Saxon cultural values over machismo Latin American cultures. Also a boiling pot of cultures means no culture would ever dominate the US. Once again I am not a Nostradamus and I cannot predict the future. I only wish that every one can get along and live happily.

 

[Azaad]

I think both of you seem to be arguing on the basis of a fallacy that women weren't employed in the industrial sector before the 20th century. There's plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Here's an example of the UK going back to the mid 19th century with evidence of the participation of women in industrial activities dating to a much earlier period but which was recorded more in it's absence.

Besides what's true of the UK could be very well true of all newly industrializing countries in the west . After all sweat shops have been known to exist in the US in the 19th century too.

19th and early 20th century | Striking Women

Most [no-lexicon]working class[/no-lexicon] women in Victorian England had no choice but to undertake paid work in order to help support their families. Women worked in factories, in domestic service, in family businesses and carried out [no-lexicon]home-based work[/no-lexicon] such as finishing...

www.striking-women.org

.

 

[Peter]

1. The conclusion that is unavoidable from data is that women's participation in the workforce was irrelevant to economic & technological growth
2. Your claim that it would've lead to faster growth & wealth generation is unsupportable, since we DO have western data for nearly 100 years of women's participation in the workforce (as well as 40+ years for east Asia) and neither of these periods represent the fastest wealth & technological growth of these societies.

3. America & the west being much wealthier with women in the work force is again, a correlative observation. In the era of fiat money, wealth will ALWAYS increase (along with corresponding decrease in value of money), barring any real great depression-esque shocks.




This is mathematically absurd. If variable Z is introduced at X+T location in the X-axis ( representing time) and has no discernable effect on the Y-axis ( growth), then the conclusion that 'without Z, we would have felt an impact on Y-axis' is mathematically unsupportable.

ok

Time series data on social phenomena is not so simple and often defies logic. It is absurd and this is the reason why economists fail to get most things right. The 2008 financial crisis due to bad mortgages was partly due to economists making up all sorts of mumbo-jumbo predictions about human behavior and mortgage repayment. Modern economics is based on collective human psychology and behavior and yet today`s economists are none wiser than they were a few decades ago.

https://theguardian.com/businessThis%20is%20mathematically%20abs/economics-blog/2013/nov/06/is-economics-a-science-robert-shiller

The above article is authored by an Economics Nobel Prize Winner himself. A must read imho.
Unlike Image Processing or Text Analysis most predictive models on real world phenomena fail. There is simply no formula to explain most social phenomena as it is too complex and there are way too many variables.

Anyway, our main bone of contention was if women`s workforce participation is necessary in the modern era (2020`s and onward) and I am in the camp of those would say yes. Obviously I might be blatantly wrong but I feel otherwise.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Once again this depends on what your metrics are. The data I gathered from Pew Research Centre contradicts this.
More people are now in the middle class income bracket than previously. However the definition of middle class has itself changed. The American middle class has now more wealth than ever and spend more on leisure and other activities than they had done in previous decades. Their real wages might have been in a slump but their quality of life has improved vastly over what a middle class family had in the 1950`s. The growth of welfare might have remained stagnant but that is expected as there has to be a plateau or decline at some point.

Once again I would like data to contradict me in this point, especially data of the 1970`s versus 2010`s.

How the American middle class has changed in the past five decades

The share of adults who live in middle-class households fell from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2021, according to a new analysis.

www.pewresearch.org

View attachment 212383

Are Americans better off than they were a decade or two ago? | Brookings

Ben Bernanke and Peter Olson ask if Americans are better off than they were a decade ago, and tackle the question using a new, more-comprehensive measure of economic welfare that takes into account changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality.

www.brookings.edu

As I mentioned previously era matters, the 1970`s era middle class and it`s priorities differ vastly from 2020`s middle class. There is capital which accumulates over generations and America is simply not losing that. You can say America is stagnating as seen in real wage growth but the decline from a debauchery and hedonistic lifestyle is yet to be seen. Also immigrants like us are further pulling up the economy.

As for the immigrant cultures superseding or replacing them that is yet to happen. Most second generation Indian or Chinese Americans I have observed are hardly observant of the cultures of their native lands and are more white than the whites themselves. Also US encourages immigration from all corners of the world and Latin American immigration remains at an all time high. I would much prefer the Anglo-Saxon cultural values over machismo Latin American cultures. Also a boiling pot of cultures means no culture would ever dominate the US. Once again I am not a Nostradamus and I cannot predict the future. I only wish that every one can get along and live happily.

Your graph LITERALLY confirmed what i have said - that the american middle class has been hollowed out significantly.
Not only are the American middle class poorer in relative terms, they are MASSIVELY poorer, given the inflation of housing costs from the 70s to now, where the average middle class person made 40% less money but their major capital expenses ( housing & cars) were 5000% cheaper or more.

I would much rather have the family based latino culture than the anti-family anglo saxon culture, but my i would much rather have any Asian culture - where family values, high social tolerance, low crime and excellent work ethic are highly valued.
As for assimilation- it is dead. Its effects will take another 10-20 years to be seen, but as a 40+ year old immigrant, i can see the signs of it everywhere.
The main drivers of assimilation being dead are :
1. The internet
2. Fall of American values in the eyes of the immigrants.

Ie, this is the first time in history that immigrants are not required to assimilate, as we import our home culture, the politics & happenings of it, directly, in real time, into our living rooms, stay in touch with our families much easier etc. Assimilation has always been against the will of the immigrants- this is why the first generation never assimilates and its the 2nd/third gen that ends up assimilating, because they have no other option. However, they DO have an option now to perpetuate non assimilation, especially with compounding numbers making it subsequently easier.

And for the last point - the last 20 years have burst the bubble of american/western invicibility and morals being 'supreme' in the eyes of the immigrants. Many of us who came here 20-25 years ago are turning away from assimilation ( which was unheard of before) and most of us who have been arriving for the last 10 years are outright against it.Ofcourse social changes require inertia and the inertia of it will be felt somewhere close to 2040, but it will be felt, which is why the western world has been stepping up its media propaganda warfare against the prime centres of these immigration,in a bid to arrest point #2.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

I think both of you seem to be arguing on the basis of a fallacy that women weren't employed in the industrial sector before the 20th century. There's plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Here's an example of the UK going back to the mid 19th century with evidence of the participation of women in industrial activities dating to a much earlier period but which was recorded more in it's absence.

Besides what's true of the UK could be very well true of all newly industrializing countries in the west . After all sweat shops have been known to exist in the US in the 19th century too.

19th and early 20th century | Striking Women

Most [no-lexicon]working class[/no-lexicon] women in Victorian England had no choice but to undertake paid work in order to help support their families. Women worked in factories, in domestic service, in family businesses and carried out [no-lexicon]home-based work[/no-lexicon] such as finishing...

www.striking-women.org

.

I didn't say women weren't employed. i said their employment was minimal. Which is borne out by the statistics.
Women's employment is actually interesting, because data actually shows that women's employment DROPPED during the industrial revolution from prior times, mostly because industrial revolution saw cottage industries disappear and replaced with giant manufacturies, which required the woman to leave the home, instead of working from home, something most women refused to do back then due to family commitments.

We've seen this in India too -where our great grandmas used to weave from home while taking care of her kids but our gradmas didn't .

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Time series data on social phenomena is not so simple and often defies logic. It is absurd and this is the reason why economists fail to get most things right. The 2008 financial crisis due to bad mortgages was partly due to economists making up all sorts of mumbo-jumbo predictions about human behavior and mortgage repayment. Modern economics is based on collective human psychology and behavior and yet today`s economists are none wiser than they were a few decades ago.

https://theguardian.com/businessThis%20is%20mathematically%20abs/economics-blog/2013/nov/06/is-economics-a-science-robert-shiller

The above article is authored by an Economics Nobel Prize Winner himself. A must read imho.
Unlike Image Processing or Text Analysis most predictive models on real world phenomena fail. There is simply no formula to explain most social phenomena as it is too complex and there are way too many variables.

Anyway, our main bone of contention was if women`s workforce participation is necessary in the modern era (2020`s and onward) and I am in the camp of those would say yes. Obviously I might be blatantly wrong but I feel otherwise.

This isnt about defying logic, this is about what data shows.
We are not talking economics here, we are talking about simple data and metrics that are not subject to interpretation towards its values, but present empiric values itself, such as wealth generation, rate of discovery ( from patent filings), participation rates in workforce by sex or education levels.

I do think women's participation in the modern workforce is necessary, but not for the reasons you think. Its necessary because we are poorer as a society overall and single income families are far less sustainable today than 30 years ago.
This is a consequence of fiat money inflation.

 

[Peter]

Your graph LITERALLY confirmed what i have said - that the american middle class has been hollowed out significantly.
Not only are the American middle class poorer in relative terms, they are MASSIVELY poorer, given the inflation of housing costs from the 70s to now, where the average middle class person made 40% less money but their major capital expenses ( housing & cars) were 5000% cheaper or more.

I would much rather have the family based latino culture than the anti-family anglo saxon culture, but my i would much rather have any Asian culture - where family values, high social tolerance, low crime and excellent work ethic are highly valued.
As for assimilation- it is dead. Its effects will take another 10-20 years to be seen, but as a 40+ year old immigrant, i can see the signs of it everywhere.
The main drivers of assimilation being dead are :
1. The internet
2. Fall of American values in the eyes of the immigrants.

Ie, this is the first time in history that immigrants are not required to assimilate, as we import our home culture, the politics & happenings of it, directly, in real time, into our living rooms, stay in touch with our families much easier etc. Assimilation has always been against the will of the immigrants- this is why the first generation never assimilates and its the 2nd/third gen that ends up assimilating, because they have no other option. However, they DO have an option now to perpetuate non assimilation, especially with compounding numbers making it subsequently easier.

And for the last point - the last 20 years have burst the bubble of american/western invicibility and morals being 'supreme' in the eyes of the immigrants. Many of us who came here 20-25 years ago are turning away from assimilation ( which was unheard of before) and most of us who have been arriving for the last 10 years are outright against it.Ofcourse social changes require inertia and the inertia of it will be felt somewhere close to 2040, but it will be felt, which is why the western world has been stepping up its media propaganda warfare against the prime centres of these immigration,in a bid to arrest point #2.

I like Asian values, by which I mean a strong sense of adherence to rules and justice, discipline, obedience and strong family values to become dominant in the West or any country.

However I would prefer Anglo-Saxon values over machismo culture any day.

You do not seem to know that machismo culture is actually ANTI-FAMILY based. This is the reason why Latin American countries always had high rates of out of wedlock births even before the Anglo-Saxon West even in the 1800s and 1900s. Even today that trend holds.

https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_4_Share_births_outside_marriage.pdf

In fact it was the Puritanical anglo-saxon values which held family together in America compared to the machismo culture where the prime aim was to bed a "chica" for a night and have fun. Heck the racist WWE even portrayed what machismo culture was with it`s wrestling characters. Out of wedlock births was always high in Latin America.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017/s0022381610000319

The Latin American Razor Ramon displaying what machismo meant. Machismo culture is one of the reasons why Latin America had higher illegitimacy. A bit of a breather from the dry discussion we are having.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

I like Asian values, by which I mean a strong sense of adherence to rules and justice, discipline, obedience and strong family values to become dominant in the West or any country.

However I would prefer Anglo-Saxon values over machismo culture any day.

You do not seem to know that machismo culture is actually ANTI-FAMILY based. This is the reason why Latin American countries always had high rates of out of wedlock births even before the Anglo-Saxon West even in the 1800s and 1900s. Even today that trend holds.

https://www.oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_4_Share_births_outside_marriage.pdf

In fact it was the Puritanical anglo-saxon values which held family together in America compared to the machismo culture where the prime aim was to bed a "chica" for a night and have fun. Heck the racist WWE even portrayed what machismo culture was with it`s wrestling characters. Out of wedlock births was always high in Latin America.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1017/s0022381610000319

The Latin American Razor Ramon displaying what machismo meant. Machismo culture is one of the reasons why Latin America had higher illegitimacy. A bit of a breather from the dry discussion we are having.

I am canadian, my experience with Latinos are very different than the american one- all of the ones i see are legal immigrants, who are extremely hard working people who are ALL married and have their spouses here or sending money back home to their spouses and older generation. So i see them as solid value people.

 

[Peter]

I am canadian, my experience with Latinos are very different than the american one- all of the ones i see are legal immigrants, who are extremely hard working people who are ALL married and have their spouses here or sending money back home to their spouses and older generation. So i see them as solid value people.

That is because they are educated Latinos who generally come from the upper strata of the society. Most Latino`s in US come from very poor backgrounds and there is great amount of income inequality in Latin America which is a relic of Spanish colonial rule. Most of the machismo culture is also a relic of the rape and unstable family relationships which working women in large plantations called colonial hacienda`s suffered. Illegitimate people are more likely to give birth to illegitimate children, kind of like how circumcised fathers in US circumcise their children.

https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=3595

Hacienda - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Encomienda - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Illegitimate Nation

The argument is often made that immigrants have a stronger commitment to traditional family values than do native-born Americans.

cis.org

Machismo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The idea of the male ego, where the male is symbolized as "hyper-masculine, virile, strong, paternalistic, sexually dominant, and the financial provider"[18] is reinforced by the teachings of the Catholic Church, the main religion practiced in Cuba and Latina America in general. According to Catholic Church teachings, the female should be a virgin but it's less important for the male to be one.[18] During colonial times, a female's chastity and demureness were linked to the family's societal standings [new], while the males were expected and sometimes pressured into proving their sexual prowess by having multiple partners.

P.S. Infact Latin American countries have such high illegitimacy that it would put modern European nations to shame.

 

[Azaad]

I didn't say women weren't employed. i said their employment was minimal. Which is borne out by the statistics.
Women's employment is actually interesting, because data actually shows that women's employment DROPPED during the industrial revolution from prior times, mostly because industrial revolution saw cottage industries disappear and replaced with giant manufacturies, which required the woman to leave the home, instead of working from home, something most women refused to do back then due to family commitments.

We've seen this in India too -where our great grandmas used to weave from home while taking care of her kids but our gradmas didn't .

If upto 28% of the working women were employed as per the article I've linked in my previous post , mostly in the domestic service i.e - position of maids & governess's & apart from the garments & other core industrial sectors that still counts for something.

It may do nothing to boost or negate your pet argument of women's education & participation in the workforce to the technological progress of that particular society but the impact this has on a women's emancipation namely her financial independence & consequently independence in thought & action can't be underestimated .

The very first manifestation of this was the women's suffrage movement beginning in the mid 19th century in the US & UK . We ought to take a more holistic view of both developments viz the education & the participation of women in the workforce has on the social fabric of a society . This does have a direct impact on the technological progress any given society makes in the time space dynamic.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

If upto 28% of the working women were employed as per the article I've linked in my previous post , mostly in the domestic service i.e - position of maids & governess's & apart from the garments & other core industrial sectors that still counts for something.

women's participation in the workforce mostly means formal sector, not informal sector. Maids, governess, etc have always existed through time, you can then say that the vast majority of women in rural india work, as they work the farms regularly.

It may do nothing to boost or negate your pet argument of women's education & participation in the workforce to the technological progress of that particular society but the impact this has on a women's emancipation namely her financial independence & consequently independence in thought & action can't be underestimated .

The very first manifestation of this was the women's suffrage movement beginning in the mid 19th century in the US & UK . We ought to take a more holistic view of both developments viz the education & the participation of women in the workforce has on the social fabric of a society . This does have a direct impact on the technological progress any given society makes in the time space dynamic.

Women worked those informal sectors for millenia and it had zero effect on their rights and financial independence. Same story in India or vietnam, where a large majority of women have worked since time immemorial in the informal sector.

The suffregette movement was spawned when women started joining the formal sector - industrial and corporate, in droves, requiring them to make decisions and have rights independent of the familial unit.

 

[Azaad]

women's participation in the workforce mostly means formal sector, not informal sector. Maids, governess, etc have always existed through time, you can then say that the vast majority of women in rural india work, as they work the farms regularly.



Women worked those informal sectors for millenia and it had zero effect on their rights and financial independence. Same story in India or vietnam, where a large majority of women have worked since time immemorial in the informal sector.

The suffregette movement was spawned when women started joining the formal sector - industrial and corporate, in droves, requiring them to make decisions and have rights independent of the familial unit.

Unfortunately the data at hand doesn't quantify the number of women employed in the formal or informal sector but given the wide & wild disparities in the distribution of wealth in Victorian UK , I'm willing to take a leap in imagination to suggest that the participation of women in tne workforce was quite high given wide spread deprivation if not outright poverty.

As far as the suffragette movement goes it's part of the wider progressive mileu which saw a churn in society due to new ideas which obviously would impact the formal sector first as they were the ones most organised of all the other workforces namely in the agricultural or the nascent service sector.

Changes brought about thru such agitations was bound to impact all those women including those not directly associated with the formal sector too , with cascading effects on their lifestyle choices.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Unfortunately the data at hand doesn't quantify the number of women employed in the formal or informal sector but given the wide & wild disparities in the distribution of wealth in Victorian UK , I'm willing to take a leap in imagination to suggest that the participation of women in tne workforce was quite high given wide spread deprivation if not outright poverty.

Well i see it as no different than what women's employment in India or developing world countries are now or 20 years ago- with the vast majority working in the informal sector, such as farming/maids etc.

As far as the suffragette movement goes it's part of the wider progressive mileu which saw a churn in society due to new ideas which obviously would impact the formal sector first as they were the ones most organised of all the other workforces namely in the agricultural or the nascent service sector.

Changes brought about thru such agitations was bound to impact all those women including those not directly associated with the formal sector too , with cascading effects on their lifestyle choices.

The change came exclusively due to WW1, where not enough men were left to run the formal sector, requiring women to join the formal sector, leading to agitations for rights and such. yes, the concept of womens's rights and emancipation existed before WW1 but in the ivory towers of intellectual class, not in terms of movements or attaining critical mass to enact legal changes- which are all exclusively a product of WW1 related manpower shortages.

 

[Azaad]

Well i see it as no different than what women's employment in India or developing world countries are now or 20 years ago- with the vast majority working in the informal sector, such as farming/maids etc.



The change came exclusively due to WW1, where not enough men were left to run the formal sector, requiring women to join the formal sector, leading to agitations for rights and such. yes, the concept of womens's rights and emancipation existed before WW1 but in the ivory towers of intellectual class, not in terms of movements or attaining critical mass to enact legal changes- which are all exclusively a product of WW1 related manpower shortages.

Developing countries have only NOW started industrializing on a mass scale whereas Europe had undergone it in the 19th & 20th century having come out of it nearly 3-4 decades ago which is why they see themselves rightly as post industrial societies. That's not the case with us .

The roots of the suffragette movement in the US precedes the civil war with organised picketing & agitations making an appearance in the late 19th century although adult suffrage including women was eventually granted post WW-1 in the US & UK.

NZ , Australia , Finland etc permitted women's suffrage by the late 19th very early 20th century preceding such developments in the UK & US by decades . Besides it's not as if women were completely denied suffrage . In many countries in the west they could vote for local elections. WW-1 accelerated women's emancipation a great deal.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Developing countries have only NOW started industrializing on a mass scale whereas Europe has gone thru it all the the 19th & 20th century having come out of it nearly 3-4 decades ago which is why they see themselves rightly as post industrial societies. That's not the case with us .

Sure, but this isnt relevant to what it was like in the late 1800s for Europe, which was already industrialised ( or at least large sections of it were) - where most women were not working and a very small fraction of them were in the formal sectors. I am pointing out what the women's workplace in England circa 1880s was and its similar to what it is for us in the 1980s: most of them are unemployed and for the employed, most of them are in the informal sector, with little to no control over their money or movements.

The roots of the suffragette movement in the US precedes the civil war with organised picketing & agitations making an appearance in the late 19th century although adult suffrage including women was eventually granted post WW-1 in the US & UK.

NZ , Australia , Finland etc permitted women's suffrage by the late 19th very early 20th century universal . Besides it's not as if women were completely denied suffrage . In many countries in the west they could vote for local elections. WW-1 accelerated women's emancipation a great deal.

WW1 is what made it reach critical mass. I mean if you wanna go outside the white house and camp there all year, you will see 'tell the truth about Roswell' signboard and 5 protesters about it one day, but that hardly qualifies as a mass movement.

 

[Azaad]

Sure, but this isnt relevant to what it was like in the late 1800s for Europe, which was already industrialised ( or at least large sections of it were) - where most women were not working and a very small fraction of them were in the formal sectors. I am pointing out what the women's workplace in England circa 1880s was and its similar to what it is for us in the 1980s: most of them are unemployed and for the employed, most of them are in the informal sector, with little to no control over their money or movements.



WW1 is what made it reach critical mass. I mean if you wanna go outside the white house and camp there all year, you will see 'tell the truth about Roswell' signboard and 5 protesters about it one day, but that hardly qualifies as a mass movement.

How industrialized was Europe is again difficult to quantify in terms of the number of people employed in the industrial sector unless you're suggesting they far outstripped the agricultural sector which I don't think was the case in Europe in the 19th century. That would have to be an extremely late 19th century / 20th century development .

But my contention has always been that given widespread deprivation if not outright poverty , women's participation in the workforce whether formal or informal may have been quite high in 19th century UK which obviously went up in the 20th century . Quite obviously it didn't equal men's participation .

All such agitations have small beginnings. The very fact that women & men moved their discussion & argument about women's suffrage from salons , the press , academia & the legislature to the streets between the mid to late 19th century only to get the right to women's suffrage post WW-1 in the UK & the US nearly three quarters of a century after it was first mooted demonstrates it takes time to build momentum & sometimes you require a miracle to see it through like WW-1. Ours was WW-2.

 

[Suryavanshi]

Once again this depends on what your metrics are. The data I gathered from Pew Research Centre contradicts this.
More people are now in the middle class income bracket than previously. However the definition of middle class has itself changed. The American middle class has now more wealth than ever and spend more on leisure and other activities than they had done in previous decades. Their real wages might have been in a slump but their quality of life has improved vastly over what a middle class family had in the 1950`s. The growth of welfare might have remained stagnant but that is expected as there has to be a plateau or decline at some point.

Once again I would like data to contradict me in this point, especially data of the 1970`s versus 2010`s.

There is no straight jacket data to defer your claim.
But a change of perspective will help.

See how much the middle class could afford.

Price of new 4 wheeler

Price or tuition fee.

Price of houses

Personal savings.

They are richer than ever but purely on fiat currency, they can't get as much for their paper as they used to back in 1950s to 60s

 

[GaudaNaresh]

There is no straight jacket data to defer your claim.
But a change of perspective will help.

See how much the middle class could afford.

Price of new 4 wheeler

Price or tuition fee.

Price of houses

Personal savings.

They are richer than ever but purely on fiat currency, they can't get as much for their paper as they used to back in 1950s to 60s

Well said but i think your last graph is the same as your 2nd last graph.
America and the western world being richer now than 40 years ago is a ridiculous idea.
yes, there is less poverty.
Yes, there are more ultra-rich billionaires.
But the vast majority of the society- thats the middle class- went from paying off their houses in 10 years to basically needing two incomes to pay off their house in 30 years.

And there are cities in north america -Vancouver, Toronto, San Fransico, New York, etc. where guys who are 15+ year experience lead engineers, with wives who are accountants, who can't even BEGIN to afford a house.

 

[Suryavanshi]

Well said but i think your last graph is the same as your 2nd last graph.
America and the western world being richer now than 40 years ago is a ridiculous idea.
yes, there is less poverty.
Yes, there are more ultra-rich billionaires.
But the vast majority of the society- thats the middle class- went from paying off their houses in 10 years to basically needing two incomes to pay off their house in 30 years.

And there are cities in north america -Vancouver, Toronto, San Fransico, New York, etc. where guys who are 15+ year experience lead engineers, with wives who are accountants, who can't even BEGIN to afford a house.

Made a mistake

 

[Roshan]

The thing is Americans are richer and more prosperous than they have ever been. Their poverty levels have been the lowest since 1950`s and probably beyond. Personally I do not trust the numbers and I believe it was the early 1970`s before stagflation hit America when the US was truly the 'shining city on a hill'. However from what I have observed till now in my stay here I have not seen any levels of abject poverty here barring a few spots in Black neighbourhoods or illegal immigrant(Latin X or Venezuela-Paraguayan) ghettos.

U.S. Poverty Statistics and Facts (Updated for 2024)

Learn about how poverty affects different demographics in the United States by looking at the most recent statistics and data.

www.debt.org

Is America Still the ‘Shining City on a Hill’?

If the eyes of all people are upon America now, they are not witnessing an edifying spectacle.

www.theatlantic.com

On the other hand in the 1930s and even in 1950s, we have

View attachment 212372

The Tragic Story Behind The Photo Of Four Children Who Had To Be Sold To Escape Poverty In The 1940s

America in the 1940s was a tumultuous place to live. World War II raged through the first half of the decade, finally ending in 1945 and leaving its mark on the country for decades. During the war, food and supplies were rationed, and, though the end of the war marked an economic boom in America,...

www.ranker.com

View attachment 212373

Dust Bowl - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the 60s we had the Hippies.

View attachment 212374

The thing is anyone who claims America of 1930`s and early 1950`s was an Utopian paradise compared to America now is bonkers. I do not think we are arguing for what America is presently but what it is going to be in the FUTURE(say 50-100 years) till now if things stand in this way. Obviously the future can never be predicted and there may be disruptive technological progress that changes everything. The thing we have to see is how happy and satisfied Americans were in the past compared to the present.

When Was America Great? Depends On When You Were Born

A person’s age plays a role in when they think United States was at its peak—and Baby Boomers have a particularly dim view of the present.

www.theatlantic.com

However Americans of past generations despite being poor were happy as compared to the present generations. Americans today are basically extracting the benefits of what their great forefathers did and achieved. Sadly the current generation is slagging off way too much and their current Karma is bound to hit back on them. Real wages are falling off fast and out of wed lock births are giving rise to violent INCELs who carry out school shootings on a whim. Promotion of neo-capitalist ideals means America is soon going to end up like South Korea. The only saving grace would be the hardworking assimilating immigrants who may turn the tide around. Once again I would not predict the future but things surely do not look so hunky dore in Merica now.

When we talk of prosperity you cannot ignore inflation and the relative value of the dollar cratering since that period which has massively affected it's purchasing power regardless of the geopolitical wrangling that has gone on to foist it on the rest od the world just so it doesn't lose its value. A lot of social delinquency has gone up massively on a society wide level there since that period which you have to factor in. One can't just look at a DINK couple in Suburbia buying a new iphone every time it comes out along wth regularly paying for Netflix and a Vanilla soy latte everyday to decide that they had it better than their grandparents/parents did 6-7 decades ago.