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.
61
CPMSP @midwest.social - 13hr
Nice breakdown.
Don't leave out the part that after this American renaissance, where those returning soldiers became workers who reaped the rewards of that one in a million economic boon, their children started fabricating narratives about 'hard work' and 'grit' being the reason their inherited wealth was justified.
Then they shoved that narrative down the next three generations' throats while exclaiming "kids these days are lazy" and "I worked a summer job to pay for college, why can't you?". All the while pulling up every ladder that had been constructed to put them in that position.
19
merc @sh.itjust.works - 12hr
True enough. The men who had great jobs in the 50s had frequently been soldiers in the 40s. They'd been raised in the 30s during the great depression. They'd been through hardships. It was their kids who grew up in relative luxury. I'm sure some of it was pulling the ladder up after themselves. But, in addition they hadn't had to fight to establish their union, it was just there when they joined the job. Because of that, they didn't know how important it was, and so they didn't know they should be fighting to keep it strong.
9
justaman123 @lemmy.world - 11hr
Yeah they just saw money coming out of their check for union dues and propaganda about how union reps were corrupt
5
merc @sh.itjust.works - 10hr
And, to be fair, there was some corruption in unions. But, they could have rooted out that corruption and had a union that represented them. Instead they abandoned unions and embraced "rugged individualism".
4
justaman123 @lemmy.world - 11hr
Yeah the position of privilege that America occupied globally for the last 75 years minus the last ten or twenty years is not something that's talked about enough in "they" took the American dream from us
8
Hyperrealism @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 10hr
And what that position of privilege cost the rest of the world. For example, Eisenhower was president from '53-'61, is often seen as a great president by Americans, and that decade is seen as a golden age by plenty of Americans (especially boomers).
Outside the US, Eisenhower had Lumumba assassinated in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The replacement they helped install, Mobutu, basically continued the brutal rule and many of the atrocities that had occured in the Congo Free State (death toll as high as 10 million), so that minerals could continue to be extracted. Ultimately this would lead to the first and second congo war and an additional 5 million deaths. Fun fact: a few years ago Tesla/Musk signed a large contract with a company which was formed from a merger of companies including the successor of Compagnie du Katanga. The latter was a concession company that operated in the Congo Free State and is responsible for plenty of the worst atrocities committed during that time. Just in case anyone here thinks colonialism was a long time ago. There's also stuff like the Guatamalan genocide which was a result of the CIA instigated coup of 1954, the 1953 Iranian coup which would ultimately result in Iran becoming an Islamic theocracy, and his signing a deal with Franco which arguably prolonged his rule.
7
matlag - 9hr
And since then, productivity exploded. Machines and automation everywhere. We are in the age of overconsumption. And value is created at an always acceleratind pace.
But then things started to slow down. But wealth growth can't slow down! It has to grow, always, and always faster. So when "produce more" stopped working, they turned to "produce for cheap".
They started cutting spendings and benefits. But it wasn't enough. And they told western workers that they were no longer competitive. Yes, that plant they're shutting down was making money. But it would make MORE money in China and other third world countries.
And while plants were going away, salaries got stagnant. Wealth was growing again!
But then the growth slowed down again. So they bought governments to get huge subsidies they could funnel in their wealth growth again.
And now plants are "optimal". Wages are low. Govs hand out money. Why is it not working?
Because they impoverished so much the working class that there is no one left to buy the goods they produce.
The problem is obvious to anyone looking: money is needed for the economy to run. If it's all locked up by oligarchs, then it serves no purpose and the economy suffocates. And there is no remote way a handful of people can manage the world's economy. "Trickle down economy" has failed everywhere and everytime it was attempted. So they're terrified. Terrified of the working class, terrified of common good, terrified of common sense.
So to make sure they can keep hoarding whatever is left to get, they turned to fascists and propped them across the world, by controlling medias and flooding social networks.
And here we are: in the age of overproduction and mass poverty combined, with a class of scared oligarchs ready to take the world down with them as long as no one stops their wealth hoarding.
7
merc @sh.itjust.works - 7hr
You'd think that productivity would explode, but the productivity paradox says that it really has stalled out. It stalled in the 70s to the 80s, and then stalled again around 2000 and hasn't really grown since.
Wealth has continued to grow unchecked, but for some reason even though computers are getting more and more powerful, workers aren't getting more done. AI is only making this worse.
1
cassandrafatigue @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 2hr
No paradox. The wealthy didn't want plenty; they wanted control.
1
cassandrafatigue @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 2hr
Neat history that mostly erases billionaire actions.
You're really great at underhanded billionaire propaganda. How much do they pay you?
Are you Malcolm gladwell?
2
Miaou @jlai.lu - 1hr
You need to touch some grass
3
LemmyBruceLeeMarvin @lemmy.ml - 10hr
It's. The. Capitalism.
19
Kowowow @lemmy.ca - 18hr
You know a sitcom that could realistically contrast the two lifestyles could be interesting
17
Agent641 @lemmy.world - 13hr
Al Bundy supported a house full of degeneracy in a shoe salesman's salary.
7
justaman123 @lemmy.world - 10hr
Imagine living Al Bundys life slinging shoes at Foot Locker
1
edahs @lemmy.world - 13hr
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.
14
definitelynotavampire - 10hr
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.
13
Wigglesworth - 9hr
Don't worry. It'll get worse.
12
TropicalDingdong @lemmy.world - 15hr
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.
12
UnrefinedChihuahua @lemmy.dbzer0.com - 15hr
Why not? It was the fashion at the time.
9
NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ - 13hr
At that point, it became to them as a child yelling "6 7" has come to us.
7
Mac @mander.xyz - 12hr
Not sure about you but when i hear "6, 7" i make the hand gesture and smile.
1
NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ - 6hr
...there's a hand gesture?
2
Mac @mander.xyz - 6hr
There is, indeed. It's an important part of the meme. One could even be attribute the gesture to catalyzing the memeification in the first place.
1
jballs @sh.itjust.works - 13hr
Those same people also had pensions for life once they retired in their 50s. They also didn't have to pay for health insurance.
12
Event_Horizon @lemmy.world - 10hr
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.
10
Hikermick @lemmy.world - 15hr
Comparing then to now is hard. I don't doubt workers were compensated better when unions were stronger but it's an apples to oranges thing. Off the top of my head:
Multiple generations lived in a single house that was much smaller.
Households shared a single car.
Most had a single television set that picked up 6 channels.
One phone per household. Calling a couple towns over was expensive.
Family vacations were within driving distance.
Photographs were expensive. Video nonexistent.
Eating out was a rare treat
9
groet @feddit.org - 15hr
People were so poor in 2025. Most households didnt even have multiple VR headsets. And those most had only remote controled lighting in one room. So poor.
The multi-gen household fact is simply not true for many places, same as the size of the houses. The number of cars and phones and TVs are all a result of the same thing. They never needed a second one. You don't need two cars if only one person is working and is home early enough to finish erands after work. Photographs, travel distance, Videos, that's all technological change. They couldn't afford it because it don't exist in a consumer form.
That doesn't change the fact that the high standard of living of that time was affordable while the high standard of living of today isn't affordable.
13
Hikermick @lemmy.world - 14hr
Multi generations in a house was certainly a thing though it varies depending on what decade you're talking about. The houses definitely were smaller as were the yards. Look at the new construction now, there are no modest sized homes being built then drive through an older neighborhood. There is simply no comparison. My aunts and uncles all shared bedrooms.. Rarely did houses have more than one bathroom. Nobody had central air conditioning not homes, not schools. Plenty of teenagers have cars these days though they're still in school. Nobody walks or rides bikes unless they're electric. Most people are overweight and plenty of young folks are diabetic. Those factory jobs that everyone thinks were so great? They were often dangerous before OSHA and unhealthy before the EPA. My older neighbors in Cleveland told me about the soot from the nearby steel mills. BTW those jobs were plentiful until recently where I live. They're miserable places to work still. They'll make you work 6-7 days a week, 10-12 hours a day. My sister just got fired from one making $25 an hour, she lost a similar job year ago. Everyone is doing Adderall to cope, management looks the other way.
3
gandalf_der_12te @discuss.tchncs.de - 14hr
Multiple generations lived in a single house that was much smaller.
is there any source on this? Especially it being smaller. Because a lot of single-family houses (especially rural) more than a century ago very really big, because they were essentially small farms.
7
Hikermick @lemmy.world - 14hr
Drive through older neighborhoods and look for yourself. Also you can look up real estate property info on most county websites in the US. They'll tell you square feet and also the year built. Builders these days don't build reasonably sized homes unfortunately. I wonder if cities don't want them because it'll attract lower income folks. As for multi generations in the same home, I recently had a subscription to Ancestry.com and could see all the people living in one house as was recorded in the census data. Families had more kids too.
4
booly @sh.itjust.works - 13hr
Builders these days don't build reasonably sized homes unfortunately. I wonder if cities don't want them because it'll attract lower income folks.
The economies of scale of setting up a job site, lining up all the contractors' schedules, getting all the materials and equipment in place, plus the paperwork of permitting, inspections, etc., mean that each additional square foot/meter of space is much, much cheaper than the first. That just naturally pushes towards bigger single family homes.
Multifamily is different, though, which is why many multifamily buildings gravitate towards 1- or 2-bedroom units.
4
pachrist - 14hr
A lot of those rural homes had an addition with each generation. Most families lived in 1200sq ft or less. The average size of a home has risen pretty dramatically.
3
justaman123 @lemmy.world - 10hr
Of course back then home only needed to be a place to sleep and eat and bathe. The rest of your life happened outside the home
1
dontpanic - 16hr
*for some demographics
7
Krudler - 12hr
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.
5
🏴حمید پیام عباسی🏴 - 10hr
For white people in the imperial core
Keep downvoting, sorry the truth hurts that your parents only had those privileges from raping the rest of the world
4
NotASharkInAManSuit @lemmy.world - 15hr
And the people who didn’t have kids got Ferraris! Where the fuck is my Ferrari?
Stamets in Tumblr @lemmy.dbzer0.com
Stolen from all of us
And to make that happen:
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.
Nice breakdown.
Don't leave out the part that after this American renaissance, where those returning soldiers became workers who reaped the rewards of that one in a million economic boon, their children started fabricating narratives about 'hard work' and 'grit' being the reason their inherited wealth was justified.
Then they shoved that narrative down the next three generations' throats while exclaiming "kids these days are lazy" and "I worked a summer job to pay for college, why can't you?". All the while pulling up every ladder that had been constructed to put them in that position.
True enough. The men who had great jobs in the 50s had frequently been soldiers in the 40s. They'd been raised in the 30s during the great depression. They'd been through hardships. It was their kids who grew up in relative luxury. I'm sure some of it was pulling the ladder up after themselves. But, in addition they hadn't had to fight to establish their union, it was just there when they joined the job. Because of that, they didn't know how important it was, and so they didn't know they should be fighting to keep it strong.
Yeah they just saw money coming out of their check for union dues and propaganda about how union reps were corrupt
And, to be fair, there was some corruption in unions. But, they could have rooted out that corruption and had a union that represented them. Instead they abandoned unions and embraced "rugged individualism".
Yeah the position of privilege that America occupied globally for the last 75 years minus the last ten or twenty years is not something that's talked about enough in "they" took the American dream from us
And what that position of privilege cost the rest of the world. For example, Eisenhower was president from '53-'61, is often seen as a great president by Americans, and that decade is seen as a golden age by plenty of Americans (especially boomers).
Outside the US, Eisenhower had Lumumba assassinated in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The replacement they helped install, Mobutu, basically continued the brutal rule and many of the atrocities that had occured in the Congo Free State (death toll as high as 10 million), so that minerals could continue to be extracted. Ultimately this would lead to the first and second congo war and an additional 5 million deaths. Fun fact: a few years ago Tesla/Musk signed a large contract with a company which was formed from a merger of companies including the successor of Compagnie du Katanga. The latter was a concession company that operated in the Congo Free State and is responsible for plenty of the worst atrocities committed during that time. Just in case anyone here thinks colonialism was a long time ago. There's also stuff like the Guatamalan genocide which was a result of the CIA instigated coup of 1954, the 1953 Iranian coup which would ultimately result in Iran becoming an Islamic theocracy, and his signing a deal with Franco which arguably prolonged his rule.
And since then, productivity exploded. Machines and automation everywhere. We are in the age of overconsumption. And value is created at an always acceleratind pace.
But then things started to slow down. But wealth growth can't slow down! It has to grow, always, and always faster. So when "produce more" stopped working, they turned to "produce for cheap".
They started cutting spendings and benefits. But it wasn't enough. And they told western workers that they were no longer competitive. Yes, that plant they're shutting down was making money. But it would make MORE money in China and other third world countries.
And while plants were going away, salaries got stagnant. Wealth was growing again!
But then the growth slowed down again. So they bought governments to get huge subsidies they could funnel in their wealth growth again.
And now plants are "optimal". Wages are low. Govs hand out money. Why is it not working?
Because they impoverished so much the working class that there is no one left to buy the goods they produce.
The problem is obvious to anyone looking: money is needed for the economy to run. If it's all locked up by oligarchs, then it serves no purpose and the economy suffocates. And there is no remote way a handful of people can manage the world's economy. "Trickle down economy" has failed everywhere and everytime it was attempted. So they're terrified. Terrified of the working class, terrified of common good, terrified of common sense.
So to make sure they can keep hoarding whatever is left to get, they turned to fascists and propped them across the world, by controlling medias and flooding social networks.
And here we are: in the age of overproduction and mass poverty combined, with a class of scared oligarchs ready to take the world down with them as long as no one stops their wealth hoarding.
You'd think that productivity would explode, but the productivity paradox says that it really has stalled out. It stalled in the 70s to the 80s, and then stalled again around 2000 and hasn't really grown since.
Wealth has continued to grow unchecked, but for some reason even though computers are getting more and more powerful, workers aren't getting more done. AI is only making this worse.
No paradox. The wealthy didn't want plenty; they wanted control.
Neat history that mostly erases billionaire actions.
You're really great at underhanded billionaire propaganda. How much do they pay you?
Are you Malcolm gladwell?
You need to touch some grass
It's. The. Capitalism.
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.
Imagine living Al Bundys life slinging shoes at Foot Locker
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.
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.
Don't worry. It'll get worse.
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.
...there's a hand gesture?
There is, indeed. It's an important part of the meme. One could even be attribute the gesture to catalyzing the memeification in the first place.
Those same people also had pensions for life once they retired in their 50s. They also didn't have to pay for health insurance.
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.
Comparing then to now is hard. I don't doubt workers were compensated better when unions were stronger but it's an apples to oranges thing. Off the top of my head: Multiple generations lived in a single house that was much smaller. Households shared a single car. Most had a single television set that picked up 6 channels. One phone per household. Calling a couple towns over was expensive. Family vacations were within driving distance. Photographs were expensive. Video nonexistent. Eating out was a rare treat
People were so poor in 2025. Most households didnt even have multiple VR headsets. And those most had only remote controled lighting in one room. So poor.
The multi-gen household fact is simply not true for many places, same as the size of the houses. The number of cars and phones and TVs are all a result of the same thing. They never needed a second one. You don't need two cars if only one person is working and is home early enough to finish erands after work. Photographs, travel distance, Videos, that's all technological change. They couldn't afford it because it don't exist in a consumer form.
That doesn't change the fact that the high standard of living of that time was affordable while the high standard of living of today isn't affordable.
Multi generations in a house was certainly a thing though it varies depending on what decade you're talking about. The houses definitely were smaller as were the yards. Look at the new construction now, there are no modest sized homes being built then drive through an older neighborhood. There is simply no comparison. My aunts and uncles all shared bedrooms.. Rarely did houses have more than one bathroom. Nobody had central air conditioning not homes, not schools. Plenty of teenagers have cars these days though they're still in school. Nobody walks or rides bikes unless they're electric. Most people are overweight and plenty of young folks are diabetic. Those factory jobs that everyone thinks were so great? They were often dangerous before OSHA and unhealthy before the EPA. My older neighbors in Cleveland told me about the soot from the nearby steel mills. BTW those jobs were plentiful until recently where I live. They're miserable places to work still. They'll make you work 6-7 days a week, 10-12 hours a day. My sister just got fired from one making $25 an hour, she lost a similar job year ago. Everyone is doing Adderall to cope, management looks the other way.
is there any source on this? Especially it being smaller. Because a lot of single-family houses (especially rural) more than a century ago very really big, because they were essentially small farms.
Drive through older neighborhoods and look for yourself. Also you can look up real estate property info on most county websites in the US. They'll tell you square feet and also the year built. Builders these days don't build reasonably sized homes unfortunately. I wonder if cities don't want them because it'll attract lower income folks. As for multi generations in the same home, I recently had a subscription to Ancestry.com and could see all the people living in one house as was recorded in the census data. Families had more kids too.
The economies of scale of setting up a job site, lining up all the contractors' schedules, getting all the materials and equipment in place, plus the paperwork of permitting, inspections, etc., mean that each additional square foot/meter of space is much, much cheaper than the first. That just naturally pushes towards bigger single family homes.
Multifamily is different, though, which is why many multifamily buildings gravitate towards 1- or 2-bedroom units.
A lot of those rural homes had an addition with each generation. Most families lived in 1200sq ft or less. The average size of a home has risen pretty dramatically.
Of course back then home only needed to be a place to sleep and eat and bathe. The rest of your life happened outside the home
*for some demographics
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.
For white people in the imperial core
Keep downvoting, sorry the truth hurts that your parents only had those privileges from raping the rest of the world
And the people who didn’t have kids got Ferraris! Where the fuck is my Ferrari?