3 ms·
If that is true it’s an important observation however I suspect it isn’t. In general, and everywhere, the past was much tougher than the present.
by alchemist1e9 3y ago
If that is true it’s an important observation however I suspect it isn’t. In general, and everywhere, the past was much tougher than the present.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoYeah, I would much rather be 5th percentile income in the United States today than 5th pc income in it 50 years ago. I don't see how this is even slightly arguable.
- alchemist1e9 3y agoIt’s not except by those who have been indoctrinated by misleading socialist propaganda.
- pastacacioepepe 3y agoI disagree. A family could be supported by a single income up until a few decades ago, not just in the US but in many countries. Today, often two incomes aren't enough for a family, even with families getting smaller since people tend to have less children.
- wintogreen74 3y agoThe key being "supported" - that definition has changed dramatically in the past 50 years, and what you're referencing in the US was the middle class, not those living in poverty (then or now).
- pastacacioepepe 3y agoWhat has also dramatically increased in the past 50 years is our productivity. Strangely, there has been a negative correlation between increased worker productivity and the amount of work required to support a family. I wonder where did all that surplus value go? Is it a coincidence that inequality has raised in the last decades? > what you're referencing in the US was the middle class, not those living in poverty There is no middle class, only proletariat and bourgeoisie. Either you own means of production or you don't. The proletariat could afford a decent lifestyle without living paycheck to paycheck until a few years ago, but not anymore.
- o0banky0o 3y agoI bet if we were to reiterate the definition of work, the math would show us we are actually less productive with a small handful doing the real work and carrying the country.