This is one reason why I find the consumer debt phenomenon disturbing. Until 1975 or so, there was a symbiosis between the capitalists and labor. If labor was

This is one reason why I find the consumer debt phenomenon disturbing. Until 1975 or so, there was a symbiosis between the capitalists and labor. If labor was impoverished, products weren't bought. Henry Ford learned this: by paying his workers well, he made it so they could afford his products. The middle class was built because, without it, industry would fail. Widespread consumer debt-- which went from being associated with failure (excluding mortgages and a first car, and a very small amount for college that could be paid off fully in 1-2 years) to a commonplace occurrence-- made it possible for the consumption (and, more relevantly, consumption costs) to grow while wages remained flat, putting the working classes further into debt and subordination. That's what's happening now. Even if you're fiscally responsible, you compete (on the housing market, and for higher education) with the masses who are, in general, utterly the opposite. It is somewhat of a brilliant (if malignant) divide-and-conquer strategy.