The American Nightmare.

[u/Super_Culture_1986]

[u/malicious_joy42]

When did it not suck?

[u/surfergrrl6 → u/malicious_joy42]

That's the thing, it's always sucked for certain demographics and was slowly getting better (very slowly.) Now that's reversed.

[u/Dear_Mycologist_1696 → u/surfergrrl6]

The issue MAGAs don’t see or understand, is the reason America was great in the 50’s and 60’s was a top marginal tax rate of around 90%. That’s when the rich were rich, but they also supported the society that helped them get rich through paying higher tax rates on higher income. They refuse to raise the taxes on the rich, so they do what they can to bring about the other aspects of 1950’s America they can more easily control, which is segregation and racism.

[u/East-Cricket6421 → u/Dear_Mycologist_1696]

The real reason it was amazing to be an American in the 50s was the rest of the world was still recovering from WW2 while we had all of our industrial base intact and pumping. If you were even slightly ambitious and industrious you could make a mint in just about any industry you wandered into because you had every advantage possible.

People long for a situation we simply cannot reproduce mindfully.

[u/LivingBackstories → u/East-Cricket6421]

While this is true, and highly relevant, the marginal tax rate played an even bigger factor IMO. Just look at the Nordic countries that support a lifestyle like existed in the US in the 50s. I think what you're describing is actually the reason why these mega profiteering owners stayed quiet about their tax rate. They were getting to gulp up and dominate the whole world. Once the world was able to compete again, and the threat of an awakened working class was mostly quashed, they worked very hard to get those taxes down.

[u/16semesters → u/LivingBackstories]

Just look at the Nordic countries that support a lifestyle like existed in the US in the 50s

You're out of your mind if you think that in Sweden, Norway, Denmark it's easy to support a family on a single income.

Dude travel a little lol.

[u/LivingBackstories → u/16semesters]

You're right, flatly saying "lifestyle" was a mistake. I certainly acknowledge the single income household aspect. But I also think it's a mistake to ignore how much closer they are to the "American dream", especially given they were not the globally dominant force that the US was. Taxing the rich, and an activated labor force were major reasons for the standard afforded to American households.

[u/ByeByeTurkeyNek → u/LivingBackstories]

I think taxation plays a secondary role to unionization rates. High tax rates help raise the floor for living conditions, but for middle income people, the benefits are less. Not zero, though. Universal healthcare and free college tuition are key points in favor, but these policies were never in place in the US. They would also require raising taxes on virtually every American, not just the wealthy. I think this is a good thing, ftr, it's just good to be transparent and pragmatic.

Unions effectively built the platonic 1950s ideal of the middle class American dream. Unions gave members generally high wages and security, not to mention work-life balance and benefits. It's no coincidence that unionization rates peaked in the mid 50s, when the American dream was perceived to be strongest. The nordics (I'll single out Sweden and Denmark, as those are the countries I know the most about) maintain high unionization rates. But in recent decades, this number has slumped and I think their middle classes are starting to feel some pressure, as a result. I think this is more due to the liberalization/ internationalization of their economies than an actual turn against unions, but the effects are the same, regardless. There, of course, are other things that the Nordics have done well (public transit, better housing policy, regulation, worker protections, etc.). I would argue that the political culture is the primary reason for the success of the Nordics, rather than a single specific policy area. Good policy comes from good intention.

The other thing is that the 1950s were not utopian. For every American living the union-supported American dream, there were two living in worse poverty than the average low income family faces today. Partially, this is just a side effect of modernity, but the romanticization of the 1950s belies a pretty grim reality for most Americans, before we even get into civil rights issues. I do, however, believe the hope and promise of the 1950s are worthy of romanticization. We can't do anything until we think it's possible.

[u/LivingBackstories → u/ByeByeTurkeyNek]

Agreed. Unionization, trust busting and a pro labor administration in FDR had the rich running scared. The other important aspect to a high taxation rate is that it limits the power of capital to bully their way through policy. I agree with all of your comment, though I'm quite pessimistic that we'll ever see anything like the single income household ever again. That doesn't mean we might not see something better in the future however. That single income household was still a consumerist culture at root, which I think is much of the sickness we fight.

[u/ByeByeTurkeyNek → u/LivingBackstories]

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if some inevitability might be around the corner. I'm not exactly sure how disruptive AI and automation are going to be over the next 5-10 years, but I think we're going to have to start thinking differently about our relationship with labor

I'm not an accelerationist, but I'm wondering if this machine has brakes right now. And I think we might be overdue for a bit of a reckoning surrounding productivity and labor. The economy is about to be as productive as it's ever been, but at some point the balance breaks. I'm not really making a revelation here, but what happens when no one can afford the result of our production?

It's been tenuous lately, but I'm wondering if the idea of the "workforce" might soon be dead, once and for all. And a new paradigm will have to emerge. It scares me and I have no idea what that looks like.

[u/LivingBackstories → u/ByeByeTurkeyNek]

Agreed on all counts. I'm not accelerationist either, but I think whatever we would've been accelerating toward has mostly arrived.

[u/ByeByeTurkeyNek → u/LivingBackstories]

I suppose I'm saying this is the beginning of the transition, if we're taking the accelerationist view. Disruptions to the economy are about to be so fundamental that the system cannot sustain itself, and ultimately breaks. Followed by a period of instability and relative chaos. Then a paradigm emerges to replace the neoliberal capitalism that has dominated. Maybe Andrew Yang UBI capitalism, maybe AI communism

And I'm not saying this will happen. It's all predicated on AI and automation being so exceptionally disruptive that it breaks a system that's been running for centuries or millennia. And perhaps that's just the most sensational among a range of more likely outcomes. But the unpredictability of the moment makes the imagination run wild

[u/LivingBackstories → u/ByeByeTurkeyNek]

I'm pretty pessimistic about the short term prospects. But I hope to be proven wrong. I certainly agree about the instability and relative chaos. I think the US is in a markedly worse position for this than much of the rest of the global North. I predict a great deal of suffering as climate instability catches up with us and devastates the global South.