Is this true? I think the average worker is much better off now than in the past. It's not that long ago that many people in the US didn't have electricity. I think what's happening is as we get richer our definition of what's necessary to have a middle class life gets continually revised upwards. Most people have a car, several electronic devices, eat out relatively often, etc. What used to be a luxury or aspirational becomes commonplace.
That's not to say there aren't problems, but exaggerating how bad things are makes any argument to fix them less credible.
This is a common retort and an overly simplistic way to look at the subject. In essence, it's not about the improvement overall compared to the past, it's about the potential for improvement that never reached the people because of exponentially growing wealth inequality. Trickle down is bullshit.
I notice you side stepped the direct question regarding whether or not your initial statement was true. You then go on to state that it isn't about overall improvement (something that can be measured) but rather improvement compared to an imaginary world that might have existed (something that cannot be measured). You then say that wealth inequality has grown exponentially. I'd like to see a verifiable source for that assertion. If you are just going to virtue signal and call me names, there is no need to respond.
Bread and circuses[1] satifies only the most base of human needs[2]. Perhaps that is why stress, anxiety, depression, and mental health issues have been on the rise for quite some time now.
I think there's a lot to be said for how helpless the average worker is in the modern economy. Part of it isn't just the absolute conditions of modern people, but the knowledge and zeitgeist that people have now. The concept of the "American Dream" isn't dead, but it's becoming increasingly reserved for only a small subset of people with specific backgrounds and skills. People that aren't, for lack of a better word, special simply aren't going to make it big; more importantly, even if this has always been the case, people now know that about themselves.
People born in poverty look to lottery tickets, both literally and in the form of risky activities like gang activities and becoming professional sports players (which is risky relative to what else you could accomplish given the same amount of effort). They typically don't have access to education, or benefit from stable households, enough to break out. Middle class people don't realistically have a chance of becoming wealthy unless they're unusually smart or socially skilled. Neither group has the means to fix this situation politically or culturally because very wealthy people control politics and culture (or at the very least, all the important parts). Most modern success stories are essentially an upper-middle class person rising to the lower-upper class.
I think we need a new frontier. Maybe that's just a substitute for a lottery ticket, but it's a lottery ticket with much better odds.
And not everyone is secure enough in the "bread" either.
"An estimated 12.3 percent of American households were food insecure at least some time during the year in 2016, meaning they lacked access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. That is essentially unchanged from 12.7 percent in 2015. The prevalence of very low food security also essentially unchanged, at 4.9 percent in 2016 and 5.0 percent in 2015." [1]
>Perhaps that is why stress, anxiety, depression, and mental health issues have been on the rise for quite some time now
You're gonna need a citation on that. Especially because it's far more likely that it's simply become more acceptable to talk about, and the definitions have expanded.
I don't know how much easier it is to talk about but I do agree the definitions have expanded greatly. Perhaps a more objective measure is needed, such as the suicide rate:
Yeah, I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the conditions of the average person are better now than at any point in the past, even though income inequality has gone up.
I'm in favor of marginal changes affecting how income is distributed by the way. I'm skeptical of large changes because I don't think we're very good at predicting the outcomes of such changes and the current system, though obviously deficient, is the best we (meaning the US) has been able to come up with at this point.
The average worker is one $1000 calamity away from financial ruin. The average worker is not better off, and your view about how “most people” live regarding vehicle ownership, electronics, and eating out is out of line with reality for the lower and middle class.
95% of American households have a car. So I'm not sure I'm that wrong. Maybe if you live in New York or Boston that's not true, but in most of the country you need a car to get around.
I don't know too many lower class people, but I do know a decent amount of lower-middle class people (service industry jobs, no college degree). They all have cars, newish cell phones, and do go out to eat and go to bars. They don't save much money as far as I can tell, so they probably are $1000 away from financial ruin though.
Yes, I don't think we're disagreeing. I was just saying that what is considered a reasonable expectation for a middle class life is much more than it used to be. On an absolute scale I think the average American is better off now than they were 50 years ago.
I'm aware that there is small, but substantial part of the population that lives on a few dollars a day in the US, but I don't think that invalidates my main point.
Here's the thing, happiness or just general "well being" is due in large part to how people perceive their world, not only due to the physical, material conditions of it. Yes, even poor people these days have smartphones and cars and refrigerators (in part because these are basically necessities to participate in Western economies).
But that doesn't mean they'll ever not be poor, nor that they can easily afford those goods. And that doesn't even touch on all of the class-based cultural differences and systemic inequalities (e.g. in education and justice) that middle class/poor people are still subject to.
If happiness is relative and based on perception, could you make the argument that making everybody equally poor would be just as beneficial as contributing to everyone's success, rather everyone willing to work for it? If you continue to move the "goalposts of happiness" you could end up in a situation where there is the potential to do right by 98% of people, but you decide against it so that the 2% don't feel bad.
I suppose that is the logical reductio ad absurdum counter-argument. I'm no idealist, obviously some level of inequality is inevitable because humans are fundamentally different from each other in their abilities. I think it's really generational wealth and social mobility (two sides of the same coin) that are the important factors. Everybody knows that there will be "losers" in any game, whether it's a video game or the more serious economic game that we all play throughout our lives.
I think the disaffectedness of the not-well-off is due to a sense of helplessness that even if they had the ability and wherewithal to contribute to the world and better their own lives, that they wouldn't be able to do so due to factors that are out of their control, not out of some misplaced belief in equity-of-outcome
Note that I'm not railing against meritocracy. Rather, it's that the system currently equates a lot of "merit" with factors that very highly correlate with having a wealthy upbringing. Also, meritocracy taken to its own reductio-ad-absurdum of a small group of extremely capable people controlling all wealth is not in itself desirable - just because it's theoretically possible to achieve upward social mobility by being part of the top 0.01% of intelligence/capability/whatever doesn't mean it's "fair" that success is reserved for such a small group
That's not to say there aren't problems, but exaggerating how bad things are makes any argument to fix them less credible.