> a teacher by profession, was denied a widow’s pension so lobbied to take over the manual distribution to provide an income for herself and their baby daughter
> she retired in 1892, at age 81
> So Ruth was forced to move, for the last time to 57 Plough Lane in Beddington. She retired in 1940 and died aged 89
The time synchronization story is carrying another ominous story about elderly working class poverty of the gilded age.
Mother and daughter working until their 80s probably due to necessity, and the daughter being forced out of her home shortly before she died.
Sure, it's nice to have a job like that if you get paid a living wage, have a social safety net, secure housing, and no dependents.
I have news for you: that job (and situation) didn't exist then, and doesn't exist now. It briefly existed in the few decades following WW2, but we have torn down much of the ideology and social infrastructure that made that possible.
Even if such promises were made and indeed kept for some people at no point that I am aware of was the situation ever long term stable. AFAIK Soviet Union guaranteed dignity in retirement and planned to not have to pay for it through achieving a post-monetary society. The US made similar guarantees and planed to out-grow the costs (i.e. ponzi scheme).
> The US made similar guarantees and planed to out-grow the costs (i.e. ponzi scheme).
If you're referring to Social Security in the US, it's no more a Ponzi scheme than your home mortgage payment is a Ponzi scheme. In reality it's a progressive tax scheme to prevent senior citizen poverty.
To make Social Security solvent, lift the cap on Social Security taxes. Will the working and middle classes benefit more than the wealthy who will pay more in those taxes?
Yes, and progressive taxation to prevent abject impoverishment of working and middle class seniors is a good thing.
That and danans 'one thing' seems rather simplistic / reductive. My view is the degradation of the US has been many things over a long time and we're lucky things lasted as long as they have been.
It really is mostly that, plus the wars. The first round of cuts came at about the same time we started the wars, LOL. The political line was that the tax cuts and (some fucking how) the wars would "pay for themselves" but the CBO was like "um, no, here is approximately how many trillions this will add to the debt" and gee, the latter turned out to be way, way closer to correct.
Now, of course, we also have the interest on all that new debt to worry about.
[EDIT] To be clear, the Democrats are also to blame for carrying on with the tax cuts, sometimes actively, when they had opportunities to end them.
No it is not. It was possible when economy was growing like > 10% for decades. As soon as that stopped people will look for cuts and tax cuts is just obvious place.
The problem is that real wages for the average person has been going down since the 1970s. Meanwhile, the wealthiest people are making more and more, but that extra money is not going to Social Security due to the cap. Additionally, due to longer lifespans and fewer children, the ratio of working to retired people went up. Productivity is also up, which can easily compensate for the change in workforce, but isn't enough to cover both that and the shift in income to fewer, wealthier people whose contributions are capped.
The net effect is less money going to Social Security. The easy solution is to remove the cap. That's unfair for the wealthy, but is a lot easier than getting fairer and more equitable wages across the entire economy.
> The problem is that real wages for the average person has been going down since the 1970s.
This was true, but the COVID period has actually changed that. Real wages are now up for the median wage earner, and for the median hourly earner. Not by a lot, but they are no longer declining as they were in the period from about 1978-2021.
Ah a simple appeal to 'what is fair' - ok now how shall that fairness be manifested? With a drum circle? It's an oligarchical system and you want the people to wrestle power out of the oligarchs hands? Through voting? Have you met people? And if it was so simple why wait until now to do it - clearly there have been some complications.
You see this a lot in nature, parasites evolve faster than their hosts, that's why they're still around.
> That and danans 'one thing' seems rather simplistic / reductive
OK. Let's add some things. Free public schools, subsidized public universities, subsidized public vocational colleges, Medicare. All can be funded if we reverse the tens of trillions of wealth that we have channeled upwards with tax cuts for the wealthy and cut taxes for the working class.
It is clear from your comments here that you're a very cynical person when it comes to national government. Perhaps that is blinding you to the fairly well-known fact that during the period most extolled by conservatives as the golden age of American history (*), upper marginal rates were in the 70-92% range, without much disagreement except for a few people who leveraged their wealth into (Reagan's) political power. Most people didn't see anything wrong with those rates back then, and most surveys even today show Americans in very large numbers in favor of a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth than exists (they also think it is much more egalitarian than it actually is).
(*) yes, ok, so in reality some of them want to go back to 1890 or even earlier, but I'm trying to focus on a more mainstream conservative attitude.
There are governments I do like, it is possible to govern well. I just think it's facile to work under the assumption that the answer is simple. That one simple change will take the US from point A to B. The US has radically changed from the 1950s and the idea that one simple change of a 92% top marginal tax rate will make it economically the 1950s again is completely preposterous.
The US is essentially the fastest growing rich non-microstate country in the world. If US cannot do it, then I guess that you also believe all other highly developed nations with large social safety nets will become insolvent?
> It briefly existed in the few decades following WW2, but we have torn down much of the ideology and social infrastructure that made that possible.
No. Post-WWII America experienced a period of economic tailwinds that will likely never exist again.
Europe and Asia were in shambles after the war - bombed out, destroyed, male populations decimated - just as America was growing to peak industrial strength. America had a population boom, everything was cheap, and everyone was buying American goods. America had everything it needed - cheap resources, cheap land, abundant labor, and a totally captive worldwide market. No country has ever had every single variable flipped in their favor to such an outsized degree.
As we reached the 70's - 90's, we started to outsource. Our labor had become more expensive, but we offset this with cheap imported goods. We were still extremely and unilaterally wealthy.
Post China WTO, the wealth of America has been spent and "averaged out" over dozens of post-industrial economies. The market is so much larger than it was back then, and America doesn't possess hegemonic, unilateral economic power. Moreover, American industrial power has waned. The thing we had going for us - the American knowledge worker and the almighty power of the American consumer - was being met with increasing competition from everywhere.
The industrialization "algorithm" continues on: India, Vietnam, Mexico. Every country that industrializes and leverages cheap labor can grow into a powerhouse in just a single generation.
There are a lot of countries within spitting distance of America, especially if you group them together into blocs. The American consumer economy isn't so unique anymore, and we certainly haven't been producing our own goods for a long time.
So the wealth of the Baby Boomers and their incredible economic tailwinds will not be felt again unless there's some wildly new disruption to the economic order. (AGI and automated manufacturing, maybe?)
The reality is that the American middle class will shrink and people will have to work harder. The American market doesn't have magical superiority anymore.
> No. Post-WWII America experienced a period of economic tailwinds that will likely never exist again.
The UK didn't get bombed nearly to the extent of continental Europe, and it was a mature industrialized society - the first one in fact - yet it also experienced the post WW2 growth. Same for the the bombed-out countries like Germany and France.
> As we reached the 70's - 90's, we started to outsource. Our labor had become more expensive, but we offset this with cheap imported goods. We were still extremely and unilaterally wealthy.
The US GDP didn't stop growing then, but wealth inequality vastly increased up to the present. The growth in inequality is the change, not the growing GDP.
> Post China WTO, the wealth of America has been spent and "averaged out" over dozens of post-industrial economies
Again, US GDP has effectively increased super-linearly since the 90s, even with China in the WTO. The problem is the benefits - even after the cheap consumer goods - have largely been realized by the wealthiest while the working class have been left out to dry. If the US hadn't gutted the working/middle class's jobs, assets and the public infrastructure they depend on during this period, perhaps we wouldn't have the instability we face now.
> So the wealth of the Baby Boomers and their incredible economic tailwinds will not be felt again unless there's some wildly new disruption to the economic order. (AGI and automated manufacturing, maybe?)
Wealth will continue to explode as technology allows ever greater efficiency and exploitation of resources.
> The reality is that the American middle class will shrink and people will have to work harder. The American market doesn't have magical superiority anymore.
Not if they stop fighting each other and instead fight for their piece of the productivity growth.
> I dunno… a job where I travel and walk outside and loyal customers sticking with me until I was ready to retire sounds pretty nice to me
It's nice if the job is done by choice rather than by necessity. If it's a matter of "work or starve", your outlook on your situation may not be as positive.
Done! I curse you to have to work until you are in your eighties. May your sore joints and muscles, sub-par wages (part of the deal, you chose it!) and failing eyesight and hearing be a constant companion.
If you're a man, don't forget your prostate, If a woman, change of life issues and being a second class citizens in most countries of the world.
If something is true for > 90% of population of the world and > 90% of time in human existence I'd think it as part of nature which can't be wished away.
In that case, why don't we knock down our cities, throw away all our technology and abandon agriculture while we're at it, because none of those have been around for much of human existence either.
> she retired in 1892, at age 81
> So Ruth was forced to move, for the last time to 57 Plough Lane in Beddington. She retired in 1940 and died aged 89
The time synchronization story is carrying another ominous story about elderly working class poverty of the gilded age.
Mother and daughter working until their 80s probably due to necessity, and the daughter being forced out of her home shortly before she died.
Let's not go back.