this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2025
975 points (99.1% liked)

Tumblr

304 readers
56 users here now

Welcome to /c/Tumblr

All the chaos of Tumblr, without actually going to Tumblr.

Rule 1: Be Civil, Not CursedThis isn’t your personal call-out post.

  • No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
  • No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
  • Keep it fun and weird, not mean-spirited

Rule 2: No Forbidden PostsSome things belong in the drafts forever. That means:

  • No spam or scams
  • No porn or sexually explicit content
  • No illegal content (don’t make this a federal case)
  • NSFW screenshots must be properly tagged

If you see a post that breaks the rules, report it so the mods can handle it. Otherwise just reblog and relax.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 108 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (16 children)

And to make that happen:

  1. The gilded age made some robber barons insanely rich (though not as rich as the current American oligarchs)
  2. There was a huge economic crash, called the Great Depression, during which the excesses of the rich were incredibly unpopular and the rich felt in real danger
  3. To get out of the Great Depression, the US Government created all kinds of "socialist" programs to help people get back on their feet, strengthen unions, regulate business, make massive investments in US infrastructure, etc.
  4. Right as the Great Depression was ending, WWII began
  5. For a while the US was "neutral", and was manufacturing war materiel for the various countries at war, though mostly for the Allied side. This involved huge amounts of government spending.
  6. Then, a few years after WWII began, the US entered the war, and spending ramped up even more.
  7. Virtually every other modern economy in the world had its infrastructure destroyed during the war. Britain was bombed relentlessly, Germany was flattened, Japan was nuked, France was turned into Rubble, the USSR's factories were destroyed as Germany advanced and partially rebuilt in the middle of nowhere.
  8. The war ended and while every other country was rebuilding their shattered infrastructure, the US infrastructure was running hot and able to supply the world's needs
  9. American workers were massively in demand because it was almost the only remaining industrialized country with intact factories
  10. American workers still retained the massive worker benefits and union membership that was the result of the New Deal economy

So, take that sequence, and for a brief moment a white, male worker in the US could support a family on a blue-collar salary in a way they hadn't ever done before that. Once other countries rebuilt their infrastructure, the US lost that edge. Once American businesses pushed for the roll-back of worker protections, blue-collar workers lost that benefit. Bit, by bit, the world returned to the way it has normally been, where the lowest class barely survives and both parents work hard, while the rich benefit.

[–] CPMSP@midwest.social 45 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Nice breakdown.

Don't leave out the part that after this American renaissance, where those returning soldiers became workers who reaped the rewards of that one in a million economic boon, their children started fabricating narratives about 'hard work' and 'grit' being the reason their inherited wealth was justified.

Then they shoved that narrative down the next three generations' throats while exclaiming "kids these days are lazy" and "I worked a summer job to pay for college, why can't you?". All the while pulling up every ladder that had been constructed to put them in that position.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

True enough. The men who had great jobs in the 50s had frequently been soldiers in the 40s. They'd been raised in the 30s during the great depression. They'd been through hardships. It was their kids who grew up in relative luxury. I'm sure some of it was pulling the ladder up after themselves. But, in addition they hadn't had to fight to establish their union, it was just there when they joined the job. Because of that, they didn't know how important it was, and so they didn't know they should be fighting to keep it strong.

[–] justaman123@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah they just saw money coming out of their check for union dues and propaganda about how union reps were corrupt

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago (6 children)

And, to be fair, there was some corruption in unions. But, they could have rooted out that corruption and had a union that represented them. Instead they abandoned unions and embraced "rugged individualism".

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 week ago (4 children)

And since then, productivity exploded. Machines and automation everywhere. We are in the age of overconsumption. And value is created at an always acceleratind pace.

But then things started to slow down. But wealth growth can't slow down! It has to grow, always, and always faster. So when "produce more" stopped working, they turned to "produce for cheap".

They started cutting spendings and benefits. But it wasn't enough. And they told western workers that they were no longer competitive. Yes, that plant they're shutting down was making money. But it would make MORE money in China and other third world countries.

And while plants were going away, salaries got stagnant. Wealth was growing again!

But then the growth slowed down again. So they bought governments to get huge subsidies they could funnel in their wealth growth again.

And now plants are "optimal". Wages are low. Govs hand out money. Why is it not working?

Because they impoverished so much the working class that there is no one left to buy the goods they produce.

The problem is obvious to anyone looking: money is needed for the economy to run. If it's all locked up by oligarchs, then it serves no purpose and the economy suffocates. And there is no remote way a handful of people can manage the world's economy. "Trickle down economy" has failed everywhere and everytime it was attempted. So they're terrified. Terrified of the working class, terrified of common good, terrified of common sense.

So to make sure they can keep hoarding whatever is left to get, they turned to fascists and propped them across the world, by controlling medias and flooding social networks.

And here we are: in the age of overproduction and mass poverty combined, with a class of scared oligarchs ready to take the world down with them as long as no one stops their wealth hoarding.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] justaman123@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah the position of privilege that America occupied globally for the last 75 years minus the last ten or twenty years is not something that's talked about enough in "they" took the American dream from us

[–] Hyperrealism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

And what that position of privilege cost the rest of the world. For example, Eisenhower was president from '53-'61, is often seen as a great president by Americans, and that decade is seen as a golden age by plenty of Americans (especially boomers).

Outside the US, Eisenhower had Lumumba assassinated in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The replacement they helped install, Mobutu, basically continued the brutal rule and many of the atrocities that had occured in the Congo Free State (death toll as high as 10 million), so that minerals could continue to be extracted. Ultimately this would lead to the first and second congo war and an additional 5 million deaths. Fun fact: a few years ago Tesla/Musk signed a large contract with a company which was formed from a merger of companies including the successor of Compagnie du Katanga. The latter was a concession company that operated in the Congo Free State and is responsible for plenty of the worst atrocities committed during that time. Just in case anyone here thinks colonialism was a long time ago. There's also stuff like the Guatamalan genocide which was a result of the CIA instigated coup of 1954, the 1953 Iranian coup which would ultimately result in Iran becoming an Islamic theocracy, and his signing a deal with Franco which arguably prolonged his rule.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] WallsToTheBalls@lemmynsfw.com 75 points 1 week ago (4 children)

If you were white*

Yuuge detail

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 75 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

Even if you weren't. The economic boom of the 20th century gave birth to lots of prosperous minority communities.

Only problem was that if you ever got too prosperous, neighbors might come by to burn the place down.

But a lot of the so-called economic anxiety kicked off by mass migration to California, Texas, and Florida (and to London, Paris, Berlin, St. Petersberg, Beijing, Tokyo, and Mexico City) was the result of war refugees, political dissidents, and victims of a shifting market economy finding real serious economic benefits to relocating inside the fence of one of the world's premier powers. You didn't need to be white to achieve a marked improvement in quality of life, you just needed to be within arm's reach of all the advanced industrial capital and its benefits.

The Two Income Trap that began to rear its head in the 80s/90s was a consequence of housing, higher education debts, and child care costs that prior generations hadn't historically dealt with. One could plausibly argue that the extended adolescence of college demonstrates an overall improved economy, as people are no longer joining the workforce in their teenage years and trying to outproduce a historically high infant mortality rate.

But the benefits of the economy have gone disproportionately to the leisure and professional managerial classes, while the working classes absorb higher debts/rents and defer accessing the industrial improvements until much later in life. It isn't that non-white people never see them. It is simply that they are much older when they finally do and enjoy the benefits for less time, due to higher mortality rates.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The two income family came as a direct result of Nixon's Vietnam spending.

Kennedy's Vietnam policy was containment; we supplied 'military advisors' and propped up the South to appease the French. We were focused on the soviets and Vietnam was a sideshow.

LBJ wanted a massive knock out punch to wipe the Viet Cong out fast. Instead he got a quagmire. Johnson had to print money to pay for the war because he didn't want to raise taxes. Nixon ran as a 'peace candidate' and then doubled down on Johnson's spending. Remember, we were dropping something like a dozen Hiroshimas a day on jungle.

Inflation is getting bad, and then OPEC hits the US with the Oil Boycott. That devastates the US economy. All those cool loft buildings in places like New York's TriBeCa and SoHo? Those were originally small factories. They emptied out because the owners couldn't afford to runt them anymore.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The two income family came as a direct result of Nixon’s Vietnam spending.

That's more complicated, since the Vietnamese War-Time economy was itself a driver of domestic growth. Stagflation by way of the OPEC crisis didn't force people into second jobs so much as it put the breaks on 50s/60s era rapid industrial development and the modernization of the consumer economy. Women in the professional workforce was more a novelty of the 1970s and the Feminist wing of the labor movement. And that's when a woman's college degree began to matter more, women were able to take on personal debt legally, and birth control allowed women to have sex without getting pregnant (thus ending the Baby Boom era).

Had Nixon not dropped billions onto Vietnam, we'd have spent our petrodollars somewhere else. Military Keynesianism wasn't the only kind.

All those cool loft buildings in places like New York’s TriBeCa and SoHo? Those were originally small factories. They emptied out because the owners couldn’t afford to runt them anymore.

They emptied out because businesses transitioned manufacturing outside of the major city centers. Mass transportation innovations allowed more and more labor to be moved across state lines. More of the urban economy became sales/marketing, banking, and bulk shipping. Its not like the jobs disappeared. It isn't even as though these businesses failed. They just migrated closer to the agricultural source material (which - conveniently - was where employers could find cheaper labor).

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 15 points 1 week ago

They emptied out because businesses transitioned manufacturing outside of the major city centers.

The 'transitioned because the price of being in a city was too high. The businesses first moved to the American south where the Unions were weaker, and then overseas. I live in New York and you still hear stories about how fast it happened. "SoHo" was a name dreamed up by the artists who started moving into the empty factories. All the folks who'd been priced out of Greenwich Village started moving in.

Also, Vietnam didn't 'grow' the economy. It was more like steroids. The old steel mills that should have been renovated years before were now running 24/7 to make enough bombs.

When the US mills couldn't produce enough for the Germans and Japanese markets, those countries started building their own plants. These new plants used way less oil than the older American plants, so when the Oil Crisis hit German and Japanese cars became a much better bargain.

If Nixon hadn't been pumping money into the steel industry it might have transitioned to lower cost plants on its own.

[–] Rothe@piefed.social 7 points 1 week ago

Well, large parts of the US had literal apartheid, concentration camps and what amounted to slavery of black people well into middle of the 20th century. So some were definitely automatically exempt from that prosperity from the moment they were born on account of their skin colour.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 23 points 1 week ago

This is why the GOP hates Unions.

There were plenty of non-white people who got good jobs through Unions.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LemmyBruceLeeMarvin@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 week ago

It's. The. Capitalism.

[–] Shave_MyBeever@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You can blame Reagan for a large part of this, among many other issues.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago

Where's that unlabeled graph of a line going steadily up and then at a point marked "Reagan" everything falls off a cliff?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] happybadger@hexbear.net 30 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] FALGSConaut@hexbear.net 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It's so frustrating, your coworkers will be (rightfully) complaining about how the job sucks and how your boss keeps screwing us but the second you ask if they've ever thought of unionization they look at you like you've grown two heads and start spewing bullshit about unions being useless and dues being a waste of money.

It would be one thing if they were apprehensive about it because of the risk of the company union busting and them losing their jobs but they're actively hostile to any suggestion of collective bargaining

[–] Soapbox@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Anti union propaganda in full effect on them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] definitelynotavampire@piefed.social 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm only in my 30s. My dad supported our family on a high school education. I don't have a college education but I did two different certification programs to work in my field. I'm single with no kids and live alone and I'm still struggling. I don't know how anyone has a family right now. I can't even afford me. I'm so mad that my dad raised an entire family and bought and paid off a house and I can barely pay my damn rent and buy groceries with a better education and job than what he had.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Not to mention how much other stuff was stolen from young people, like how awesome the internet was in the mid-2000's before it got absolutely destroyed by corporations - game consoles that didn't require 35 accounts to play a game ONLINE ONLY and a subscription to EVERYTHING in your life. Sure, it's always been bad (because capitalism) but not THIS bad. And it'll only get worse as the population becomes less tech literate.

Kids just go with it now, and it's really sad, they don't know anything different.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] AntEater@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I'm actually rather surprised by all of the negative responses to this post. Having lived through part of this period of time (gen-x), I can attest to the accuracy of this. This standard of living or quality of life, or whatever you want to callout absolutely was achievable for most. No, it was not perfect by any means - people did struggle, yes, racial discrimination was worse. Poverty was still there, but none of it was on the scale that we see today. People were NOT beat down and discouraged. Young people got out of high school, found jobs and could rent an apartment on their own. Small towns did not have people sleeping in the woods. Cities had homeless people but it was nowhere near the level we see today. Seriously, not even close. Medical care was much more affordable. If you had insurance, they just paid your doctor's bills without engaging in a protracted fight over copays, out-of-pocket nonsense or other methods of exploiting the fine print of your policy. You just didn't hear about people losing their homes over medical costs.

For a good portion of my childhood, I was raised by a single mom who was able to make rent on a 2 bedroom apartment working a job waiting tables. She was able to later buy a house on a non-union factory job and make payments on a car. One income, one person. We were very much on the lower end of the scale.

I think many of you have been gaslit by the current state of affairs. Everything sucks and seems to actively be getting worse. I really feel bad for the millennial generation and those that followed because the system is rigged, inequality is off the charts and basic living as we knew it is not achievable for a much larger portion of society. It's difficult to overestimate how far we've fallen over the past 40 years.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago

As an "elder millennial", I too, saw this happen. I grew up in a very middle class home. About the only thing we didn't regularly do from the list in the OP, was modest vacations.

My dad was a teacher.

We didn't have anything overly special, but we had what we needed and we were not struggling. I have two siblings, and the entire family was a family of five. My mother did not have a job throughout my childhood and well after my teenage years, and I'm the youngest.

Now, I can't fathom having a kid. I can barely pay to keep myself alive.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Wigglesworth@retrolemmy.com 22 points 1 week ago

Don't worry. It'll get worse.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Roseanne was a show in the 80s about a hard-working blue-collar family that was often struggling to get by.

They had a house with a detached garage and 3 kids.

[–] Microtonal_Banana@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Another example is Al Bundy in Married With Children. He was a shoe salesman with a stay at home wife and two kids but managed to own a nice home.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] edahs@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

My folks got married in the 60s. They bought their first house in the early 70s for 32k. 3 bed / 1 bath house with a big backyard in a decent neighborhood (albeit on a busy street). My mom and dad both worked, but my mom stopped when I was born (early 70s). House was tiny, about 800sq ft. They upgraded in the mid eighties for 120k. Bigger place on a quieter street. Mom was back to working again but we were able to take multiple vacations a year. Camping, Disney, etc. Today, I'm not sure they could do it. Sure they would be making more but the first house? 640k. Thats a 1900% increase. Thats about 6% increase year on year compounded. How has the salary growth been for the same period? 1% - 1.5% compounded yoy (inflation adjusted). Fucking gross.

[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

You know a sitcom that could realistically contrast the two lifestyles could be interesting

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Al Bundy supported a house full of degeneracy in a shoe salesman's salary.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago

Those same people also had pensions for life once they retired in their 50s. They also didn't have to pay for health insurance.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 week ago (14 children)

All of this was only true of white families.

[–] ApollosArrow@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I grew up in the 80s. I can’t think of a single minority family that had an income of one and did what was described in the posr. I also grew up in a large city, so this may also be referring to suburbs and more rural areas.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Event_Horizon@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

It wasn't even that long ago either. It was still relatively common to have single income households in the 80's when I was born.

My mum wasn't working at all when my older siblings were born, and she only started working when I started preschool.

Also, her minimum wage income boosted my parents savings so much they were able to buy an investment property and drop money into other things.

[–] hamid@crazypeople.online 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

For white people in the imperial core

Keep downvoting, sorry the truth hurts that your parents only had those privileges from raping the rest of the world

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When I was a whipper snapper you could go to the two screen movie theater that got the movies once they left the new theater and watch a double feature matinee for a dollar. But not if you had an onion in your belt.

[–] UnrefinedChihuahua@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why not? It was the fashion at the time.

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (3 children)

At that point, it became to them as a child yelling "6 7" has come to us.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I was making 15 an hour when Clinton was President, no degree. I had to have roommates, it really wasn't that much money where I lived.

There are something like 40 MILLION workers making less than 17 an hour now.

And for the "but most are teens" crowd, number one they are not mostly teens, and number two teens need to be able to afford housing, transportation, food, and the doctor, like everybody else, and their family needs the money too because minimum wage is freaking seven bucks an hour.

Sorry kids, we need a new ballroom and you would not believe how much gold paint.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 9 points 1 week ago

Now its your fault you can't make ends meet if you don't even have a "side hustle."

Living in cars is now such an accepted lifestyle, that I recently read about a college that was building a multi-level parking lot for students who live in their cars. They could build an affordable living facility, but it's better to normalize living in your car when they are young. And in college. That way, when that college degree that you went $60K in debt for doesn't turn into a real job, and you are working a minimum wage retail job, and door dashing, living in your car will feel perfectly normal.

I saw another post by guy discussing his strategy of living in his car for a few years, so he can save up the money for a house. We used to do stuff like that, too, except we wouldn't live in our car, we'd just get a roommate.

I have no doubt that soon we'll be seeing YouTube videos about couples living in cars, and even raising families in cars. Look how resourceful they are!

And kids today think that's normal.

[–] saimen@feddit.org 8 points 1 week ago

Yeah I mean where do you think all these billionaires got their money from?

[–] dontpanic@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago

*for some demographics

[–] buttnugget@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Anyone who pretends this was a racial thing and not a class thing deserves a long prison sentence.

[–] gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Intersectionality my dude, it can be both

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›