The "American Dream" is over - and voters know it

[Teamster Jeff]

Despite a ceaseless propaganda campaign declaring all is well with the U.S. economy, the Status Quo is fragile–and voters know it.

Not only do they know the economy–and their financial security–is one crisis away from meltdown, they’re also fed up with all the official gerrymandering of data to make the economy appear healthy.

The American Dream–characterized by plentiful jobs offering living wages, security and opportunities to get ahead–is over, and voters know this, too.

http://www.businessinsider.com/american-dream-over-and-voters-know-it-2015-12
http://xnerg.blogspot.com/

[smirkymonkey]

1. Which is why Bernie is the only candidate that makes sense, really.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. The only real hope we have for REAL change.

Will we blow it... ...I hope not.

[The2ndWheel]

4. What does that even mean?

I'm going to guess the issues and variables involved in what we call the human condition probably reach beyond one dude.

[eomer]

5. Obviously, but "one dude" actually using the bully pulpit

to strive in the right direction has to be better than someone who's working for the opposite side, no?

[The2ndWheel]

9. I wouldn't say the human condition is that linear or objective

There's no actual graph where we're all headed diagonally toward the top right corner.

[eomer]

70. Only a very few politicians are even *trying* to make things better for most people.

Clearly more neoliberal corporatism is not going to help and isn't meant to. Anyone who says it is is either grossly mistaken or else not being honest.

So by my count that leaves just two candidates who would actually try to better the lot of most people and Hillary isn't one of them.

[Enthusiast]

89. Huge +1!

[appalachiablue]

98. Righto!

[tecelote]

28. +1

How can it be argued that Bernie will not be an improvement?

[daleanime]

18. It means the other candidates like the current system....

And are just trying to hold it together. Bernie is the only one willing to make fundamental change a real possibly.


Now the question for you is "do you like things the way they are right now?". If you do, then Hillary is your candidate on the Democratic side, if not, then you want Bernie. Pretty simple really.

[RKP5637]

104. Agree so much!!! Other candidates will continue with the SOS IMO. n/t

[smirkymonkey]

19. Because I don't think we even have a chance with the other candidates.

At least Bernie will surround himself with people who are relatively uncorrupt.

[RKP5637]

105. K&R!!! n/t

[Teamster Jeff]

30. I agree. Nobody else will even address the real problems.

Hillary is tiptoeing around the issues making sure not to worry the 1% or wall street.

[gembaby1]

3. The American Dream

Guys I'm a Canadian and I would just like to know if you truly believed in this?
It is an ideal and not one that everyone can achieve, at least today. Was there ever a time you thought it was feasible?

[Human101948]

6. Actually, Canada is pretty much what should be the American Dream...

but from what I can discern, the American Dream has always been sold as everyone has the chance to be a billionaire. Of course, as Donald Trump knows, for every billionaire their are 100 million LOSERS!

As the quote (attributed to John Steinbeck) says, “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

The American Dream now is the Power Ball Lottery with Americans piling into their local 7-11 to buy more and more tickets as the payout gets larger and larger and their chances of winning are about the same as getting hit by an asteroid.

(According to Multi-State Lottery Association, which runs the game, the odds of having the winning Powerball ticket are 1 in 292.2 million. In other words, you might as well wave goodbye to the $2 you hand over for each ticket. Of course, as the New York Lottery says, you must be in it to win it.)

I guess it's another way of saying that most Americans are just stupid.

[airplaneman]

88. I like the sayng

The lottery is a tax on people not good in math.
-Airplane

[RKP5637]

106. Definitely!!! "I guess it's another way of saying that most Americans are just stupid."

I guess it's another way of saying that most Americans are just stupid.

Now the next question is, is it organic or conditioned behavior ... I often wonder, is it inbred and hereditary.

[HereSince1628]

7. The American Dream still exists, it's just approached as a lotto

You can do that in the radical way of purchasing a lottery ticket, or you can do that the much more conventional American Way...which is to hope a catastrophe befalls someone close and you can force a million-dollar lawsuit.

American's usually aren't too greedy. We don't need 3/4 billion dollar lotteries in our dreams. A 2-3 million dollar lawsuit and settlement is perfectly adequate.

[jwirr]

8. I am old enough to remember the 50s to the late 70s. Almost

any worker who wanted a job had one, could buy a home for their family, send their kids to college with the goal of a good job and have workable plans for retirement.

There were things missing of course - healthcare was one of the big ones.

For most of us back then we accomplished our American Dream. That is if you were not a minority, or a divorced woman with children or disabled.

The American Dream has always been a white man's dream.

[Wellstone ruled]

13. Very true.

Notice how the Media keeps referencing the twenty some years you speak of. And they never challenge the Players who destroyed the so called dream.

[The2ndWheel]

14. Right, then the world opened up

The same way white male's aren't as needed as they used to be, Americans in relation to the population of the rest of the world aren't as needed as they used to be. It's just a numbers game. The more people available to do whatever, the less each person is needed. The less you're needed, the less money you make.

[jwirr]

16. Globalization, NAFTA and TPP.

[Ed Suspicious]

76. No. Magic. The hand of God. The way it is meant to be!

[jwirr]

78. Yup.

[Old Codger]

21. Very true

I am also old enough to remember all of that, and actually did live part of it. The health care missing at that time was important but you could still afford to go tho a Dr. and even be hospitalized if necessary and not be in fear of losing everything because of it...Today the cost of a hospitalization can cost more than a new home..

[jwirr]

23. Yes, in my family tree documents I have a bill for the birth of

my brother and one for my first grandson. Huge difference. Even being poor my dad was able to pay for my brother.

[Proserpina]

22. In the 50's-70's there wasn't much useful treatment in healthcare

Doctors could successfully set simple fractures, diagnose measles, and assist at uncomplicated, healthy deliveries, but not much else. Antibiotics was the Silver Bullet, and the polio vaccine was the biggest breakthrough since smallpox vaccination.

Medical knowledge and ability to cure disease, prevent disease, and encourage health has come a LONG way, since those medieval times.

[jwirr]

24. Yes, that is a big part of the rising cost of health care.

[Old Codger]

25. Also true

Still doesn't answer to why it costs so much more on relation to everything else... we can live longer although it will cost us all we have and possibly put us out on the street for all that extra time the miracles of modern medicine have brought about... pretty much of a mixed blessing...
ACA has done nothing at all to bring the actual cost of medicine down ..

[Proserpina]

26. Exactly so. Medical care became a profit center, not a calling

and even so, doctors cannot afford to go it alone, they must sell their souls to the hospital franchise store, because profits! medical profiteering is destroying this nation.

[Old Codger]

38. ... Retirement

Time was when you could go to work for a company almost right out of high school if you so chose and work your entire career at that same job, normal raises and promotions kept you apace with inflation, you could buy a house, feed your family and drive a decent car, at the end of your 20-30-40 year career you could depend on enough retirement to supplement your social security so as to live a pretty decent life and enjoy retirement. Not gonna happen anymore. Of course we now live much longer which alters the dynamic of retirement quite a lot takes more savings and more "income" to make it now... but even the best planning is going to run into a brick wall if you happen to get sick and need medical care..

In the last 2 years I and my wife have run into one thing after another, we are both in our 70's @ years ago I had a problem that required surgery and one night in hospital, cost came to over $60,000.00 even with medicare that is costly, last July my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer
and needed to undergo mastectomy and chemo... so far that has run to well over 100k+ not all done so no telling what total will end up at, in the meantime I was having some problems with my right leg and required a CT scan to see what it might be, the scan found the problem to be a clogged artery but also found a bladder mass, which was determined to be bladder cancer which then meant that I needed to have that removed , another 48k... so that took the place of getting the leg problem resolved, now the leg problem has come to the point of needing to be resolved, going to happen Monday to the tune of another 50k+

even with medicare it still ends up eating our finances up

As I stated earlier ACA did nothing t all to bring medical costs down all it has accomplished really is to make more money for insurance companies while retaining medical costs at way to high a level...

PS I have too much income to be eligible for ACA and too little to afford supplemental insurance and still have a roof over my head...

[Proserpina]

41. I'm sending you and your wife my best wishes and love

and working my ass off for Bernie. I wish I could do more....when people need to GoFundMe to live, that's not living. I am so sorry. We have to see that the 1% is even sorrier.

[Old Codger]

43. Thank You

AI am doing all I can to help his campaign, not much really but what I can do I do..So far have kept it above water, our daughter and son-in-law help a lot....Have never had to resort to charity and am hoping to keep that record alive...

[appalachiablue]

73. It's corrupt, illegal plunder and exploitation IMO. .

[Pakid]

29. The question I have

is why so much of the world has the same or better health care as us for about 2/3 less cost?

[Old Codger]

34. One word

.. Actually 2 words, republicans and greed..

[appalachiablue]

96. Amen.

[hollowdweller]

50. A lot of medical jobs pay decent wages.

I live in WV and now that there's not really many union jobs, jobs in the medical field are one of the few that pay above average wages.

Most other things have gone down because they are done out of the country, or by immigrants legal or illegal, or by scab labor, or because they have been partially mechanized or streamlined by technology.

So I think part of the reason medical stuff costs more is the workers get a living wage. Lots of former coal miners, factory workers and others retraining for the medical field.

If we drop the cost down does that involve sending people to Thailand or Cuba for operations?? Reducing the number of attendants per patient??

I think the problem with health care is not so much that it's going up too fast or too expensive in most cases, but that people's salaries are not.

[90-percent]

31. 1954 baby boomer here

And I remember milk boxes on the front porch, even had a Dr. make a house call when I was sick.

But, there's a lot of things I don't remember because I was a child and really didn't know what was going on. I remember JFK and Vaughn Meador and just how cool the Kennedy White House was. I remember the Cuban missile crisis and how creepy Castro looked.

What I don't remember that much was discrimination against minorities and women.

The Separate but Equal doctrine was over turned the year I was born.

I was in grade school aand junior high for the entire 60's civil rights movement.

I remember Viet Nam, Don't trust anybody over thirty and the generation gap.

I also remember the possibility of 20 hour work weeks coming up in the 70's because we were all so damn productive.

The biggest future problem was what to do with all our upcoming liesure time!

And duck and cover films in first grade and nuclear power will solve everything and unsafe at any speed.

Gee, I'm starting to sound like a 20 year old Billy Joel song.

Anybody that wanted to work could get a job (minorities and women not so much, although my mom went to work in the Stony Brook admissions office in 1965 and retired in 1993.) and if they were talented and hard working you could advance. didn't need degrees or anything. OJT.

Oligarch's suck and they are earnestly destroying the future of the planet in the name of short term mega profits.

And th biggest irony is all these wealthy cocksuckers aren't even happy people. Miserable selfish pricks doing more harm to the planet than World war 3!

And Bernie has about 10 months left to educate us all about: IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. There's enough to go around for everybody if we all do it right! We need shared prosperity because we are all sharing the world we are destroying and it's up to all of us to correct that!

An everybody-in overhaul of democracy and capitalism running on 98% nitro is what it will take!


-90% Jimmy

[jwirr]

37. When you talk about not remembering discrimination so

much that is because in the 50s minorities, divorced women and the disabled were pretty much hidden. As that era advanced it got better for some.

Minorities who went to school and move out of their communities often rose in the community but those who were still in the inner cities or the reservation got a lot less help which explains why many are still very poor in those areas.

Women including divorced women were "in the home" in the 50s. By the mid 60s many women were in the work force. For women who had a partner to help with their costs things got better but single women with children were often still dependent on welfare, etc.

In the 50s most disabled were still confined to institutions even if they could make it on their own in the community. By the mid 60s that had begun to change also. People like my developmentally disabled daughter started coming out of the facilities to live in the community. This worked for her group but because no one helped the mentally ill they did not get that help they needed and often became the homeless on our streets.

Today a lot of this is out in the open. Visible to anyone who is not sticking their head in the ground.

[Proserpina]

45. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY!

Excellent slogan for Bernie 2016.

[PatrickforO]

77. I remember much of that too. I'm a 1958 boomer

And, you know, IT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE WAY IT IS NOW.

It really doesn't.

[SheilaT]

49. Not if you were a woman.

Or a person of color. Employers could and did discriminate, refuse to hire, pay much less, fire more readily, if you were not a white male, preferably Protestant.

[jwirr]

53. You need to read my whole posts - I said that and later

explained more about the hidden discrimination of that day.

[SheilaT]

67. It wasn't just divorced women.

Single women were routinely paid less than men for the very same work. I know all too well, as I entered the work force in 1967, and more than once worked alongside men doing the exact same work for much less money.

I know I seem argumentative here, but I don't intend it that way.

I think the larger point is that the "American Dream" not only didn't apply to large categories of people, but even for white men it wasn't always that terrific. I was one of six kids, another supposed version of the American Dream back then, a large family. We're all boomers. My dad worked in a factory, but it was not enough money to support us properly. Mom was a nurse. She went back to work a few years after the youngest was born, and I recall her working some temp nursing jobs in the years between younger siblings. After a while she made more money than Dad. Not a lot, but she probably brought in a bit more than half of the household income, and we still didn't have very much.

Some jobs for men did pay well enough to buy a home, allow the mom to remain home, pay for vacations and an occasional new car. But that wasn't as common as people may think. We never had a new car. Most of the people we knew, certainly those in our income stratum, never had a new car. I am thinking of the 50s and into the latter part of the '60s. After about 1965 and pretty much all through the 70's a lot of blue-collar wages were pretty good. Of course that was a direct result of unionization and the tax structure of this country, and I'd like to see us go back to strong unions and taxes as in the 1950s.

As various others have pointed out through their personal family/generational stories, it matters a lot exactly when you entered the work force.

[jwirr]

69. You are correct. It did matter when you entered the work

force. Most of my experience was from the 50s and I never did get to get a job outside the home because of my severely disabled daughter.

After my father went broke on the small farm he and my mother started a locker plant (small used by local families). That was just before the laws regarding lockers required stainless steal for all plants. Down he want again.

So yes not every white man was able to succeed to the American Dream.

[leftyladyfrommo]

58. Health care wasn't very expensive.

My aunt never had health care. They just had a hospital policy and it paid for everything in the hospital.

[jwirr]

59. Many who could afford it had insurance. My parents and my

family could not - for me and my disabled child and other two daughters had state medical assistance until Medicaid came in. But coverage was far from universal.

[leftyladyfrommo]

61. I think I was covered under my father

Until I was out of school.

My first real job paid $350 a month but I had good health care.

[jwirr]

63. That was the effect of strong Unions. Wish they were stronger

now.

[leftyladyfrommo]

65. That would have been about 1970.

I don't remember ever really worrying about health care back then. And I was poor. But it was covered by employers.

[jwirr]

68. My parents were poor farmers and I was divorced with 3 kids.

Employers considered health care as part of a workers income. I don't think they do now.

[Old Codger]

97. Something about health insurance

When it first became the thing to have, usually provided as part of your pay, some small amount was taken from you each payday.... Group health insurance was the least expensive way to go and was usually pretty much affordable.. If you became ill from anything and could no longer work the insurance was still in effect for that particular illness/pregnancy or whatever until it no longer required treatment, anything new was not covered but the existing one was. I knew a young lady, single mother who contracted cancer, she was required to continue working at her job in order to maintain health coverage even though she was terminal and really needed the time to recuperate and spend her last months with her children.. absolutely absurd and plain unmitigated meanness..

[RKP5637]

108. Yep, back then it was pretty hard not to have a job unless one drank and/or got into

a hate pissing contest with the boss.

One area that is generally neglected by most politicians is the notion of a job for everyone is by default not going to happen if one extrapolates it into the future. Ever increasing productivity does not create more traditional jobs. Also, in a finite space, you can't have constant growth to feed the capitalistic machine.

What needs to be considered is what is a job in the future, how is wealth distributed and how can a capitalistic system be valid into the future.

This requires a lot of thought, strategizing and reinventing "the system." Very few politicians are capable of this. And if not handled correctly the masses would panic. Despite what happens, it is going to happen. One start is to stop feeding the endless greed in this country and the rigged skewing of the wealth which is the root of most problems. Many politicians are on the take, so we certainly can't count on the current congress, for example, to do anything but to dig in to secure their personal wealth and that of their cronies.

IMO, Bernie is the only one that gets what is going on now and into the future.

[jwirr]

110. Already back in the 50s we knew that bigger, better and more

was a philosophy that was hurting a lot of people - like small farmers. Then in the 70s I remember talking about a guaranteed wage and even a maximum top wage but nothing was done about either of these ideas.

I think we are past the time that we have a real discussion on these issues.

[RKP5637]

112. Agree!!! n/t

[PSPS]

10. It isn't a fantasy

Up until Reagan, it was entirely possible and ordinary for one middle-class wage earner to support a family, including the occasional new(er) car, two weeks of paid vacation a year, paid sick time, clothes for the kids and a decent place to live.

[Go Vols]

12. exactly that

[Gore1FL]

11. There is no reason to assume an economy needs a slave/poverty class to function.

&quot P)lentiful jobs offering living wages, security and opportunities to get ahead" is not a pipe dream.

[jwirr]

15. What makes it a pipe dream today is globilization. The good

jobs you speak of have mostly gone overseas and the profits have gone to the 1%. Not to mention that the cost of living has skyrocketed.

[Gore1FL]

17. It's certainly not the present condition. n/t

.

[gembaby1]

27. I never assumed such a thing

I live in a social democratic country. I just think there's some confusion among Americans because you seem to be espousing at least two different ideas about it.

1. "Plentiful jobs offering living wages, security and opportunities to get ahead"

2. Become a millionaire. There are so many examples of this get rich or die trying attitude

There are a few of them in the above posts.

[gvstn]

20. The American Dream wasn't that big.

It was no matter your birth circumstances. You could work hard, feed and clothe your kids, pay a mortgage for thirty years to own your home and property and then retire with the ability to keep up your home and some portion of your "working" lifestyle.

Not everyone expected to be a millionaire but they wanted to have a nice, warm home to retire to, after raising their kids.

We can still do that. The busting of unions is what created the current conditions of low wages, irregular work hours etc. The very people unions were created to fight against are the ones profiting once again now.

[Old Codger]

33. Through the 60's 70's 80's

I managed to work a relatively normal job and raise a family of 3 kids myself and my wife,drive a new car now and then and buy a decent house...no way for the majority of "working stiffs" to do that today ..

[gvstn]

46. I absolutely agree.

The "woman's movement" that supposedly helped woman, contributed to the whole deal too. Women were "empowered" to work and suddenly a single income family was a historical idiosyncrasy. No way to make it on a single income and own your own home. It suddenly took two working stiff's/women's incomes to provide the basic necessities.

Then again in the 70's, 80's we didn't have a t.v. and computer and phone in every room of the house. But we had plenty of food, clean clothes and children that were trained in manners.

I'm all for women having equal rights (and choosing to not marry but create a good career for themselves) but there is something to be said for stay at home mom's in being a valuable part in building a community. I guess "community" is what I miss most these days. I've lived in my suburb for 20 years and can only tell you roughly three of my neighbors names. It wasn't like that when I was a kid, we knew everyone on the block and they told our mothers if they saw us do anything wrong.

[raccoon]

79. what you mentioned also made it possible for some women to leave abusive and/or

alcoholic husbands.

The "woman's movement" that supposedly helped woman, contributed to the whole deal too. Women were "empowered" to work

[gvstn]

80. I understand that perfectly.

But there was a trade off. Women got the power they deserved but society/community suffered. I don't know the right mix. Perhaps if government paid mothers to stay at home and nurture their kids for a few years then we would have a lot less jerky acting kids.

[Teamster Jeff]

35. People now understand that "work hard and get ahead" is a myth.

The young now understand that "go to college and get a degree to get ahead" is also myth.

Where these realizations will lead I don't know.

[BlindTiresias]

85. Complete system collapse.

[airplaneman]

90. I think you are correct n/t.

[appalachiablue]

72. Nobody I knew EVER thought about being a 'millionaire', and I'm from a large family

Last edited Sun Jan 10, 2016, 12:31 PM - Edit history (2)

across multiple states. That would have been viewed as odd, absurd, ridiculous, and it didn't happen, even among some we knew in law, business, and finance. The fantasy of a MILLIONAIRE LIFESTYLE is a newer phenomenon, since the 'Roaring 90s after mass tax cuts for the rich by Dutch Reagan in the 80s and other destructive reactionary policies that permanently damaged the American middle and working class ushering in a new period of excess and greed.
During the 1940s-1980s television programs especially evening prime time were geared to the large American middle class and families. Mass media only began to glamorize 'wealth', luxury and celebrity with junk shows like 'Dallas', 'Dynasty', 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' (1984-1995), a reality genre series that promoted luxurious lives of rich entertainers, athletes and business moguls, and 'Entertainment Tonight' in the 80s.

The SECOND GILDED AGE of Predator-Plutocrats beginning in the 80s was exemplified in magazines, TV and mass media through heavy promotion of designer clothing brands, gourmet restaurants, Caribbean paradise vacations and more indulgence. The lust for luxury living and the High Life among the new wealthy exploded then and was on full display.
The earlier 19th century Robber Baron Gilded Age of opulence and wealth excess was known to LOUIS BRANDEIS (1856-1941) the 'People's Lawyer' and Supreme Court Justice. Brandeis warned of and fought the dangers of the large banks, trusts, corporate power and monopolies, public corruption and mass consumerism, the decline of democracy and rise of mass inequality and poverty as he wrote,









>In 1980 the US MIDDLE CLASS made up 61% of the population. Today the MIDDLE CLASS is 49% and rapidly declining annually. Last year CANADA surpassed the US for the first time as the No. 1, richest MIDDLE CLASS.

From the mid 1930s into the 1980s there were thousands of plants, factories, jobs and employers based here. The start of union busting, job benefit cuts and offshoring in the late 1970s and the 1993 entry of NAFTA fueled the DE-INDUSTRIALIZATION of America. Before then broad employment opportunities in the economy provided good wages, benefits, and guaranteed/defined pension plans. The ability to have a decent life, to own a home and raise a family was attained by very many, but not all Americans for 50+ years. Work stability was supported by strong minimum wage laws, unemployment compensation, workplace safety regulations and protections, Social Security and Medicare- the vital US' safety net originating in the New Deal/FDR era.
>But since the year 2000, the US has lost 60,000 US factories/employers to overseas operations. The process continues at a rate of 14 centers leaving per day.

COLLEGE/university education at state schools in the US cost very little before major revenue support began to be withdrawn with Reagan. Until the 90s no one we knew left college with student debt, only if they enrolled in advanced degrees and even that was manageable. The US was similar to the higher education system in Europe and other advanced nations for some time now. Like those countries the US must immediately invest in our young people and future. Relief for the indentured young by abolishing student debt and instituting free college education is imperative for this economy and nation to survive.

After the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the Great Depression and FDR's major finance reforms like the 1933 GLASS-STEAGALL ACT (repealed in 1999), the BANKING profession was a safe and unglamorous industry for decades. That is until the 1980s growth of deregulation, speculation/casino gambling, M & A's (Mergers & Acquisitions) and conservative neoliberal economics under Reagan.
By 2008 the system crashed bringing the largest FINANCIAL CRISIS in 75 years caused by deregulation and reckless speculation. The resulting damage to working Americans and loss of wealth is devastating and permanent.



The greatest middle class the world has ever known was created by KEYNESIAN economics instituted in the US in the early 1930s, strong progressive government, a powerful labor movement, affordable education, major resources and qualified politicians and leaders.
But the 50 year prosperity for the majority of Americans has been steadily dismantled by implementation of neoliberal, trickle down, bunk Reaganomics, Milton Friedmanism, privatization, Gordon 'greed is good' Gekko; right wing conservative extremism, the MIC and endless war, destructive 'free trade' agreements; corrupt financed elections, greed and globalization.



Elected US congressional representatives include many millionaires/multi-millionaires and too few that care or rock the boat for working people we know. Yet there are decent legislators, public advocates and existing currents for building stability and renewal all around. Now is the time for action Otherwise: RIP US Middle Class, Serfs Bow Down to Global Oligarchy and Robot Lords

[gvstn]

74. There was plenty of student debt in the 90's

It just wasn't as exorbitant as it is now. That an 18 kid should be allowed to sign up for a huge debt should be criminal. They have no understanding about how long it will take to pay it off.

[appalachiablue]

75. To be sure, why I wrote that I didn't know anyone with student debt until the 90s.

Indenturing and bonding young people is criminal, a pox abomination that I would never have believed in this country. With jobs being shed daily it is heart breaking to see so many working and suffering for very little and prohibited from life milestones like fulfilling employment, buying a first home and starting a family. Among my relatives there were/are achievers, middle of the road and knuckle heads, of diverse backgrounds and races. But there was never lack of opportunity and advancement like now in three generations. This is wicked and must end.

[Rex]

32. It was always just a dream, reality is something much far removed.

America has gone from a solid middle class to a huge working class that lives paycheck to paycheck. THAT is a very dangerous situation when you have Wall Street working in disaster/recovery cycles.

We became a plutocracy and the PTB seem useless in fighting against the wealthy collecting their unfair share of the profits. It really is that simple.

And we cannot elect anyone that wants to change that system of inequality.

I hear it a lot, over the years but rarely see it manifest.

[NutmegYankee]

44. A lot of people considered a good job and home ownership as the dream.

Not everyone can achieve that, but a good number have done so.

[Punkingal]

47. Hi, neighbor, and welcome!

With my upbringing, the American dream was that you went to school, got a good job, bought a home, raised a family, and had a comfortable life. Your children would have a better life, because things would always get better. When I graduated from high school in 1968, those who didn't go to college went to urban areas to get a job. (I grew up in a rural farming area in Tennessee.)

Jobs were still available in 1968, houses were still affordable, it was still all possible. It is just not the same anymore. Even the working-class American dream is not available anymore as it once was. My children are doing okay...they are entrepreneurs who have their own businesses and have done smart things, like buy property for rentals at good prices, etc. But one of them who has 2 children has to pay $1200 per month for health insurance, and lucky for him, he can afford it.

It's just very sad that even the simplest dream is so hard to achieve in america these days.

[PasadenaTrudy]

48. I can't even imagine

renting a house let alone owning one. Small houses rent for $3K+ in my region. I'm almost 52 and I'd love to have a little backyard. Maybe if I ever move out of CA

[MisterP]

64. and, more essentially, that it would be open to everyone, everyone who'd been kicked and

pushed under the tires would finally see the light at the end of the tunnel--maybe consumer egalitarianism could even end sexism and racism! (don't laugh, this was 1962)

but economically speaking some people who'd been raised on the milk decided they now wanted burgers and Pinonomics was adopted even under Ford

[Skittles]

82. yes, there was a time

when rich assholes paid their fair share, when one job could support a family, when people got raises and pensions......YES

[Tab]

36. I'm at the end of the baby boomers

And my understanding from my parents is that if you did a good job, didn't steal from the company, and showed up for work, you'd be employed.

In the 80's, though, corporations found they get rewarded for downsizing (it used to be an indicator that a company was in ill health).

I think, with the exception of one job which I quit on purpose, that I've been laid off from every company I've ever worked with. A lot of it had to do with the economics of the company I was at, but it was thoroughly different that what I thought was "supposed" to happen.

[tularetom]

39. I can now see it through five generations of my own family

My parents were better off than their parents were (they came of age in the depression, served in WW2 and raised a family in the 50's).

My siblings and I were better off than my parents. I joined the permanent work force at age 25 after military service and college graduation and worked in the same field until I retired 35 years later.

My children are less well off than I am, they have changed jobs several times in order to advance, and will probably work until they are 65. They will have to rely heavily on their IRA's and Social Security in their later years.

Their children are now in their 20's and 30's and although they all are employed, none are in stable jobs and none are able to build up any kind of savings for the future. Their spouses are also working under the same conditions. None of them has any kind of defined benefit pension.

Their children (my great grandchildren) are now in grade school and all indications are that their generation will see continued declines in their quality of life.

[PowerToThePeople]

40. $155,000

The net worth of every single citizen using 2009 valuation of the nation's wealth with a population of 350 million, if divided equally among the citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

In addition, wealth is unevenly distributed, with the wealthiest 25% of US households owning 87%[2] of the wealth in the United States, which was $54.2 trillion in 2009.[3][4]

This is enough money for every person to have a place to live and food on their plate.

Where do you stand?

Personally I have a net worth of about negative 50,000 usd, due to very minimal assets and my remaining student loan balance.

[hfojvt]

62. I stand at the median

but this is 2016 and not 2009.

You are perhaps a lot younger than me.

I don't think the 87% stat is correct statistic. Because that total includes a lot of people with negative net worth.

The top 25% in 2011, according to the census of wealth would be about $250,000 in net worth (26.3% had more than that). At the bottom you have 18.1% of households with negative net worth, divided into 9.05 with net worth less than ($8,610) (which is the median net worth of those with negative net worth). Their negative net worth drags down the total net worth of the bottom 75%.

Look at the 4th poorest group (by medians) 4.55% of households have a net worth between $1,679 to $4,999. That's 5.4 million households with a total net worth of at least $9 billion. The next group of 2.8 million households have a net worth of at least $14 billion. There's at least SOME wealth there, but when you combine those people with the people who have negative net worth, their total is less than zero.

You mentioned your own negative net worth, but I am guessing that a) you are young and b) you have a fairly good paying job. My own stats would be the opposite

age - 54
income - $17,108 (including payments to pension and health care)
net worth - about $150,000

You would perhaps like to see some sort of wealth re-distribution which would make you equal to me - without having paid the dues.

I got to $150,000 by doing a lot of work and a lot of scrimping and saving. When I was 26 my net worth was about $6,000 and I was headed to graduate school where I would make $6,000 a year for two years. After I got my MA (in 1990) of course I got an awesome job. Yeah, a part-time job paying $8,100 a year. A job that lasted a whole year. By then I had $12,000 in the bank and decided, like an optimistic fool, to try opening my own business. I did that for a year and a half and then got a factory job. I took that job in February 1993, making a whole $5.10 an hour. Again, I was optimistic, thinking that I only had to work that job until October, by which time my store would support me. Finally decided to quit on 12 January 1995.

Anyway there was a whole bunch of working two jobs, and living without things like hot water or phones or cars (I kinda hate phones and cars anyway), and applying for a whole bunch of better jobs that I didn't get and so on.

And there were some big set backs. I lost $25,000 on Iowa real estate (it was worth that much to me to get out of Iowa). Got fired from a job shortly before my 40th birthday. And there was some waste - for many years I have had three dogs and high speed internet and paid for a genealogy service. Not so much waste, as kinda extravagance. And over ten thousand dollars I have given to charity (as well as thousands of hours), and so on.

[PowerToThePeople]

71. You are not too much older.

I am a gen Xer who started college a decade after high school. So, my economic background falls more in line with gen y.

I currently do not have a decent paying job. It has been almost 5 years since I have made income levels commiserate my education and experience. Retirement at this point will never be able to occur within my lifetime.

[Old Codger]

42. That is correct

The constant barrage of feel good propaganda telling us all is well and employment is at great levels totally ignores he fact that even working you cannot make enough to live a decent life..

Our economy is fragile as can be, won't take much to break it down again and it looks like that is starting now, the way I look at it for now is that they may step in and keep it afloat for the election year and then it will sink.. But that would require the R' s to help and they would rather sink the nation in order to blame Obama and the Dems.

[appalachiablue]

81. Well said, some unfortunate truth esp. about the GOP & the imminent economic crash.

[leftofcool]

51. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[KG]

52. a bi-partisan effort.

[lunatica]

54. If your only point of view is from the white older male's then it's over

For everyone else it didn't exist.

[Shandris]

55. "Wh-what the hell happened to us? What happened to the American Dream?!"

"What happened to the American Dream? It came true. You're lookin' at it." - The Comedian, "Watchmen"

[brewens]

56. A RW friend of mine is convinced that many more people are trying to get on disability

because of Obama. I can tell you one thing that's driving it, and I may end up in the same boat.

It used to be that a person who's body was breaking down on them would gladly do anything to hang on just a few more years at work to qualify for full (or as good as they could get) retirement. I worked with older guys that did exactly that. Of course you had to be in a good job to begin with for that to work out.

WTF do you expect from a person like that who lost their job or never had much in the way of retirement benefits going in the first place? I know that if I lose the job I have somehow, at 54 I won't be getting another one as good very easy. I'm pretty close to what I understand can qualify me for disability as it stands. I like the job and the money is good so I haven't seriously looked into it. If I had to go looking for another job, I'd try for disability first.

[hollowdweller]

60. It's not because of Obama.

I retired Feb after 30 years doing disability claims.

In 1985 it was rare to see anyone over 60 file for disability. That was because if they got to where they couldnt' work they just took early retirement. Most retirees had health benefits thru their company to last them till medicare.

Now few have ANY retirement, so if they get to where they can't work then they have to take disability.

Also say you are 54 and work at Dollar General for 10 dollars an hour and you have a heart operation and no insurance and your meds are costing you 400 a month.

On disability you cannot get as much money as you probably earned, BUT! you can get Medicaid and when you consider the cost of your medication and healthcare you now need you come out ahead on disability. Also you can collect disability and still work as long as your earnings are under the SGA level. So it would be possible to get disability, get Medicaid and work part time and actually earn more than you did when you were working full time.

It's like the farm subsidies. You'd be stupid not to do it.

In the old days people would work as long as they could because they wanted good retirement, they wanted to keep health benefits, that next raise that might up their retirement was around the corner. People like to be busy and have something to do.

However as the gov't has had to carry more of the burden of the social safety net and companies have abdicated their responsibility toward their employees for many WORK DOESN'T PAY. However like I say people still want to have a purpose and keep busy so many on disability work part time under SGA level or even work full time at jobs they can do under the table.

[hollowdweller]

57. I saw an interview with the Secretary of Labor last night that was interesting.

He talked about the good things in the economy which are true, but he also addressed some of the issues we are talking about.

He basically repeated the same line as Robert Reich about how, from the 40's to the 70's wages tracked production. Then 70's to present they did not except for 2 years in the Clinton admin.

They asked him about the productivity/wage divergence and what could be done. He said that recently wages had gone up but it was the right track but not enough. He mentioned raising the min wage, the cracking down on paying people who work over 40 overtime. He also said that during Clinton when the gap narrowed that unemployment was 4% and if we could get it down to 4% increased competition for employees could help. He also mentioned that we had seen more growth in above average wage jobs recently which seemed good.

He also said because of the ACA injecting more money into the health care industry we had more jobs there and they paid well.

They asked him about the work force participation rate. He said 50% due to aging of population but that if we could expand sick and family leave that we would see more people in the work force. He claimed Canada and US female work force participation were the same until they instituted more leave for people and now they were beating us 8% on the number of women in the work force.

The whole interview was very interesting.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/hiring-got-a-bounce-in-2015-while-wages-stayed-flat/

[Erda]

66. I'm not willing to concede that the American dream is dead . . .

I see it as the body politic forgetting its own power and being lulled into a loss of consciousness, distracted by constant noise, thinking itself powerless, and equating success with the possession of material things only. I'm not saying that having purchasing power isn't important because it is. But to measure people by what they have and not by who they are is a poor measurement in my view. I wouldn't want to know someone like a Donald Trump or a Rick Snyder because I find them lacking in character.

The American dream is restored by believing that it is not dead, just temporarily hijacked by a minority of very greedy people who have taken over.

The Americans that I have come in contact with are generous, good and kind -- and very witty, and funny. We can certainly laugh at ourselves and make a joke out of almost anything. If we awaken, pay attention, nominate excellent people to hold office we can accomplish a great deal. The Internet has made so much possible -- as an example, we can raise millions of dollars collectively in a day, with a contribution of $3. We can place a spotlight on injustice using our cellphone from anywhere in the country and post it around the world with a click of a button. We can access knowledge from centuries past from our homes

Many things have improved here over time. I think we may have forgotten how difficult and frustrating it was to achieve many of the things we now take for granted. We can criticize our leaders and not be "disappeared" by some invisible hand. We can travel freely within our own borders.

We should consider it our duty to vote and hold it dear. We need to reclaim our dream, and not think it beyond our ability to create a society in which everyone can prosper.

This happened after WWII and at other times in our history. It can happen again.

[colsohlibgal]

83. It's Either a Dead Or Close To It

When I was about 10 my Dad had major back surgery. We were lower middle class and yet at that age I could see that it was no big deal financially. Why? Because back then there was no CEO of our insurance sucking out millions, there were bookkeepers and a boss or two making maybe 40 to 60% of the staff. For profit health care is obscene.

Then there is the lack of good paying jobs for the middle class, jobs with benefits. We have moved steadily into a service economy. The money is rapidly flowing up from everyday people to the oligarchs.

[sakabatou]

84. There's a reason why it's called "The American Dream."

You have to be asleep to believe it.

[Doctor_J]

86. It's been purposely dismantled by the oligarchs and their whores in dc

[leftyladyfrommo]

87. I never was part of the Dream being single female.

There eye about 3 jobs open to women: secretary, teacher, nurse. And none paid all that well.

[Moonwalk]

91. The American Dream isn't over...it Never Existed!

I mean, come on, this is silly. Ask Native Americans who were and often still are living on reservations if these plentiful jobs, this "American dream" existed. Ask African Americans who have rarely had a chance at financial security and have ALWAYS been one crisis away from meltdown if there's ever been an American Dream. Ask any minority who was restricted from that "status quo" and earning better wages if there's ever been an American Dream. Ask women who still don't get paid the same as men, who still don't get the jobs they want and still get sexually harassed and still get pushed out of jobs by men who want them if there's an American Dream.

Exactly when and where was this American Dream? And exactly who got to enjoy it? The time when it really was around was thanks, in part, to the U.S. being the last country standing after WWII...and even then, all those jobs went, almost exclusively to white, christian males. My grandfather, back in the 50's, trying to achieve the American dream of financial security, a home, a college education for his children, couldn't get into certain medical schools because they didn't allow Jews. And this was legal!

He did achieve that dream, but it was in spite of how American was run, not because of it.

So. Let's all wake up and smell the myth here. The American Dream was created in a novel. It's fiction, and for any but a few, lucky Americans, it's always been fiction. The few times when it has not been, and everyone's gotten a chance at the gravy train...those times have been fleeting. Come and gone (i.e. this isn't the first or only time its been lost). Mind you, I'm not saying that we can't make the dream true. We can. But to say that the American dream was always there for every one and only now has it vanished? That's bullshit.

We CANNOT make the dream a reality if we live in this myth: the myth that it existed for everyone and has only now been taken away. We have to see the truth, know that it wasn't a reality for most people and has never been a reality for most...and start afresh if we're going make it a reality. Otherwise, we'll just get the "American Dream" that has been coming and going for generations; the one that rewards a certain segment all the pie. Putting it another way, you can cry foul that the 1% has all the pie, and I'll cry with you, but don't think that before now, the rest of the pie was more equally split between the 99%. It's more like it was more evenly split between 25% of that 99%. Now that this 25% has to suffer like the 75% did before, NOW they're saying the American dream is over. So. While I do take the point, I don't think we can or should couch it in terms of this "American Dream" myth.

[DebJ]

93. It was important to create the myth of the Rugged Individualist, so that

Last edited Sun Jan 10, 2016, 06:09 AM - Edit history (8)

the ultra elite would train people to feel responsible for the ultimate decline in general welfare of the population.

I was born in the mid-1950s. I'm not saying the American Dream was ever reality for everyone, but it was for a much larger percentage of the population, in this limited fashion: one full-time worker in a family of four could earn enough to invest in a home (making retirement possible by paying it off in 30 years), eat comfortably and healthily, get medical care as needed, dress modestly but appropriately, have functioning transportation, and even save some money to send the children to college in a more sizable portion of the population. My Dad had a sixth grade education, and what little his Dad earned as a carpenter who refused to belong to a union, he gave almost all to the church. Dad was 16 before he had indoor plumbing, and my grandparents never owned a home, and died in utter poverty. Grandma never had anything, except what was given them by charity (while Grandpa gave all his wages to his church). My Dad worked two jobs when Mom stayed home with 4 children born over 10 years... but my Dad was a prolific spender and waster of money (and a hoarder... boxes and boxes of bolts and nuts and tools that would never be used, and all kinds of junk). And with his good and trusting heart (because he himself was a good and honest man), he foolishly cosigned two loans for a coworker, who skipped town. Dad paid for that man's new truck and for a hunk of mountain property the jerk got... Dad got the bills, the guy got the truck and property. If Dad hadn't wasted reams of money (amazing how much he paid out just in overdraft fees because he couldn't balance his separate check book), bought car parts and fixed peoples cars for FREE, and just bought and hoarded stuff that was never used, I doubt that the second job would have been necessary (never knew any of this until a few years ago when they passed away and I found bank statements that he had hoarded covering decades of their lives .) All four of us went to an excellent private grade school for 8 years. Mom went back to work after the youngest child was in kindergarden in the mid-sixties, at low-end clerical jobs, and Dad went back to just one job. Mom got no pension, and drew on Dad's social security when she took disability retirement because it was worth more. They bought used camping equipment, and we went on camping trips for vacations many times a year... because of the union, Dad had LOTS of vacation time (he was a truck mechanic for a utility company). When I was in high school, I remember he would suddenly say, "Oh, I need to take another day off soon or I will lose my time off." After 15 years at the same union job, for which he was trained mostly ON the job by his employer, he had 6 weeks of vacation and had accrued the maximum of several months of vacation time in reserve. Over the years, they would trade up the camping equipment for other used equipment, from a popup trailer when I was young, to a motor home by the time I was married. They retired comfortably with their home totally paid for, with health care covered under the pension plans. In their retirement years, they lived sensibly and frugally within their means for over 30 years, but got to eat out every day, have good times with friends, visit the children in other states, and never wanted for anything... so much easier to do when you have zero rent to pay and medical care only ran a few thousand every few years for something that would come up. (In the younger family years, we required LOTS of medical care, with special things needed for a genetic disorder in my Mom and two sisters... but only an occasional loan was needed.) And they were forced into early retirement for my Dad, when Mom was hit by a drunk driver shortly before her 60th birthday, and left in a wheelchair for 26 years of continued suffering, so he lost possible pension earnings and also took a hit with Social Security, as did my mother who was forced to take disability payments early... but they had a good and enjoyable 30 years of retirement. They always had a roof, heat, good food, and some spending money (and tons of love). That was their American Dream, and all they had to do was show up on a job, learn from the OJT, work diligently, and be fair and honest.

When I first entered college in the early 1970s, I could pay for my entire college education by working in a fast food job. I earned about 3.50 and hour. My tuition was 11 bucks a credit hour, and a brand new text book was, I think, about 20 bucks or less... not sure, because used textbooks were always available for about 8-10 bucks. That was at a community college, but Maryland University wasn't that much more per credit hour either. If that was the status quo today, with minimum wage at 8 bucks an hour, it would be 28 bucks per credit hour now........ not even close. And textbooks? Insanity! Unfortunately, I didn't complete my college education until 2008... my parents didn't think it was necessary, and wouldn't help, and I ended up married young to a husband who did all he could to insure I wouldn't go to college, and I stopped going and had children instead. And had to ultimately divorce, and raise two children, alone, one with a disability that was quite expensive, on my non-college background earnings, with an absent, no-care, don't want to pay support or anything Dad. That meant doing without for 20 years, but I WAS able to scrape by and help my daughter go to college, so she does well today. I had nothing to show for 25 years of work. Not even a radio. Just some credit card debt and a car falling apart. But if I were in that position today? We'd be on welfare.

How can anyone today, who can't purchase a home because of insufficient wages, ever afford to retire? Rent is just insane. My current 2nd husband and I were starting over later in life (late forties and early fifties), and we just bought a home together 9 years ago. Within 4 years of purchase, renting our old place was more than our mortgage, and today, we couldn't afford to rent that townhouse, eat, and pay the health insurance of 1000 a month for the two of us...and he has a modest pension and social security, though my husband too was forced to retire early due to health and other considerations (though not qualifying for disability). The school system began massively cutting jobs and insuring teachers would quit early (by refusing to take any disciplinary methods at ALL with the students, so now it is a complete jungle there, teachers are threatened and even assaulted on a regular basis...by MIDDLE school kids... )... so they could hire new ones for half the pay...29 years of experience was not valued, but DEVALUED...not a gold watch, but a boot in the butt saying get the heck out of here. Our retirement picture lost 2500 bucks a month through lost pension and SS, and an unexpected cost of 1529 a month for health insurance for several years. Thank goodness it's 'only' 1000 a month now...who ever planned for THAT? BUT we are retired, and are at least barely getting by and have not as yet lost our home, though it is falling apart with many needed repairs accruing. We literally CAN'T afford to rent. I can't see young people today being able to do this, to ever retire, for way too many of them, and many more of them than ever this would have been in the 60s and 70s. Owning a home provides at least cost stability when on a fixed income, and a paid for home eliminates that number one monthly cost almost altogether. How in the WORLD can people ever retire on a fixed income, when they not only pay rent, but it goes up, and up, and up, and up, without end? We won't live long enough to pay off our mortgage, but at least we know how much that bill will be, except for tax increases, but those are nothing like rent increases! That's why I guess it was necessary to destroy the housing market, in order to insure that the rest of the world remained slaves all their lives, allowing capital appreciation to go only to the top, and not to a broader middle class.


And this stuff about "Oh, but people have a tv and stereo in every room", etc., ad nauseum, is a bunch of bunk. Yes, those are items that weren't around in such abundance back then, but not buying those items doesn't allow one to purchase a home or pay for medical care instead. It's just not THAT much money. I don't know anyone who takes nice vacations and has a car that is 3 years old or less... just like the 60s when I was growing up. Most of us have cars that are over 8 years old and we'll never be able to buy a new one again. 'Two of us, myself included, are most gratefully driving old cars our parents gave up when the aging parents went down to being one car families. Nobody is spending their earnings away recklessly... and damn few of us can save $500, as a recent article in the news was stating. New clothing is a luxury.

Reagan was the beginning of the destruction, the rise of the Oligarchy.

In other words, the American Dream in terms of having basic needs met by one earner in a four person family was possible. I don't see any hope of that happening today except for a very small segment of the population.

To take this all away and concentrate wealth at the top, which has ALWAYS been the way of the world's elite, and to avert 'bread riots', first one must convince those who lack basic necessities that it is their own fault, and only their own fault. They have done this 'training' quite well... just look at the Republican and TeaBagger base.

[Moonwalk]

111. Look, I'm in total agreement that Reagan started the dismantling...

...of New Deal rules, the power of unions, etc. that had been set in place to keep our economy more-or-less stable and fair to workers. And I'm in total agreement that even those on the sidelines had a better chance in the 50's and 60's at jobs and providing for families. I totally agree that a certain segment of society has been systematically working to get us back to the 19th century Oligarchy model, where 99% slave away and 1% get it all.

Total agreement.

But using the term "American Dream" for the kind of economy we want to have is very problematic. Because that term did not mean, and has NEVER meant "socialism." Not even in your happy childhood. We had higher taxes, etc. in your childhood that had us closer to socialism. But the American Dream says: "In American, if you work hard, you can feed your family, own a home, and have a better life than anywhere else in the world." It DOES NOT say: "If everyone--especially the wealthy--pays their taxes and we have strong unions, etc. you can have a job, feed your family, own a home and live better than anywhere else in the world."

Do you see what I'm saying? This is why this term: "American Dream" isn't the best term to use in trying to move ourselves forward into a new, fairer economy. Because it is based on the myth: (1) that hard work is all you need to achieve this dream, and (2) that the playing field is level. These very lies are what ALLOWED Reagan and those that followed to bring us down. To dismantle it all. All they had to say was: "Those in poverty are't working hard enough." And everyone who bought into the American Dream believed them. And ignored the poor....until they became the poor.

Putting it another way: What created the American Dream back in your childhood was a socialist reality (higher taxes, unions, laws against monopolies, etc.)--but everyone pretended it had nothing to do with those socialist elements. They pretended "American Dream" meant the same thing it did when it was created in the 19th century: "Hard work in a free market system."

So, I'm asking, do we REALLY want to use that term? Either to bemoan what's lost or posit a new future? A term based on a lie and tied to a time of economic stability that ignored the socialist realities that created it? A time when people deluded themselves into thinking their success was all *just* hard work? I think we should do away with "American Dream" and create a new term, one that makes sure people know exactly what it takes to give everyone jobs, security, homes, education. One that doesn't allow them to delude themselves...or allow others to dismantle it.

[Number23]

100. Great post.

We CANNOT make the dream a reality if we live in this myth: the myth that it existed for everyone and has only now been taken away. We have to see the truth, know that it wasn't a reality for most people and has never been a reality for most

[prouddemfromaustin44]

92. The American dream was always just an illusion

The vast majority of the American people would never come close to fulfilling that dream. Just ask the countless African Americans locked up in our prisons for minor offenses.

[pansypoo53219]

94. the reagan democrats gave it to reagan & he stole it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

95. These "American Dream" threads always point out to me ...

how different an experience PoC (and women) have had, relative to the American societal default. No PoC that I know looks adoringly to the 50s through the 70s as an era to be revisited ... Not socially or economically.

[Number23]

99. I feel like some cultural anthropologist when I read these kinds of threads

All of these (presumably) white people pining over the 1950s and 1960s. A period that my parents, grandparents and older relatives could barely talk about without practically shuddering in fear and revulsion (unless they were talking about the music. Then the conversation gets real happy, real fast).

It is beyond clear that this "American dream" is and has always been relegated to white people and particularly white males. Things ain't great now and I STILL would rather be me in 2015 than 1965.

[Dawson Leery]

101. Women and racial minorities are far better off today than 50 years ago.

These posts are quite absurd.

The post war prosperity was for white middle class males.

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. By design ...

The post war prosperity was for white middle class males.

Hell ... every "prosperity" program has been for white males ... though it, sometimes, trickled down to others.

[Dawson Leery]

107. Correct.

[cantbeserious]

102. When We Stand Together - No Citizen Need Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[Octafish]

109. Thanks to Trickle Down Economics.

Solution: New Deal 2

[Blue_Tires]

113. I just thought you all should see the source site

That you've given 140 recs to:
http://dailyreckoning.com/

And with that, I'll see myself out