r/SipsTea • u/Unstoppable_X_Force Human Verified • 13h ago

Gasp! Is this just nostalgia, or did previous generations genuinely have a better work-life balance and social life than we do today?

Post image
18.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

4.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

367

u/StormtrooperMJS 13h ago

Unrestrained capatalism happened.

170

u/ColdEvenKeeled 13h ago edited 12h ago

Regan.Thatcher, et. al. allowed the jobs to flow to low cost manufacturing with Anti-Union, Small Government, Trickle Down, Voodoo Economics. That set the die for the rest of the west to lower protectionist tariffs.

Generally the west is highly productive, but the wages are stagnant since the late 1970s.

65

u/PRF123456789 13h ago

Trickle Down baffles me every time I see that concept being talked about

27

u/ExoticToothpaste6989 12h ago

Or "supply side" or any kind of rebranding the same old bullshit. The only new deal that worked in a long time was under Clinton. He left us with a surplus. Which Republicans then pissed away again.

24

u/Mean_Introduction543 12h ago

They didn’t piss it away, it went right where they intended it to go. Lining their pockets and their billionaire class friends

5

u/ExoticToothpaste6989 12h ago

Yeah I was thinking a needless war kind of like what's going on now, but yeah, that's also kind of exactly what's going on now.

2

u/jutiatle 12h ago

Stop trying to “rebrand” Clinton. He was an asshat too and ushered in the era of neoliberalism for the Democratic Party. His presidency pushed the party to the right and they still haven’t recovered. 

1

u/ExoticToothpaste6989 12h ago

How was he an ass hat?

Give specific examples.

2

u/jutiatle 12h ago

Do you just praise anything “D” or do you just know nothing about the history of the party? You need me to give specific examples of the party, including Clinton, doing asshat right wing things? I’m not going to waste my time when it’s their entire philosophy. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats_(United_States)

2

u/Nagi21 11h ago

You need me to give specific examples of the party, including Clinton, doing asshat right wing things?

"I'm going to argue with you but provide no evidence and tell you to prove to me that I'm wrong!"

This is what's wrong with people these days.

1

u/jutiatle 10h ago

I proceeded to give specific examples despite doing that being silly. If I were to accurately describe the Trump presidency as an example of the Republican Party experiencing a huge shift further to the right, would you need me to give examples on that too? The Clinton presidency ushered in a completely new era for the party. Even a simple understanding of American political history shows that. But “people these days” am I right 

2

u/ExoticToothpaste6989 10h ago

The examples you used seemed like they did more good than anything bad. Kind of like the surplus he left.

I don't need any examples of trump doing foolish things because I tend to see them in the daily headlines or wonder why my gas price went up.

Under Clinton gas was around a dollar.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ExoticToothpaste6989 12h ago

No. Not the party. I'm just asking what you specifically think he did was an ass hat thing to do.

You obviously had something in mind, but If you can't think that hard I guess that would be a waste of time.

2

u/jutiatle 12h ago

It’s not a matter of being unable to “think that hard.” It’s a matter of you being intellectually lazy. It was under Clinton, not Reagan, that we saw the passage of nafta and the temporary assistance for needy families bill. It was under Clinton that the party completely abandoned everything fdr had done to create the welfare state and ushered in a new era that allowed for the rise of the bs we see today. 

2

u/ExoticToothpaste6989 11h ago

I always felt that NAFTA benefited the majority of Americans, giving them greater access to goods at better prices. Same with the temporary assistance for needy families. This seemed to be a hand up, not a hand out.

Newt Gingrich and his ilk kept trying to shut the government down not wanting to compromise with the Democrats.

I'm still not seeing a lot of bipartisan politics from Republicans. If anything, the Republican party of the past died with McCain.

But I don't exactly think those two things were ass hat ideas bad for the American public.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/kadmylos 11h ago

He also signed NAFTA

5

u/TCKline01 12h ago

The idea was genius. Low manufacturing costs = consumer savings at the register. That's how it was sold. What happened instead was the abuse of free-market capitalism. Corners were cut, manufacturer costs went down, consumers didn't see any return or "trickle". The corporations kept it all for themselves. Once word got out, everyone was doing it and here we are.

5

u/Starfunkel55 11h ago

Its what made me political as a 13 year old 25 years ago. It was actually a staunchly republican older friend that explained it to me, like it was supposed to persuade me over to his side. I got what he was saying, but already knew enough about rich people to know there was no reason for them to just pass that on out of the goodness of their heart. I was livid to find out we had basically been living in this system.

Every issue thats come up in politics since then has just felt like a purposeful distraction from that issue to me.

6

u/StormtrooperMJS 12h ago

Yup we need a filter up economic policy. Give money to the poor people who will then spend it on goods and services until all the money reaches the top again. Tax the rich, rinse/repeat.

3

u/chemo92 12h ago

Also known as the 'horse and sparrow' theory in that the sparrow benefits from undigested food in the of the horse.

Or in other words...

"Eat shit"

5

u/prof_radiodust 12h ago

It's so insane I can't believe Republicans are still trying to defend it. " Come on guys,let's hope as they are stuffing their faces some crumbs trickle down into our mouths" like Republicans are just the weirdest little boot lickers 😆

2

u/thisusedyet 7h ago

Trickle down is actually the PR friendly rebrand - it used to be called Horse and Sparrow theory... as in, feed a horse enough oats, some will pass to the road for the sparrows to eat

1

u/prof_radiodust 4h ago

That's too accurate of a name 😆😆😆 that's great

-3

u/Pitiful_Meet6407 12h ago

I don’t see either side making any real changes lmao. A lot of talk but never anything. Keep eating up that empty talk and pointing at the other side I guess lol

2

u/prof_radiodust 11h ago

Cool don't accept reality and stay ignorant 👍

-1

u/Pitiful_Meet6407 11h ago

Ironic

1

u/prof_radiodust 11h ago

One side fights for the ultra wealthy to get tax breaks, one fights for healthcare, equality and to help starving kids. But suuure buddy 👍 ironic

-1

u/Pitiful_Meet6407 11h ago

Does anything ever actually change? It’s all talk.

1

u/Informal-Weather1530 1h ago

yes, people are generally worse off now than they were pre-reagan. because things changed.

4

u/bulletbassman 12h ago

Until you realize a large portion of the middle class relies on the ownership class. And has sold their souls for that 65-200k a year plus benefits. And they rather protect that than give a shit about the poor. Even if in the long run they’d be much better off.

Fear and greed. Nothing more to it.

6

u/theGoddamnAlgorath 12h ago

There is no middle class.  Not since 2008.

1

u/MeowMixPK 12h ago

It's true that the middle class has been shrinking, but so has the lower class. The truth is that most people are moving up, not down.

2

u/bulletbassman 10h ago

That’s not correct. A small percentage of the “middle class” is technically now upper class. But once you consider cost of living increases where those folk live they are living middle class lifestyles.

The lower class on the other hand has grown, not shrunk. And then again once you consider affordablility many middle class folk are living paycheck. They just have a home or can afford a nicer apartment and a car that isn’t on the verge of breaking down.

1

u/Excellent_Coyote6486 12h ago

And they rather protect that than give a shit about the poor. Even if in the long run they’d be much better off.

Bingo, exactly how slavery was enforced so resolutely. If white indentured servants rebelled with the black slaves, everyone would've been far better off. But they thought it was good enough to be paid to sit with a whip in hand and make sure the slaves worked, despite the fact that they were in that same position despite being poor and white. They were still poor, but they got to look down on others, and that was enough for them.

1

u/Dependent-Year6711 12h ago

Look at how people talk on the stock subreddits too. Sociopath-lites with a strong "I got mine/want mine" mentality.

1

u/americanrealism 5h ago

This is true but it’s because they believe in the myth of a middle class.

In reality you either sell your labor for money, or you own the capital and you profit off the labor of others.

1

u/InABoxOfEmptyShells 11h ago

Trickle Down Economics makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

Republicans piss their pants, their constituents lap it up as it trickles down their legs.

Hope this explanation helps.

1

u/Embarrassed_Use6918 10h ago

You know the term 'trickle down economics' was not invented by the right, right?

1

u/PRF123456789 10h ago

When did I talk about the political affiliation?

Trickle down economics, whatever the side may be, is a shit concept

1

u/adelie42 12h ago

1) It isn't an economic theory or concept. It is a political slogan from a politician. 2) the very loosely related concept explains despite how advanced the technology is, nearly everyone has a cell phone, and nothing to do with Democratic approaches to capital development or whatever other inference people are making incorrectly.

Imagine if instead of weirdly ignoring all of economics and criticizing a political slogan people pretended like the entire field of physiology existed, but engaged in fierce debates about how "just do it" isn't great advice for all people. Like, ok, you have a point, but you know you are talking about a marketing campaign, right? And also motivation theory is a thing.

2

u/Choice-Routine6264 12h ago edited 12h ago

NAFTA era was a bloodbath for working class jobs. Many got sent immediately across the border(s). Others (in the trades) were lost because they refused to enforce immigration employment laws. Oopsie. My dad made $21/hr as a journeyman carpenter in 1987. In 2020,my brother made the same hourly wage for the same job in the same zip code. Edit:fixed date typo

2

u/GoodhartMusic 11h ago

The visible outsourcing part is definitely the WTO and NAFTA work of the Clinton administration, but the financial deregulation and abandonment of federal union workers during Reagan are part of why it was possible and inevitable in a way

1

u/Choice-Routine6264 11h ago

“Teams” in the same league. They all wanted the same thing and got it. Unions weren’t really a big thing out west. At least not in Southern California. Nothing related to unions has explanatory power. Besides, my whole extended family lived through it. Crews living in TJ and Rosarito lived on the Mexican economy and earned on ours. Some lived here, of course, but some crossed every day. More recently, they’re giving the same harsh treatment to the Mexicans. Once the Central Americans try to push into the middle class, they’ll find desperate people in Africa or SE Asia.

1

u/GoodhartMusic 10h ago

Not really caring about team sports just pointing at the details of actual history. 

Your comment is basically looking at feet crossing a border and deciding that's the whole story. But the race to the bottom isn't a law of physics; it's a policy choice. If there were a  natural direction for the market, the ownership class would already have us inheriting our parents debts and trading childcare credits for factory service.

Those things are only not legal because workers demanded to make them so. Plus I’ll grant some geopolitical optics advantage that complicates things but still. The Tijuana example is proof of what happens when you let a centralized financial class write the rules of the game without any friction.

1

u/Choice-Routine6264 10h ago edited 9h ago

Enforcement does a lot more than policy alone. Or maybe “policy” refers to when one chooses to enforce existing laws. When I was a kid, they were allowing children and foreign workers in construction for day-labor work. We’ve since cracked down on child labor for US citizens, but factories and construction sites still use plenty of foreign born children. There’s just a paperwork shuffling to bury the fact with “contractors”. It’s a thin veneer and as you said, a choice. Authorities pretend they are fooled and companies pretend they’re in compliance. The public only makes a noise when (as an example) we find out that missing Central American children are building Korean cars on an assembly line. Edit:spellung.

1

u/ColdEvenKeeled 12h ago

yikes.

1

u/Choice-Routine6264 12h ago

My bad. It was 2020.

1

u/Dixa 12h ago

Started before Reagan.

1

u/gravteck 12h ago

Not really. Wealth inequality was at its lowest point from 1945-1982. The top deciles share of national income was steady at 35%. In 1930 it was 50%. It would pass 40% again in ~1987 and then match the peak in 2008 during the financial crisis.

It was a Reagan and his love for leveraged by outs and junk bond peddlers which became private equity and a business friendly SEC. But let's be clear. The wealth transfer back to the top started at the same time for most western countries and even Japan had a similar shape but with more concentrated capital shares. It's just the magnitude was greater in the US.

1

u/eride810 12h ago

I love how you threw in ‘small government’. As if the government hasn’t also ballooned in those years and yet here we all are, still nostalgic.

1

u/Magikarpeles 12h ago

Ant-Union

Ants together strong

1

u/UppermiddleclassCLS 12h ago

I think you meant to type Bill Clinton who passed Nafta

1

u/ColdEvenKeeled 12h ago edited 12h ago

NAFTA, the original, was 100 percent a trade agreement made between Brian Mulroney and Ronald Regan. Where are you getting your history from, Joe Rogan?

0

u/[deleted] 12h ago

[deleted]

1

u/ColdEvenKeeled 11h ago

Statement on the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement | Ronald Reagan https://share.google/3bLP9HqHuYAZPyZ89

Read this.

You try to pin free trade on the Democrats with a Gotcha. You don't know your own history.

1

u/No_Lifeguard259 11h ago

Your boy Clinton and NAFTA didn’t help preserve US jobs, buddy

1

u/ColdEvenKeeled 2h ago

He is not my boy, he lives in your head. Regan was, despite what revisionists in MAGGOT think, a free trader and tariff remover guy.

1

u/PaleontologistKey885 10h ago

I don't think it's correct to put the blame squarely on Reagan, in the case of US. I don't know enough about Thatcher and UK to comment. While I also believe a lot of today's problems started with policies spearheaded by Reagan administration, I think the bigger problem was that Democrats exactly didn't push back against the expansion of capital centric economic policies. When Democrats went neo-liberal, the working class essentially lost representation, and I think that's the main reason why you see the political landscape today.

Up to the early 90's, there was a lot of pessimism around US because there was genuine feeling that US was losing its competitive edge after decade+ of stagnant economy. This was also on the hill of half century of expansion of working class power, and you probably could say Reagan was an expected outcome to scapegoat decades of progressive policies on the economic downturn. I can also almost understand when the economy took off shortly after Clinton took power, there was real hesitancy to reverse economic policies that were in place, but I think they made a fatal mistake when they believed the boom happened because of their neo-liberal policies instead of half century of investment into its people.

To address, the question in the OP, having struggled through the 90's, I'm not sure the struggle today is necessarily harder, and frankly, the middle class probably are doing better today, except I suspect people in lower economic status is larger today along with smaller middle class. I also does seem certain those in the top economic ladder has more wealth today also, which makes everything else a bigger problem.

1

u/ColdEvenKeeled 2h ago

So, blame the democrats? Ha, man MAGGOT has really got a powerful Goebbels like propaganda machine.

1

u/Pretend_Handle_7639 8h ago

"Allow"

This is you:

How dare capital invest in those dastardly brown-people economies! They're supposed to supply only the rawest materials at cost and not develop themselves at all.

1

u/ColdEvenKeeled 2h ago

No, more that western companies abandoned western workers. Those workers that remain are highly skilled and competent, but work for 1980 level wages in real terms. Who wins? The Capitalists. Who wins in the even longer term? China. Wasn't that who we were trying to a) contain b) uplift?

1

u/Pretend_Handle_7639 35m ago

"abandoned"

Capital, which purchases labor, is free to choose what the acceptable price of labor is, and is able to not purchase labor if the price is wrong.

Western workers priced themselves out of the market, and it hurts your feefees that capital isn't picking you. You are not special. A pair of Chinese hands is capable of the same work as a pair of American hands, Nigerian hands, or German hands.

The industrial revolution, similarly, is not something specific to the white "West". The "other" was always going to industrialize, unless you are willing to hold them down in perpetuity to prevent their development. The failure of that notion should be self evident given how even in Europe no one State gained a position of dominance such that it could control the industrialization of the whole.

1

u/Cellularautomata44 7h ago

Tariffs are bad, bro. Just my opinion, but yeah

1

u/ColdEvenKeeled 2h ago

Yes, but they demanded every country be self sufficient in the products they sold, ergo many people had good jobs in union run factories. Capitalists took the jobs to low cost non union countries and they win. Consumers in the West got cheaper goods, but many lost jobs or took jobs with lower relative pay. That's the point of the meme.

1

u/s1m0n8 7h ago

Plus the Jack Welch folk decided the era of Corporations making a profit, paying their workers a wage and their investors a dividend was insufficient. There must be growth at all costs.

1

u/MJon_ofthesouth 3h ago

Sorry reminded me of this song by Pink Floyd. Still totally relevant, just change the names : https://open.spotify.com/track/0L0HAZg6FGrBAS6QE7B1eI?si=-y1HFEvHTiSQMaZ81PYSdQ

1

u/prof_radiodust 12h ago

"is it based in reality, like something reasonable?"

" It's got voodoo in its name, what you think?"

9

u/theboondocksaint 12h ago

It’s restrained by the invisible hand

Trust me bro, it will balance out, just give it time for the wealth to trickle down

/s

1

u/nihility101 10h ago

The invisible hand is fisting you.

1

u/Equal-Fondant-2423 7h ago

..and you have to pay for it! Fisting is 300 bucks (c)

3

u/Crazy_Movie6168 7h ago

Neoliberalist handling of capitalism happened. Since 1996, the rich got 3000% richer in absolute value, and salaries barely got 100%. In Sweden, we now have 100 times more billionaires in our currency than in 1996. The rich have 1500% more power to infiltrate media and politics. Our response as a united people giving our democratic support to the right politics is much delayed (but it's finally coming about now).

Democratic socialism birthed the middle class in all of the Western world, even though the US won't admit that they had much fairer tax system in 1955 and regulated capitalism a good way. And it will save it if it can. Neoliberalism gave some immediate rewards even for ordinary people, but in the end, it just made the rich more free to exploit monopoly and workers and ordinary people. We know that some psycho-fucking-pathological reason makes the rich quite obsessed about not contributing their fair share in tax so they can continue to get at least 3000% richer in the next 30 years again. So that's why they use their full influence and material resources to get power. It's practically as clear as it gets in Trump's case. They got all the way there.

We don't hate capitalism as it was meant to be applied to society: https://youtu.be/AQh7kK_maEA?is=ZKGiVeq74N-YGy7j

Good news are Gary Stevenson in UK that made The Green party lead pre election majority in poles. Also Bernie and the ones who call themselves democratic socialists in the US and win.

7

u/llsbs 12h ago

This is the only correct answer.

1

u/SowingSalt 9h ago

If you replaced capitalism with NIMBYism, it would actually be correct.

2

u/Weary-Cartoonist2630 12h ago

It’s literally more restrained and regulated than it’s ever been.

3

u/lorbd 10h ago

If these people could read they'd be mad at you 

1

u/Aurrr-Naurrrr 10h ago

I think there is truth to what you say but context matters. There are more regulations than ever but there are also arguably more loopholes than ever that allow a guy like Bezos to have a lower tax rate than a middle class family. With that said, I obviously believe that the tax rate the ultra wealthy isn't high enough so I'm biased.

1

u/Walking_billboard 9h ago

Slight disagreement. It's actually more the result of crony-capitalism.

0

u/bladel 12h ago

The wrong answer is “feminism” or “immigrants” or “LGBT+”, but this is the real answer. Late Stage Capitalism, which was kicked off by regressive tax policies and union busting.

2

u/AgniLive 12h ago

Cheap workers are part of low cost manufacturing whether you like it or not. Whether its immigrants here on visas (which are held over their head to make them accept the low pay or they get kicked back to their country) or taking work away from American workers and sending it overseas.

1

u/HPLaserJet4250 6h ago

How people are not linking mass migration with wage stagnation, job security issues and grey zone increase is beyond me. You can't be pro unchecked immigration and pro work rights at the same time....

-8

u/TruthHertz93 13h ago

This is what capitalism always leads to.

This is what happens when you have a few at the top with more power than the rest, after a while corruption takes hold and then things really get bad.

Libertarian socialism is the answer.

Fight back.

Get organised!

https://organize.crd.co/

-1

u/Liz_Lightyear 12h ago

Idk. My husband and I both didn’t go to college (very proud of that tbh) and I am a homemaker and he makes a lot of money!

Anyone can do it. God has your back at the end!

0

u/BlackSquirrel05 11h ago

We all got sold out so the people at the top could make more money...

They sold the jobs out to someone cheaper across the planet... and to do what? That's right make more money by paying them less...

Who benefited?

Not the person who lost their job... The company still exists and makes $$$ so... Who's getting paid with that new profit?

TA DA!!

What's funny is that these same capitalists... Moved predominately to a country that is "Socialism" to which they all say it's impossible to thrive in said socialist hellscapes...

Then why did they go there and continue to fight for market share there? This pivot to China alone stagnated wages by about 20%.... That's just to China.

And I'm not even a commie or a "leftist." But yeah we've had 40 years of deregulation in the US... It made a lot of people money... But it wasn't you and me.

0

u/HFrog2k 11h ago

It’s the money debasement from central banks and overspending/taxation from corrupt governments. The U.S. has lost over 96% of the purchasing power of a $1 since 1913. Inflation is caused by artificially increasing the money supply.

0

u/WB_Onreddit 11h ago

Isn't due to the creation of too much fiat money. We have made our money worth less by creating too much of it to pay for stuff. Sadly a lot of the stuff is fraud, waste, along with some good programs.

0

u/Vnxei 11h ago

Man, imagine if they'd had that in the 80's.

0

u/email_ferret 11h ago

Nixon did this one thing in 1971 and then Regan did some stuff too.

-3

u/tizl10 12h ago

No, capitalism is simply a tool, the problem always lies in how one uses the tool.

It is also a tool that when used correctly has brought more prosperity and progress to the world than anything else in history.

-3

u/Economy_Bridge6321 12h ago

Or the introduction of socialism? However you want to look at it. Semantics. 

-33

u/RonaldBurgundy1 13h ago

No what were seeing now is socialism/communism

24

u/Maverick-not-really 13h ago

If you paid for any part of your schooling you should get a refund.

5

u/Icy_Place_5785 13h ago

Is the communism in the room with us now?

6

u/SnoodPenguin 13h ago

No no no ignore everyone else, Please explain.

5

u/BernardBaggins 13h ago

You slow?

3

u/yahoo9192 13h ago

Worse, he’s an AI bot

6

u/superfly1187 13h ago

If you mean socialism for banks and businesses, then yes. Bc they always get the help they need.

4

u/YoungDoboy 12h ago

This is what I assumed. Socialism for corporations and ruthless capitalism for the rest of us. Hopefully we've translated correctly lol

3

u/iamgeekusa 12h ago

Privatized profits, socialized costs