Usually when people are asked when America was Great™ they’ll point to the burgeoning middle class of the post-war economy of the 1950s. Sometimes they’ll point to separate drinking fountains however we’ll ignore racists for now. The economic nationalists won’t like it when you point out the thriving economy was partly the result of other economies still receiving from war, but more importantly for the middle class there was a 94% marginal tax rate for income over $200,000 in 1945, which meant dollars were circulating and demand was created for more jobs. The trickle-down clowns who insistent the rich getting richer is good for the economy would be slightly more credible, if they weren’t the very same people saying the poor demanding higher wages is bad for the economy. As Nick Hanauer put it:
We plutocrats need to get this trickle-down economics idea behind us; this idea that the better we do, the better everyone else will do. It’s not true. How could it be? I earn 1,000 times the media wage, but I do not buy 1,000 times as much stuff do I? I actually bought 2 pairs of these pants, what my partner Mike calls my manager pants. I could’ve bought 2,000 pairs, but what would I do with them? How many haircuts can I get? How often can I go out to dinner? No matter how wealthy a few plutocrats get, we can never drive a great national economy. Only a thriving middle class can do that.
1950s were also heavily unionized. Unions have declined by 80% since then, and “right to work” laws didn’t exist. (Also, the 40s were when unions began to realize they should be inclusive of marginalized groups. Not due to racism, but because those groups would be more likely to scab unless included)
Usually when people are asked when America was Great™ they’ll point to the burgeoning middle class of the post-war economy of the 1950s. Sometimes they’ll point to separate drinking fountains however we’ll ignore racists for now. The economic nationalists won’t like it when you point out the thriving economy was partly the result of other economies still receiving from war, but more importantly for the middle class there was a 94% marginal tax rate for income over $200,000 in 1945, which meant dollars were circulating and demand was created for more jobs. The trickle-down clowns who insistent the rich getting richer is good for the economy would be slightly more credible, if they weren’t the very same people saying the poor demanding higher wages is bad for the economy. As Nick Hanauer put it:
1950s were also heavily unionized. Unions have declined by 80% since then, and “right to work” laws didn’t exist. (Also, the 40s were when unions began to realize they should be inclusive of marginalized groups. Not due to racism, but because those groups would be more likely to scab unless included)