The New Deal, during the Great Depression, did save the Country and Capitalism. Of course there were great excesses, and let's try to fix them. Please, let's not get into a discussion of this, and why the Country slipped back into a Depression in 1936. (WWII got us out of the Depression of 1936, not 1929)

Where you get this belief in a double-dip (that is 2 of them, back to back) Depression is beyond me.

The Great Depression was triggered by the Stock Market Crash of Oct. 1929. The economy started faltering during 1930, and by 1931 things were bad... really bad. After the failed Hoover presidency (not only did everything Hoover tried to do NOT help, but things usually got WORSE), the People in the USA were desperate for change. FDR got elected in the election of 1932 because he was NOT Hoover. Almost immediately after FDR took office in early 1933, the economy began a slow recovery. Well before FDR had gotten much of anything enacted and WAY before the lag time had passed for any of the programs (the lag time in these cases is usually 1 to 1.5 years) to have an effect.

This indicates that it was the people's faith in FDR that HE would fix things that prompted the beginning of the recovery. Not any of his actual programs.

In my research of the Great Depression, I had opportunity of interview quite a number of primary sources (you know... the people that were THERE, and lived through it). Almost without exception the primary sources identified themselves as lifelong Democrats and those of voting age reported that they had voted for FDR. Without exception, every single one of these primary sources reported that FDR's 'New Deal' programs at best didn't make much difference one way or the other and frequently made things worse. I am sure that there very likely are some people that those programs helped, but I highly dispute your assertion that the New Deal saved 'Country and Capitalism'. Per my research, the People, by and large, saved themselves.

You refer to a '2nd Depression' of 1936. This just does not turn out to be the case. The Great Depression started in 1929, and did NOT end until 1942. The event in 1936 that you refer to was just a recession from 1936 to 1938. It had a number of causes, chief among them were a couple of FDR's uhh... mistakes.

The Banking Act of 1935 increased Reserve Requirements on Banks. Also the Social Security system was ramping up and it had an issue with how the Government handled the collected funds that wasn't fixed until 1937. Both of these events caused a contraction in the money supply. Recession.

It was the military buildup that we undertook just prior to WWII that got us out of the Great Depression.

Major prior to the new deal during the great depression what you are advocating was the way things were. Can you cite a time period when it worked well? I can't.

Oh, a couple thousand BCE to the present.

Major you provide no data to back or examples your assertion. I still call BS.

---

Actually, the US government was well on its way of eradicating poverty starting during WW2 and going on until the 70's, exactly because of its statist economic policies. Things went wrong after Reagan took over and the whole 'free market everywhere' political religion was born.

That's my take on it.

---

The Banking Act of 1935 increased Reserve Requirements on Banks.

Major, the reduction of reserve requirements was a major component of our recent recesssion. High leverage is dangerous. Gamble big, win big or fail big. Banks should not be gamblers.

---

Chris I put my money in the bank to save not gamble!

---

Chris I put my money in the bank to save not gamble!

If you put money at the bank, they use that money to invest in stuff. Thats how banks make a profit, how they can pay interest and basically what keeps the economy running. But banks should be responsible with their clients money when they invest it in something.

Мишель:

I disagree. You seem to consider 'poverty' as a problem that can be solved by some outside agency of sorts (charity, government, whatever). It cannot be.

Poverty exists due to a wide variety of reasons. Some are relatively short-term (for instance your home, or the building where you work blew up or burned down, so you are temporarily homeless or unemployed, or perhaps the river flooded and wiped out your crops for the year). Charity excels at helping with this type. A helping hand feeding, sheltering, and clothing you and your family until you can get back on your feet.

So far I agree

Other reasons for poverty are somewhat longer term in nature. Things like mismatches in your skills with what is in demand. Also, a poor work-ethic (the lazy bums). Now, by no means are all of the poor 'lazy bums', or even very many of them at all. But they do exist. While charity and government programs can help keep them alive, a true solution to this sort of poverty must come from the individual, and the individual alone. They have to be willing to do what it takes to improve themselves.

The lazy bum category is negligible.

And while it is easy to lay the responsibility of solving this form of poverty with the individual, I do believe government can play a role in this. If your skills mismatch with what is needed on the job market, its the government that can help you learn a new skill set. Its easy to say that this is the responsibility of the individual, but if the individual lacks the means or requires help, government can play a positive role.

The last major cause of poverty is lack of opportunity. In this one government isn't the solution, it is the PROBLEM. Over-regulation, excessive taxation, and micro-management of business activity due to central planning by the government. All of these have a drag effect on business activity. This is the ONE sort of poverty the Government can actually fix, by getting out of the way of business.

All those regulations exist for a reason. Yeah, its much easier to start a business in a place where there are no rules on how much you must pay your workers or where there are no safety and health standards. But without minimum wage the majority of people would still be poor and they would live in unhealthy and unsafe environments. And those taxes are necessary to run a wide range of public services that people need, especially if you want them to have the best opportunities. Generally, less rules and less taxation only benefits the people that run the factory, not the people that work in the factory.

And there are more forms of opportunity that you conviniently skip over and in which the government plays a vital role. Conservatives may have declared that racism is no longer a thing in the United States, but I think you will find that to be utter nonsense when you talk to non white people in the United States. Ethnic minorities still do not have the same opportunities as their white counter parts, and for a large degree that is the result of systemic racism. It will require heavy handed approaches enforced by the government to remove this racism. The same goes for gender equality. There is still a pay gap and women still have a much harder time getting the same opportunities as their male counter parts. Again, its the government that can enact and enforce rules that force equality and give women the same opportunities as men.

Then there is of course also the debt problem. In todays world you kinda miss out on a lot of opportunities if you didn't do something after high school. Yet if it costs a small fortune to go to college, you essentially ensure that poor people do not have the same degree of access to college and therefor to the same opportunities who were born in rich families. The problem then becomes that poverty is turned into a cycle. Poor people are not rich enough to go to college, therefor they do not get the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty, they get kids, they can't afford to send their kids to college, so their kids do not get the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty. Government could interfere here, through subsidies making college far more accessible to everyone.

If Government WAS able to solve the entire problem of poverty, after spending untold Trillions of US$ on it starting at the beginning of the Progressive era (1890ish) until today, especially considering FDR's 'New Deal' and LBJ's 'Great Society' with their MASSIVE expenditures, continuing through Bush the Younger's NCLB and Medicare Part D, right on up through Obama's current agenda(s) today, don't you think that Government would have ALREADY solved it?

Yeah, just one problem with that assertion. Ever since the 80's the government went full libertarian in its approach to poverty. Trickle down economics, cutting regulation, cutting taxes, etc. And what happened? The rich got extremely rich, while the lower and middle classes did not see their income increase. Poverty got worse, thanks to the same measures you suggest to give more people more opportunities to get a job.

As far as helping out the poor goes, each area has a different set of problems, needing different solutions. And next year, the problem in one area might be different than they are this year. No 'national authority' can do a 'one size fits all' solution on the entire country and expect any kind of efficiency. Helping the poor is BEST done on the local level. And charities are almost always able to adapt to changing needs much FASTER than Government.

It depends on the problem. Racism and gender equality are problems that can be fairly easily tackled on at least state level. Access to education is again something that can be easily solved on a state or national level. Really, structural poverty is caused by structural problems that require a political solution that charities simply cannot provide.

And, especially in the United States, Government has CAUSED a lot of poverty when it started adopting Statist economic policies over the last 120 years. Government can fix a lot of things by abandoning them.

Actually, the US government was well on its way of eradicating poverty starting during WW2 and going on until the 70's, exactly because of its statist economic policies. Things went wrong after Reagan took over and the whole 'free market everywhere' political religion was born.

Wow... So much that is mistaken (at best) in your post. I don't have either the time or the energy right now to respond to all of it. My 2 older kids brought some illness home from school and everybody here is down with it. Urrgh.


You bring up racism and gender equality. Yes, in the past those 2 were HUGE problems. Not so much anymore. Yes, they still do exist to some small degree. But they are nowhere near the problem they used to be, here in the USA. Or, were you talking about racism/sexism in Europe?

Consider the USA. Racial minorities and women are well represented at the highest levels of power in government (federal, state, and local). The same with big business.

50 or 100 years ago, you might have been well justified in claiming it to be a problem in the USA, but today? Get over it.

It will require heavy handed approaches enforced by the government to remove this racism.

So you are advocating 'heavy handed' action by the government to control people's thoughts and attitudes?

The fookin' Thought Police???

You and others like you sound like something out of Orwell's '1984'.

You all are the ones that are DoublePlusUnGood.

Yet if it costs a small fortune to go to college, you essentially ensure that poor people do not have the same degree of access to college and therefor to the same opportunities who were born in rich families.

Government could interfere here, through subsidies making college far more accessible to everyone.

Man, where have you been living?

We DO have federal government subsidies on college. Go look up 'Pell Grant' and 'Stafford Loan'. However, while the stated goal of these programs was admirable (to help students of lesser means get a college education), these programs had a DARK SIDE. They are one of the main reasons, likely THE main reason why it costs, as you say, a small FORTUNE to go to college these days. Totally GONE are the days when one could put oneself through college with a part-time job or two. A basic principle of economics is that the more money that is chasing a particular product or service, the more expensive that product or service becomes. The US Federal Government has been pumping a LOT of money into the US College system, for decades. The end result? Grossly over-inflated prices for it. This, combined with the 'loan' aspect of it puts graduates all to frequently in the position of owing huge amounts (US$50,000.00 or more) with no guarantee of ever being able to pay it back. The private sector, on its own, would not ever make most of these loans, but the 'Government Guarantee' on these loans mean that the private sector financial institutions that make these loans CAN'T LOSE money on them.

Something needs to change about the way college is paid for.

Actually, the US government was well on its way of eradicating poverty starting during WW2 and going on until the 70's, exactly because of its statist economic policies. Things went wrong after Reagan took over and the whole 'free market everywhere' political religion was born.

This statement does not match reality. In the 1970s, there was REAL poverty in the area I grew up in. Quite a number of my friends lived in shacks with no electricity or running water. After the so-called Reagan Revolution, this kind of poverty no longer exists in that area.

'Free Market'-ism did not originate with Reagan.

Chris I put my money in the bank to save not gamble!

If you put money at the bank, they use that money to invest in stuff. Thats how banks make a profit, how they can pay interest and basically what keeps the economy running. But banks should be responsible with their clients money when they invest it in something.

Banks used to make mone by lending and the loans required adequate colatteral, hardly a gamble.

---

Banks used to make mone by lending and the loans required adequate colatteral, hardly a gamble.

And Mr. Potter Loved to Evict and Foreclose.

Got Cave?

Huckabee in '16. The Man is Good. A Real Good Man, with More Sense than anyone who will Throw Their Hat in.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Wow... So much that is mistaken (at best) in your post. I don't have either the time or the energy right now to respond to all of it. My 2 older kids brought some illness home from school and everybody here is down with it. Urrgh.

Well I hope you feel better soon :)

You bring up racism and gender equality. Yes, in the past those 2 were HUGE problems. Not so much anymore. Yes, they still do exist to some small degree. But they are nowhere near the problem they used to be, here in the USA. Or, were you talking about racism/sexism in Europe?

Oh really? Then why do women consistently earn less than men?

Why do black people with have so much more trouble getting a job?

And then we are not even mentioning rape culture, the fact that a number of Southern States have adopted laws designed to prevent black and poor people from voting, etc. Is it better than 50 years ago? Sure. But is discrimination based either on gender or race still a serious problem? Yes, most definitely.

Consider the USA. Racial minorities and women are well represented at the highest levels of power in government (federal, state, and local). The same with big business.

The majority of big business leaders and politicians are still white males. The fact that there is now some more diversity than 50 years ago does not mean that discrimination is an issue of the past.

50 or 100 years ago, you might have been well justified in claiming it to be a problem in the USA, but today? Get over it.

I'm still well justified in claiming this.

So you are advocating 'heavy handed' action by the government to control people's thoughts and attitudes?

The fookin' Thought Police???

You and others like you sound like something out of Orwell's '1984'.

You all are the ones that are DoublePlusUnGood.

Of course I'm not advocating a thought police. But government can most certainly take measures aimed at combating discrimination. And it is still sorely needed.

Man, where have you been living?

The Netherlands, where the government subsidizes universities and colleges and as a result I can study for 1500-2000 euros a year. And I can get student loans from the government without having to pay a lot of interest over it.

We DO have federal government subsidies on college. Go look up 'Pell Grant' and 'Stafford Loan'. However, while the stated goal of these programs was admirable (to help students of lesser means get a college education), these programs had a DARK SIDE. They are one of the main reasons, likely THE main reason why it costs, as you say, a small FORTUNE to go to college these days. Totally GONE are the days when one could put oneself through college with a part-time job or two. A basic principle of economics is that the more money that is chasing a particular product or service, the more expensive that product or service becomes. The US Federal Government has been pumping a LOT of money into the US College system, for decades. The end result? Grossly over-inflated prices for it. This, combined with the 'loan' aspect of it puts graduates all to frequently in the position of owing huge amounts (US$50,000.00 or more) with no guarantee of ever being able to pay it back. The private sector, on its own, would not ever make most of these loans, but the 'Government Guarantee' on these loans mean that the private sector financial institutions that make these loans CAN'T LOSE money on them.

Something needs to change about the way college is paid for.

Why haven't you guys done what we have done. Subsidize colleges but make sure that students only pay a very affordable price for it. What idiot subsidizes something only to then have them raise the price of college anyways? Thats theft!

This statement does not match reality. In the 1970s, there was REAL poverty in the area I grew up in. Quite a number of my friends lived in shacks with no electricity or running water. After the so-called Reagan Revolution, this kind of poverty no longer exists in that area.

Yeah I guess that is why wages for the majority of the American's haven't gone up since the 80's. Only the top incomes saw a massive increase of their paycheck. See for yourself

How else did you think you got an income inequality as ridiculous as that of the United States?


Sorry man, but the facts do not match your statements.

In this country the line between investment banking and what you call "High Street Banks" has been crossed .

---

In this country the line between investment banking and what you call "High Street Banks" has been crossed .

Correct. There used to be a law that said those two kind of banks needed to be separate legal entities, so that if one bank failed, it wouldn't hurt the common people. But under the guise of deregulation, that law got scrapped and look where that got us.

For someone studying for a second level degree, you don't do your homework very well do you?

The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 received Royal Assent in December 2013, and is now law. It introduces a ‘ring-fence’ around the deposits of people and small businesses, to separate the high street from the trading floor and protect taxpayers when things go wrong.

Banking law

And you make to many assumptions. I was talking about the US Banking Act of 1933 or to be more precise, the Glass-Steagall act, which did seperate commercial banks from investment banks, until it was repealed under the guise of deregulation of the financial markets.

What gave you the impression I was talking about UK banking law?

The Anti-Reagan Agenda, is just about Ideology, and therefore non-thinking.

Pay extra attention to the second graph. See how strong the lower incomes grew in the period 1940-1970? And see how after the 70s the income remains relatively stable for the bottom 99%? Now look at the top 1% and their income. See how it spikes in the 1980's and keeps going up while the bottom 99% gets nothing?

Sadly, it started with Reagan. Is he to blame? To some degree. He was president and therefor responsible. Then again, he was also an actor who didn't have the first clue about how to run a country, which is why he delegated it all to others. The actual problem started in Chicago with Milton Friedman and von Hayek.

The actual problem started in Chicago with Milton Friedman and von Hayek.

Who were inspired by Ayn Rand. I enjoyed reading her fiction when I was in the 8th grade, 55 years ago. I even belived that crap for a couple of decades and I have a degree in economics. Oh well I have repented.

---

The actual problem started in Chicago with Milton Friedman and von Hayek.

Who were inspired by Ayn Rand. I enjoyed reading her fiction when I was in the 8th grade, 55 years ago. I even belived that crap for a couple of decades and I have a degree in economics. Oh well I have repented.

I find that her philosophy is remarkably similar to the way of a teenager. I guess that is why her work tends to appeal to teenagers who generally outgrow it once they are a little older.

Bearing in mind you have a Netherlands flag on your avatar it was reasonable to assume that you meant this side of the pond. If you had said "the US" it might have been clearer. Then again the title is US elections not the UK ones.

Interesting point though that the US regulates whist the UK regulates the same issue..

No, there I did mean us as in Europe. The financial crisis started in the United States, but had its effects on Europe as well. You know the saying 'America sneezes and Europe gets a cold'? Thanks to interlinked financial markets, if there is a banking crisis in the US, you can be sure that its going to hit Europe as well.

But sorry for the confusion :)

Believe you fail to understand, I am not a Reagan supporter. He did do damage, along with 'some' good.

If you look at the History of Economy's, you will see there is a 'delay' from when Programs/Economic Theory's are applied and their effect.

To Shout Reagan!, Reagan!!, Reagan!!!, and fail to Shout, or disregard, BIG GOVERNMENT as a contributing cause: Is Ideological, and therefore Non-Thinking.

Do explain how 'big government' makes people poor.

Also, that lag in effect is what? Maybe a year? Its certainly not decades.

Who gave us Supermarkets and shopping Malls which we didn't want? Whatever the latest trend is in the States, give it 10 years and it filters over to here.

Got Brainiacism? We'll Give yOu 100 Years fO Dat One.

Huckabeez in O Sixteen

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Well I hope you feel better soon :)

Thank you, but it is not myself that I am concerned about. My 3 children (almost 6, 4 and a half, and almost 2) vomiting, having diarrhea, with nasal and chest congestion... well I haven't exactly had much sleep. Add to this that my VERY elderly parents (who live nearby) also came down with it (they DO love their grandchildren), and now my wife is coming down with it. Lots of worry. The fact that I came down with a bad case of it is secondary. I gotta do what I gotta do to take care of my loved ones. Lots of doctor visits, and hospitalization for the kids and my parents. I am recovering fairly well, but I am *exhausted*. I didn't get the chance to get all the bed-rest I was TOLD to get.

Oh really? Then why do women consistently earn less than men?

Why do black people with have so much more trouble getting a job?

And then we are not even mentioning rape culture, the fact that a number of Southern States have adopted laws designed to prevent black and poor people from voting, etc. Is it better than 50 years ago? Sure. But is discrimination based either on gender or race still a serious problem? Yes, most definitely.

I am a firm believer in equal pay for equal (both quantity and quality of) work.
If a person does an equal amount of work of an equal quality for an equal amount of time in a particular job, I believe they should be paid the same, no matter what racial/ethnic background they have or what gender they may be. Almost all the people I know feel the same. Ceteris paribus, what could cause unequal pay? Things like qualifications and experience. Employees with demonstrated better qualifications and more experience are going to start at a higher pay rate.

A personal example. In a business I used to run, I had occasion to do some hiring for some new positions. Someone applied for one of them and I did the interview. They were a retired member of the US Army. I examined their DD-214 (their service record). The person spent the bulk of their 20+ years in the Army doing things that were VERY similar to what I was hiring them to do, and that person had NO blots on their record. I hired that person at a pay rate significantly higher than I hired the relatively green young people I filled the other positions with. Oh, by the way, the person in question happened to be a... (what is the current PC term?)... African-American.

There are plenty of reasons why some people get hired and some don't, There are plenty of reasons why some people make more than others. These reasons really have nothing to do with any accident of birth (race or gender). To blindly follow the liberal/left dogma about racial/gender discrimination is taking WAY too simplistic of a view of things. Remember the liberal/left politicians (the Democrats) have a HUGE interest in perpetuating the myth that racial and gender discrimination still is a problem. It keeps the Minorities thinking that they are still beholden to those politicians (the Democrats), keeps the minorities voting by and large FOR the Democrats, thus perpetuating the Democrats hold on power.

'Rape culture'?? What does that have to do with racial/gender issues? Rape is criminal.

a number of Southern States have adopted laws designed to prevent black and poor people from voting, etc.

What are you talking about? Laws from a century ago that were rightly struck down?

Or are you referring to the recent issue of the 'Voter-ID' laws? Those laws are NOT designed to stop blacks and poor people from voting. They are to stop election fraud. This threatens the Democrats because they engage in a LOT of it. So, the Democrats are spreading the LIE that it is racially motivated.

The Voter-ID laws are to stop non-citizens from voting, citizens from voting more than once, and even DEAD and fictitious people from voting. All three practices are HEAVILY engaged in by the Democrats. Don't believe me? Google is your friend.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html
The infamous precinct 13 (which was totally fictitious) in Jim Wells county, Texas. LBJ got elected to the US Senate, and from there became JFK's VP.

More recent?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/how_chicago_and_obama_globalized_voter_id_fraud.html

Yeah, I know you probably not going to like the website, but it IS a good rundown on the problem.

The Texas Voter-ID law is designed to combat voter fraud... only.

What about the poor and minorities? Won't they be discouraged from voting by it? Nope. Here is why.

The law requires a State of Texas issued ID to be able to vote (driver's license or it's associated State ID card (issued for non-drivers)).

Texas State law requires that if someone can not afford the DL/ID, that the State provide it free of charge.

Federal Law requires that a person show one (ok, maybe there are alternatives, but the DL/ID is the MOST common) as part of the supporting documentation to be able to legally get a JOB.

Federal Law also requires one to receive Government Benefits (TANF, SNAP, etc.)

The poor are already going to have one. The working people (poor and not-poor) are already going to have one. The rich are, of course, already going to have one. Just exactly HOW is this discriminatory to ANYONE except the Democrat Party Bosses (since they will be greatly hampered in their manufacture of fraudulent votes)?

Like I have said, charges of 'racism' or 'sexism' are perpetuated by the Democrat (liberal/lefty) Party in an attempt to retain their solid Minority/Woman voting block. Since Democrat policies since at least Clinton have been, shall we say, not highly "Labor Union friendly", the Democrats have been more and more zealous in pandering to their other main voter bloc -- the Minorities and women.

The majority of big business leaders and politicians are still white males. The fact that there is now some more diversity than 50 years ago does not mean that discrimination is an issue of the past.

Look at politics. The State of Texas was one of the first two states to have a woman Governor. A long time ago. In the general election of 1924, Texas and Wyoming elected women to be Governors. Wyoming got the honor of being the first to *have* a woman Governor because that woman took office around 2 weeks earlier than the Texas Governor did. Miriam Ferguson was Governor of Texas
from 1925 to 1927, and was later re-elected and served again from 1933 to 1935.

Look at local, state, and federal governments today. Lots of minorities and women hold office (elected and appointed) today, and it has been that way for YEARS. Look at our federal Government. Women and Minorities all over it. Women and Minorities on the US Supreme Court. Women and Minorities in the US Congress, including some senior leadership positions. Women and Minorities all over the Executive Branch, including the head of the US Government Executive Branch. You know. The President of the US. Ever hear of US President Obama? Ever seen his photograph? Its the same with Business. Lots of women and minorities own small businesses. Lots of women and minorities work for businesses of all sizes. Lots of women and minorities in leadership (management) positions in big business. There are women and minorities in the top position (CEO) in many big corporations.

So, I ask again, where is the discrimination? We HAVE equality of opportunity. Discrimination is the denial of opportunity for unjustified reasons. If you screw up your own opportunity, by for instance failure to get yourself an education or by getting in trouble with the law by engaging in criminal activities, that is NOT discrimination. You did it to yourself and deserve what you get.
Bad choices in life restrict your opportunities. Can't get that nice job down at the bank? Well, you should not have been robbing people. Jail time will ruin your life.

Or, are you complaining that there are somehow 'not enough'? Careful. Quotas. That way lies the abomination known as 'equality of outcome'. The only reliable way to have 'equality of outcome' is to hold everybody down at the very bottom. Everyone is then equally miserable.

Something needs to change about the way college is paid for.

Why haven't you guys done what we have done. Subsidize colleges but make sure that students only pay a very affordable price for it. What idiot subsidizes something only to then have them raise the price of college anyways? Thats theft!

It seems we agree on this one, at least to a point. Something needs to change. The current system of funding college in the USA is FUBAR.

This statement does not match reality. In the 1970s, there was REAL poverty in the area I grew up in. Quite a number of my friends lived in shacks with no electricity or running water. After the so-called Reagan Revolution, this kind of poverty no longer exists in that area.

Yeah I guess that is why wages for the majority of the American's haven't gone up since the 80's. Only the top incomes saw a massive increase of their paycheck. See for yourself

How else did you think you got an income inequality as ridiculous as that of the United States?

Wages for the majority of the 'Americans' have not go up much at all in a few decades. It is because of several reasons but chief among the reasons is that Organized Labor in the USA both priced itself out of a job. That and Union culture encouraged... shall we say... quality problems. These issues started well before Reagan. Example, the rise in imported cars in the 1970s because US made cars were overpriced pieces of... uhh... organic fertilizer.

Now the true middle class (the degreed professionals (medical doctors, lawyers, etc.) and the small business owners) have not been hurt that bad. Hurt some, but not that much. But the working class... OUCH!!!

Most of the well-paying manufacturing jobs have left the country. They were replaced by crappily-paid service-sector jobs. Making shoes creates wealth. Selling shoes just moves wealth around.

Another reason why the lower incomes have had negative real income growth is increases in productivity and automation. Greater and greater numbers of people are out of their job as they were either replaced by younger (therefore lower paid) workers doing what multiple people used to do, or worse by robotics.

Well over half of the jobs out there now are likely going to be replaced by robotics and other forms of automation between now and the year 2050. No job is truly safe. McDonald's is experimenting with robotic grills right now. Jack in the Box is experimenting with automated order taking. There goes burger-flipping as a job. Retail Sales? Brick & Mortar Retail is dying. More and more people are buying their stuff on-line. Vegetable picking out in the fields? Guess what. Robotics. The way things look about the only job that will be left will be robot repairman... until THEY get replaced.

I seriously have no idea what people are going to do for a living in the not-too-distant future. About the only jobs left will be the creative & thinking jobs, and not everyone is well-suited for those. Not going to be enough of those to go around anyway.

Sorry man, but what you seem to spew straight out of the lefty/liberal 'play-book' is what does not match reality. You really ought to try leaving your ivory-tower lefty fantasy-land sometime and experience reality. You WILL learn a lot about the way the world works, and you might even find you enjoy it.