The existence of the middle class with many wealthy means you have to have a lot of people in poverty. If not liking that makes me left wing then so be it
What a horrible take. The world is not a zero sum game. The US in the 50s-80s is a good example of a thriving middle class and way lower poverty than now.
Edit: This is wrong. Poverty levels have been fairly stable since 1970. Middle class has shrunk but this does not appear to have had an impact on poverty rates.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/
You'll need to provide some sources for that. This data suggests that poverty levels haven't varied much in the last 50 years. Middle class has shrunk but this did not appear to impact poverty rates.
Nuanced difference. My point was that the significant drop in poverty from 1950-1970 existed with the increase and proliferation of the middle class. Their post implies that 20 year period (1950-1970) had high poverty rate the whole time, which is absolutely false.
It also coincided with the US propagating violent dictatorships and committing unparalleled war crimes abroad. The Korean War, Vietnam War, Indonesian Mass Killings, rise of the House of Saud, Shah in Iran, and incredible meddling and history of coups/death squads in Latin America.
That middle class wasn't made by just engaging in good business, unless you consider the violence of imperialism good business... In which case absolutely go fuck yourself... But only if you stand by all that foreign aggression and murder and downstream oppression.
Oh, nice whattaboutism. Didn't say shit about Russia dumbass. What the fuck does that have to do with a conversation about the US engaging in direct imperialism during the 20th century? You sick fucks are obsessed with Russia, it's kind of cute. Like you've got a crush or something.
My guy I'm just talking about well recorded history here. Go Google operation Condor, or if you're really feeling adventurous, literally any history book about Latin America. US violence and meddling is a core part of what gave the country a deeply unfair advantage. There was only dramatic reduction in poverty and a "growing middle class" because we were actively preventing that from developing abroad. Pretending foreign policy and domestic issues are separate realms is completely juvenile. Look at OPEC for the easiest example in the world.
America got all those bombs from a genie lamp, definitely no large scale industry that helped factory workers secure a middle class existence.
The treats they consumed had nothing to do with the destitution their government caused in the third world either. The US did not overthrow a government at the behest of a banana company.
The existence of the middle class with many wealthy means you have to have a lot of people in poverty. If not liking that makes me left wing then so be it
What a horrible take. The world is not a zero sum game. The US in the 50s-80s is a good example of a thriving middle class and way lower poverty than now.
Edit: This is wrong. Poverty levels have been fairly stable since 1970. Middle class has shrunk but this does not appear to have had an impact on poverty rates.
The severity of destitution at the bottom of the social order skyrocketed from the late 70s onward thanks to austerity policies.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/04/20/how-the-american-middle-class-has-changed-in-the-past-five-decades/ You'll need to provide some sources for that. This data suggests that poverty levels haven't varied much in the last 50 years. Middle class has shrunk but this did not appear to impact poverty rates.
You can start with unemployment rates
Unemployment rates are not poverty rates. And those have been pretty stable since 1950. Less than 4% in 2018 and 2019 for example.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506
The US standards for poverty have been lowered every few years, so it makes sense its low.
Negative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Corrected for the redesigned equation (see caption of Figure 4). It's been more or less stable for 50 years.
1950-1970ish had a higher poverty rate than any time in the 50 years since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Poverty dropped from 1950-1970 (due to economic growth but the middle class also expanded during this time period) and has been fairly stable since.
You know what you're saying aligns with what they're saying right?
Nuanced difference. My point was that the significant drop in poverty from 1950-1970 existed with the increase and proliferation of the middle class. Their post implies that 20 year period (1950-1970) had high poverty rate the whole time, which is absolutely false.
It also coincided with the US propagating violent dictatorships and committing unparalleled war crimes abroad. The Korean War, Vietnam War, Indonesian Mass Killings, rise of the House of Saud, Shah in Iran, and incredible meddling and history of coups/death squads in Latin America.
That middle class wasn't made by just engaging in good business, unless you consider the violence of imperialism good business... In which case absolutely go fuck yourself... But only if you stand by all that foreign aggression and murder and downstream oppression.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Oh, nice whattaboutism. Didn't say shit about Russia dumbass. What the fuck does that have to do with a conversation about the US engaging in direct imperialism during the 20th century? You sick fucks are obsessed with Russia, it's kind of cute. Like you've got a crush or something.
My guy I'm just talking about well recorded history here. Go Google operation Condor, or if you're really feeling adventurous, literally any history book about Latin America. US violence and meddling is a core part of what gave the country a deeply unfair advantage. There was only dramatic reduction in poverty and a "growing middle class" because we were actively preventing that from developing abroad. Pretending foreign policy and domestic issues are separate realms is completely juvenile. Look at OPEC for the easiest example in the world.
America got all those bombs from a genie lamp, definitely no large scale industry that helped factory workers secure a middle class existence. The treats they consumed had nothing to do with the destitution their government caused in the third world either. The US did not overthrow a government at the behest of a banana company.
deleted by creator