
All Hollowed Out: The lonely poverty of America’s white working class - saadmalik01
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/white-working-class-poverty/424341/?utm_source=SFFB&amp;single_page=true
======
jurassic
This level of inequality makes me sad. Really sad. I know I can't be the only
working stiff in the valley whose poor siblings and family think they are rich
for earning in the $100-150k range. Nevermind that I can't afford to buy a
house here. I can't enjoy my success because of the near-desperate financial
situations I see my relatives enduring.

My sister gave me a $50 gift for christmas, and it brought tears to my eyes
because she's a single mother making the federal minimum wage of $7.15/hr.
That comes out to $290/wk, before taxes, if she's lucky and gets a full week's
worth of hours. To earn that pittance, she is physically laboring and might
have to work 7 days a week to get enough hours in the schedule.

It makes me feel like a douche every time I think about it. Me sitting there
in my Aeron chair, eating free snacks while reading code. And making ~10x what
she does. When I really think about it, from similar beginnings, only a
relatively small number of key decisions separate our two economic outcomes.

I try to give generously to assuage my guilt. But I've found that there are
limits to what can be given without stirring resentment, or provoking attempts
at reciprocity. That's how this $50 gift came about... I bought some nice
stuff for her kid, and she wanted to show her gratitude.

~~~
randycupertino
I feel you. My brother is a restaurant manager in the middle of Kansas making
30k a year. And he is a smart guy who was a MATH MAJOR at a state school! He
could come out here and get a job at a startup and make 80k easily. But he
won't leave his inlaws family, so he's stuck in Kansas.

There is some strain and resentment in our relationship over our income
differential, sure... especially when I want to complain that I'll never be
able to afford a 1.4 million dollar house on the Peninsula because I only make
150k. It's just pointless to even bring that up to him because I know I will
come off as an ass. However in some ways, he has it better than me. He and his
wife bought a nice 4 bedroom rancher on a half-acre lot with an inground pool
for 120k- which I will never ever be able to afford around here in my lifetime
barring some unicorn ipo.

~~~
746F7475
Completely off-topic, but whenever I see these amounts I feel like either I
don't understand how U.S. economy works or I've been living in poverty my
whole life. I'm recently graduated B.Sc in compsci and I'm doing software
testing and to me 30k/year is plenty. Like I have money to buy all kind of
unnecessary stuff for my hobbies. Is 30k/year really low salary in U.S.? Or am
I just being under paid? I always though my family was above middle class, but
I guess we've been under it or something...

~~~
bane
The U.S. economy is geographically spread out and _enormous_. However, due to
various historic reasons, the population is mostly focused at the coasts, and
for other historic reasons, the north-west and north-eastern coastal areas are
the wealthiest and densest. More people and more money means more demand and
higher prices.

In the rest of the country, which is fairly sparse, you can find high
standards of living, minus some of the extras you'll find in the rich, dense,
coastal areas (extras usually in the form of various culture and activities).
However, due to the lack of local demand, the prices are lower.

This creates hugely variable economic conditions on the order of the
differences between London/Paris and Budapest.

Housing, like anywhere, dominates living expenses after taxes $30k/yr income
looks more like $22k/yr. There are single bedroom apartments, not fantastic,
but pretty nice, around where I live that are $2k+/mo. Now you have no money
for food, transport, clothing, hobbies, etc. You can find cheaper places for
around $1.5k+/mo (there are no housing options here under $1200) but that
still leaves you pretty thin with $4k left to spread across the entire _year_
for other necessities.

On the other hand, in Omaha, Nebraska, I found some comparable apartments at
$500/mo. Which gives you a little more than $1k/mo for the rest of the year.
You'll probably blow through half of that on food and half of that on car
expenses (cheap housing in the U.S. implies almost no public transport
options) and now you still have no money for savings or hobbies.

The median income in the U.S. is ~$54k/year (about the same as Europe but a
hair higher). But that also means children, a couple income earners and so on.

~~~
VLM
>extras usually in the form of various culture and activities

Note that the average local more or less intentionally can't afford the time
or money to visit the tourist traps. If you are not rich and want to visit the
museums and galleries of Chicago, or attend a Bears game at the stadium, or a
music concert, you can't live in Chicago because then you'd be too poor, you
have to live elsewhere and visit.

What dense, expensive, low standard of living areas provide, is extremely
dense employment. No matter how unique your job is, there's dozens to
thousands of positions within walking distance of your current employer. In
the more rural areas you'll see a lot more sinecure behavior, retired in
place, people who've worked the same place for 20 years, nobody (such as
yourself) gets promoted because the company doesn't grow and nobody quits,
etc. Long term relationships are comfortable and lower stress on average, yet
also less exciting and less adventurous, just like with love life.

There are also minor behavior constraints. If there's 50 companies all doing
the same thing in a big city, then stack ranking basically wastes a lot of HR
money pointlessly shuffling people every year, but at least its possible,
whereas in a rural area especially if its a company town, stack ranking would
rapidly destroy the company because the applicant pool is too small to sustain
bad behavior. As a gross generalization people tend to spend far less time
commuting in rural areas than urban, but the rural commute has more (high
speed) miles so it is more expensive, in the city a twice a day rush hour
commute might waste more than two hours of precious life per day, but at least
its short therefore cheap, whereas in the country it'll be a comparatively
lightning fast 30 minutes each way, but at 80 MPH and 50 cents per mile,
that'll be an expensive 40 mile daily commute. City people are amazed how much
rural people spend on their commute, rural people are amazed how much time
city people spend on their commute.

~~~
jahewson
> Note that the average local more or less intentionally can't afford the time
> or money to visit the tourist traps. If you are not rich and want to visit
> the museums and galleries of Chicago, or attend a Bears game at the stadium,
> or a music concert, you can't live in Chicago because then you'd be too
> poor, you have to live elsewhere and visit.

Ah, but that's an American perspective. In Britain museums and art galleries
are generally free, for exactly this reason.

~~~
VLM
Maybe it varies. Last time I was in Dublin, it cost 10e to see the book of
kells, the Guiness tour was 20e, etc. Almost nothing was free in Dublin.
Admittedly the national art gallery was free although there was a shakedown
for "donations".

Yes I know Dublin isn't a suburb of London or whatever, but culturally its not
that far away.

~~~
theoh
In London most major museums are free (with a "shakedown") and have been for
about 15 or 20 years. Special exhibitions tend to be charged for.

Ireland's economy and cultural sector is distinct from the UK's and much
smaller. The Guinness Brewery and Book of Kells are really exceptional cases
which cater to wealthy international tourists. They have little to do with
local cultural life.

------
vinceguidry
I will never miss an opportunity to trot out my favorite quote:

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as
an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -
Ronald Wright

Americans are just going to have to get over themselves and figure out how to
cooperate with their peers. We will take any opportunity to lash out at the
ones we love. Dude's wife left him after he lost a job, he must not have been
a very likable person.

Most everywhere else in the world, living conditions have approximately
tripled. People with nothing hold on to what they have. The US is the richest
nation in the world, lots of people born here never really wanted for
anything. So they fritter away things they really should hold on to, like a
rich idiot jonesing for "self-actualization".

Fuck the unions, we don't need 'em. Fuck that bitch wife of mine, I have
Facebook and Tinder. I'll drink and smoke weed every day, that's what keeps me
sane. These are people that need Sanders but will vote Trump.

These people are not middle class. They don't have middle class values or
sensibilities. They're lower-class Americans that rode the success of the
70s-90s up to a degree of stability but never built a real life out of it,
frittering away the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity they had.

You can't tailor policy to them with a prayer of allowing them to maintain
their lifestyle. That lifestyle was predicated on a boom time and the party is
now over. Unless you want to directly subsidize it, it's gone. You can't bring
unions back because they won't join them, it's why the unions left in the
first place. All you can do is alleviate some of the symptoms.

~~~
taurath
I hope when all the software and entrepreneurial people on this forum are
going through hard times instead of good as we are now we are not judged as
harshly as you judge those going through harder times now.

~~~
sangnoir
> I hope when all the software and entrepreneurial people on this forum are
> going through hard times instead of good as we are now we are not judged as
> harshly as you judge those going through harder times now

While the tone is harsh - he has a point on voting against their own
interests. I think a similar argument for developer is already being made on
HN, concerning taking a pay cut in exchange of worthless common stock. I see
no need to sugar-coat calling out poor decision making in any sphere.

~~~
vinceguidry
> I see no need to sugar-coat calling out poor decision making in any sphere.

You can't help someone who consistently acts against their own best interests.
At least, not the way you want to help them. All you can do is try to be
understanding and work to keep the worst outcomes from happening.

We want a policy solution? We could fund more soup kitchens. We help the poor
with government programs because the poor are desperate enough to actually use
the programs. What are you going to do for the middle class? They're entirely
too proud for handouts, but that's really the only thing government can do.

They won't even go to church, the quintessential middle-class charity.

~~~
tim333
>policy solution?

You could always look to the rest of the developed world which doesn't seem to
have quite the same issues

------
meric
What is society's ideal for the average white working class? What is
"success"? Is it better looking houses? More expensive cars? Fresher food? Is
it getting to live in a very expensive nursing home when they retire? Is it
equality where both husband and wife are responsible exactly 50% in finances,
chores and taking care of the kids? Or have the time & money to spend a lot
more time with the kids; Will welfare help that cause?

Or are the ideals something America's white working class is leaving behind?
Such as, belonging in religion with compassionate & authentic people; as
people no longer believe in religion and the ones who still do are less
compassionate and less authentic? Or, is it to be in an marriage with a
partner who you can trust will stay with you through thick and thin, until
death; as society thinks a marriage where one partner is unhappy should end in
divorce, because society thinks that will be better for the children than to
be in a unhappy marriage? Or is it to have children who you can trust will
take care of you when you grow old; as society says children have the right to
do whatever they choose to do and should not be burdened with the
responsibility of taking care of their parents, because that's the
government's obligation?

Are America's white working class ideals in front of them, or behind them?

I suggest when as a collective, they finally have clarity to see what they
really do want, rather than what other people say they should be wanting, they
will move towards their ideals, instead of away from them, and then things
will get "better" all on their own.

~~~
maxmax
>What is "success"? Is it better looking houses? More expensive cars? Fresher
food?

You need to think much more basic than that: Success is having a savings
account, a roof over your head in a safe stable location so the kids can stay
in the same school, reliable transportation, and a job that provides enough
income for all of the above.

~~~
ams6110
I don't like defining "success" as some kind of bare minimum. Success is, at
least, being better than average.

~~~
sliverstorm
Agreed! Everyone should enjoy success, and success is being better than
average.

~~~
robgibbons
If success is being better than average, then not everyone could enjoy it, or
else success would just be the average.

~~~
throwaway2048
>99% everyone on earth has more than the statistical mean amount of legs.

~~~
digbyloftus
Statistical mean would seem like a poor choice in determining average in that
case then.

------
Wildgoose
Not just America, America is just leading the pack. And from an English
perspective I certainly wouldn't eulogise the Unions in the way this article
does either. My father (now retired) was a member of the EETPU (Electrician's
Union). It was seen as a "right-wing" Union because its constitution banned
communists from holding any positions within the Union - but that was because
communist activists and their aggressive confrontational policies had almost
wrecked the Union. The EETPU dealt with the problem, other Unions, the NUM
(National Union of Mineworkers) did not. It was their aggressive
confrontational policies that wrecked worker solidarity in private industry.

The article touches on the breakdown of other social support as well. Marriage
for example. And yet doesn't touch on why this might be. I have a son and two
daughters. I have told my daughters that they must get married, and my son
that he should definitely not. Why? Because divorce laws are so anti-male that
nowadays it makes no sense for a man to marry. (And yes, I cynically want my
daughters to gain this protection).

In the UK there used to be a massive culture of socialising in "pubs" (public
houses, or "bars"). Legislative changes ranging from allowing the 24 hour sale
of cheap alcohol in supermarkets coupled with anti-smoking legislation that
makes it illegal to smoke inside pubs have driven away a large chunk of that
trade. I am a non-smoker but would prefer an open pub that allows smoking than
no pub at all. This is important because pubs are also traditionally where
different social classes meet and mingle as equals as well as where young
people used to learn to drink responsibly under the watchful eye of the
landlord and older drinkers - now they are likely to get totally smashed on
alco-pops out of sight.

Then there's the impact of mass immigration on social housing and the
resultant disruption of traditional communities.

The traditional working classes (my background) are already under assault even
before we add in the coming tide of job losses through automation. These are
all good reasons for supporting a move to a Basic Citizen's Income as soon as
possible.

~~~
sangnoir
> The EETPU dealt with the problem, other Unions, the NUM (National Union of
> Mineworkers) did not. It was their aggressive confrontational policies that
> wrecked worker solidarity in private industry.

I'm not English, but from my (lefty, somewhat uninformed) point of view -
wasn't it Maggie Thatcher who "wrecked worker solidarity in private industry"?
Or at least wasn't the downfall of unions around her time?

Aside: I have a colleague from Liverpool, let's just say he wasn't distraught
upon learning the news of her passing.

~~~
cmdkeen
Folk mythology isn't always based on underlying facts. Thatcher wasn't perfect
but the decline in British manufacturing and mining had been happening long
before - the graph of employment in British manufacturing is essentially a 45
degree downward slope from 1961 going back to the same (absolute) number of
people in 1991 as were in employed in 1891. In the same way Thatcher didn't
shut the largest number of pits.

Britain was the "sick man of Europe" during the 70s, we got bailed out by the
IMF in 1976 - unions gave us the Winter of Discontent. Far too many
confrontational unions protected Spanish Practices and demanded unjustifiable
pay increases which bankrupted companies - not to mention earned a dire
reputation for quality. I see a lot more "worker solidarity" in things like
German work councils than 70s British trade unions, they didn't seem to have
any concept of creating a sustainable business and ultimately wanted
everything nationalised in order to separate pay from profits.

------
Moshe_Silnorin
I think it's worth pointing out that education is a filtering mechanism, if a
terribly inefficient one. After basic maths and literacy are learned, it
imparts little on the average student. A collage degree is a proxy for a
reasonable IQ and moderately high conscientiousness. Thinking of education as
an inefficient filtering mechanism helps illustrate why our frenzy for more
education is misguided. Certainly more efficient filtering mechanisms (like a
test-based credentialism where instruction and assessment are separated) would
be very useful but they will not increase the amount of people with the mental
characteristics (high intelligence and conscientiousness) that are becoming
increasingly valuable in the modern economy, nor will it decrease the portion
that lack these things. Panning does not create gold.

I think a good assumption is this separation was and is a basicly unavoidable
result of technology and economics, not any policy or set of policies. We
wrestle not with flesh and blood:[http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-
wrestle-not-with-fle...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/07/we-wrestle-not-
with-flesh-and-blood-but-against-powers-and-principalities/)

~~~
Dr_tldr
This sounds a lot like the "Just World" fallacy under the cover of genetics.
At one point 99% of the population was illiterate and living in thatch huts,
and no doubt members of the elite at that time also considered this to be an
expression of natural order as well.

But as it turns out, almost all of those peasants were capable of learning to
read, doing algebra, engaging in abstract reasoning, labor coordination, and
operating some fairly complex machinery. Many of them were even capable of
becoming software engineers. We know this, because pretty much _all of us_
came from _them_ , and if we can do it, they could've done it, given the
proper environment. Someone advancing your argument 1000, 100, or even 50
years ago would've wrong, what makes your argument different?

Of course we shouldn't expect equal outcomes from all people, but to suggest
that we've now reached such a level of access and fairness in society that
everyone still at the bottom can't possibly be elevated any further seems...
unintelligent.

~~~
danieltillett
You might enjoy reading A Farewell to Alms [1].

More importantly your two positions are not excludable. It is possible that
the elite of the past were wrong and some segment of the population is
incapable of being raised any higher. I personally doubt this is the case, but
it has not been ruled out.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Alms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Alms)

~~~
noir_lord
Given the variance in intelligence I think there probably is an upper limit to
how you can "raise" someone.

I also suspect that we are a long way off that, hell who knows what the future
looks like, we could end up with neural implants that allow everyone to boost
their intelligence/recall.

I'm not stupid but I know there is an upper bound on my intelligence that is
lower than many other peoples, not everyone can be Einstein or Hawking.

The more interesting problem is how do we optimise for people reaching their
maximum potential _or_ if that is even necessary.

~~~
danieltillett
Yes it is pretty unlikely that everyone is right at their maximum potential.
The bigger problem of course is that a large section of the population is not
wanted even if they achieve the best they can.

------
zeteo
> For generations, factories provided good jobs to people who never went to
> college, allowing families [...] to be upwardly mobile [...] unions at their
> prime helped create a “moral economy” in which wages rose both in firms with
> unions and those without them, and in which the average worker had a notable
> voice [...] lobbying on their behalf in Washington

This might be overstating the case somewhat. The very term "mass production"
wasn't introduced until 1926 [1]. Some of the biggest unions were only formed
in the 1930s [2] and their activity was largely suppressed during WWII. The
golden age of union manufacturing jobs lasted 30 years at best (late 40s to
late 70s' oil shocks).

The 50 year old whites are thus at the same time beneficiaries _and_ victims
of the success created by the "greatest generation". Their parents went
through the Great Depression, fought WWII, and worked out a great compromise
that shared the bounty of mass production equitably between unions and factory
owners. The subsequent generation encountered far fewer hardships and
inevitably took for granted a status quo that had, in fact, been difficult to
achieve (and long in the making). It's hardly surprising that, in their middle
to old age, many have trouble adapting to the computerization of the work
place (a transformation at least as momentous as mass production). In
addition, winning the Cold War has proved a very mixed blessing by bringing
direct competition with billions who went through their own version of great
depression (and possibly warfare) within living memory.

Interestingly enough, computerization (with the official end of Moore's law)
and globalization (with China's pathologically slowing growth) are now
leveling off. Will this allow a reprieve for downtrodden baby boomers? The
upcoming years should make for very interesting politics.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Automobile_Workers#1930...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Automobile_Workers#1930s)

~~~
blisterpeanuts
+1 for pointing out that the post-War economy was a one-time boom created by
the unique situation in 1945.

For the white middle class, life in 1950 was pretty good (unless you were sent
to Korea). Life in 1960 was fabulous. At that time, a man could work as a
clerk in a hardware store or an assistant in a butcher shop and support a
stay-at-home wife and four children in his own middle class home with one car,
one television, one phone, etc.

It was the American dream, based partially on generous union contracts for
some, and general prosperity for others. Writers were in great demand;
musicians could play 365 nights a year. Housing was cheap, jobs were
plentiful, and salaries and wages rose every year.

Life in 1970 was different; the Japanese had beaten the Americans at steel,
the Vietnam wartime economy was winding down even as Americans perceived we
had lost the war, 50,000+ young Americans killed and hundreds of thousands of
others traumatized and damaged. The Sixties had taken a massive toll on
church, marriage, and society's general cohesiveness and morale, and suddenly
things seemed awfully uncertain.

Around that time, Europe and Japan had rebuilt and were starting to compete
vigorously, taking away the easy monopoly that American companies enjoyed for
the previous 30 years.

It's no surprise that this same socioeconomic group is going through tough
times today. The technology economy has no room for people with a high school
diploma and good manual labor skills. Some car mechanics in the old days were
barely literate, but fixing cars today requires knowledge of digital circuitry
and software.

There are some silver linings, though. Shale energy has created a boom for
drivers, roughnecks, welders, waitresses, etc. in places like North Dakota.
Now that oil is legal to export, and assuming oil goes north of $40/BBL again,
the U.S. will probably emerge in another decade or two as the world's largest
energy exporter. Cheap domestic natural gas from shale formations has been a
boon to the chemical and plastics industries. New technologies such as 3-D
printing, as well as rising wages in the 3rd world, notably in China, are
bringing manufacturing back to the U.S.

We probably won't see a golden age such as we experienced from 1945-1970, and
unions have lost much of their clout since that time, but perhaps there will
be more opportunities in coming years for blue collar and middle class workers
than since the 1980s. Someone in this thread points out that technology
workers may some day find themselves on the other side of the prosperity wall,
as well. Nothing lasts forever.

------
FussyZeus
It's been obvious for a decade that the "go to the factory every week for 40
years and retire" job sector is on the decline, a decline which has
accelerated rapidly more recently. There is no place in our economy for a bolt
turner to earn $25 an hour, end of discussion.

This is why I like the idea of at least reducing the cost of a college
education, or preferably eliminating it. A regular high school degree is
quickly becoming useless to have, if you don't have some white collar skill-
set to apply after your school, you're going to be very hungry. It's not fair
in my mind to raise the standards of what it means to be "qualified" without
giving the various social groups a fair chance to get there.

And of course the problem here is that there aren't enough service jobs for
everyone, which is also why I support basic income so that while we retain the
option for people to achieve more if they want to that we don't leave everyone
else who either doesn't have a particular skill (yet) or just doesn't want to
out in the cold to freeze and die. If nothing else, they're valuable
consumers.

~~~
smt88
I personally disagree that college is the solution. Some people lack the
financial stability required to excel in what is essentially a long, expensive
vacation learning things that won't directly impact their earnings. I
vehemently believe in liberal arts and the importance of people studying
philosophy/literature/etc., but studying impractical things is a luxury.

Other countries have robust retraining programs, so the bolt turner could
become something else when bolt turning isn't useful anymore. This works in
tandem with trade schools, which are also better-supported by governments
outside the US.

(And I also am a huge fan of the concept of universal basic income!)

~~~
FussyZeus
> I personally disagree that college is the solution. Some people lack the
> financial stability required to excel in what is essentially a long,
> expensive vacation learning things that won't directly impact their
> earnings.

Which is why like I said, it needs to be greatly reduced or preferably free.

~~~
smt88
Let me clarify that excellence in college is expensive, even if tuition is
waived, at least the way it's currently structured.

It's very, very hard to get good grades while working enough hours to support
yourself, especially if you have no skills (and even affluent college students
rarely have marketable skills).

~~~
FussyZeus
That's because the way it's structured sucks. It's more or less a requirement
now (or will be very soon) to earn a decent living, it shouldn't cost you half
of your lifetime income to attend. You can't make something that important to
a life and then charge such asinine amounts for it, especially when there's
ample precedent showing that college grads on the whole improve our society by
stimulating more economic activity and adding to the white collar workforce.

As romantic as it is to tell tales of how we bootstrapped ourselves through
college, working off hours and earning our way, it's stupid to demand the next
generation do it out of some misguided sense of tradition. We have the
capability to make it better for our kids, why the hell aren't we?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Hm. Depends upon your area of study I guess. My middle son is now earning more
per year than his entire education cost. However, he's a (CMU) CS/EE grad
working at a startup in Silicon Valley.

------
watmough
There is simply not enough 'work' any more.

Here's a thought. Why can't we as a society ensure that everyone is paid a
living wage according to their need.

It may take a while, but I believe this will be the only way that we can hold
this society* together.

* Deep irony here, speaking as one of 'Thatcher's children'.

~~~
orangecat
_Deep irony here, speaking as one of 'Thatcher's children'._

Not really; there's a fair amount of support for a basic income from
conservatives and libertarians, for good reason. We've decided that we aren't
going to let people starve in the streets if they can't find a job. Given
that, it makes much more sense to just give people money than to have a huge
bureaucracy with dozens of programs trying to alleviate individual aspects of
the problem of not having money.

~~~
JackFr
The social services bogeyman of present day conservatives is no longer the
mythical 'welfare queen' but the extensive poverty industry taking their cut
as the money sluices through the pipes.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
In the UK a number of government funded orgs have admitted that they are:

1\. Unreasonably expensive 2\. A net negative for the social problem they're
supposed to solve

The underlying problem isn't poverty or lack of education. It's a complete
collapse of public moral leadership since the 80s - not in the sexual sense,
but in the business sense of "Fuck everyone in the world, because money."

Politics and business have always been corrupt. But from the 30s to 60s you
could still find good people trying to do good things.

Now they're _institutionally_ corrupt, and politics and business - especially
finance, which is the de facto government in the US - have become industrial
asshole factories.

This is barbarism, and it can only lead to more barbarism.

------
rdlecler1
The problem is, is that 'good jobs' are hard to find even if you have a good
education. If you do, you can look forward to 60-80 work weeks, expensive
housing and child care, and of course massive student loan debt. Very few of
the things that were available to the middle class 25 years ago are available
to the best and brightest today. The question is, is there anything that can
be done about it, it was the period between the 1920-1980s so special that it
can't be repeated for generations.

~~~
meric
With some frugality, I think it's physically and economically possible.
Imagine an America where grandparents (and great-grandparents if any) live
with one of their children's family. Assuming an average of two children per
grandparent, it will be half of the households will have 2 children, 2
parents, and 2 grandparents, and the other half the traditional nuclear
family. The nursing home infrastructure will be much reduced because only the
childless will live in them. It can reduce the liability on social security.
This can be countered with tax cuts to children who are working to support
their parents. Implement a law where elderly parents can sue their children
for parental support, to cover cases where children do not care about their
parents. A society that cherishes the dignity of dying at home surrounded by
friends and family as opposed to enduring 3 months of humiliating treatment
before dying violent death surrounded by nurses, will reduce healthcare costs.
Grandparents will also reduce the labor requirement for childcare, and also
provide guidance and teaching during times when parents are too busy working
from day to night. In the case of widows and widowers, and single parents,
grandparents can increase the chance a child grow up with a role model of
their own gender. Being supported by adult children means even in the case
when a 50 year old parent loses their job due to ageism, they will not be
forced to live on their streets; With some frugality it should be possible for
a pair of children to support their parents and grandparents living in the
same home. These dynamics will reduce the pressure on the government budget,
increase social capital, increase the sense of belonging, reduce the
dependency for "a job" even when you're 50+, reduce the cost of housing by
reducing demand, and by sharing furniture and other goods, reduce household
expenditure. A 50 year old unemployed couple will be able to converse and
socialise with their retired 75 year old parent(s) as a day-to-day activity.

And when you're spending time with people, in a house with a family, with
clean water, sufficient food, electricity and internet access, with regular
social gatherings, can you really be said to be in "lonely poverty"?

That said, all this is physically, economically possible today, but it is
probably not politically or socially possible. It will take further decline
before people finally realise it is what they've wanted all along.

~~~
jimbobimbo
Have you ever tried to live under the same roof with an Alzheimer's sufferer?
It's not a "50 year old couple will be able to converse and socialise with
their 75 year old parent(s)" \- it's a full time terrible, horrible job,
exacerbated by the helplessness when watching your elders losing every last
bit of their past selves.

~~~
meric
No but I grew up living with a mentally ill relative.

------
WalterBright
As a counterpoint, I'd like to point out that it has never been easier to
start your own business and instantly reach a worldwide marketplace. It has
never been less expensive to make things to sell. It has never been more
practical to work from your home for a company anywhere in the world.

~~~
mtbcoder
This isn't a counter-point to the themes in the article at all. While starting
a business from a legal and paperwork standpoint is quite easy, maintaining a
business is still incredibly difficult and is not even remotely fathomable for
the vast majority of white collar, working individuals and families, let alone
even blue collar folks. Most businesses still fail, regardless of how easy it
is to start one. Furthermore, making things to sell online from ones home
simply isn't a panacea to working class America's economic woes and
trivializes the true plight of the situation.

~~~
WalterBright
> incredibly difficult and is not even remotely fathomable

Running a business can be as easy as mowing peoples' lawns, cooking meals for
the elderly, trolling garage sales for things you can resell on ebay, fixing
washing machines, etc. I know a guy who bought a trunk full of garage door
springs, paid for a yellow page ad, and charges $200 a pop to replace peoples'
broken door springs. I could go on for pages.

Banking on the next President to fix anything is a bit naïve. There have been
quite a few elected on the promise to fix everything :-)

------
alvern
My biggest takeaway is that in 2013 two-thirds of the North American workforce
did not have a 4 year degree.

[1] [http://victortanchen.com/educational-attainment-united-
state...](http://victortanchen.com/educational-attainment-united-states-
canada/)

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
That in itself isn't such a bad thing because an economy can't actually
function if _everyone_ has a degree and expects a high-value white-collar job.
The problem is that no effort has been made to guard against the outflow of
jobs for less skilled workers that pay well enough to live comfortably.

~~~
nickff
When you "guard against the outflow of jobs for less skilled workers", you are
both implying that those people are capable of nothing more, and guarding
against rapid progress in less advanced countries where the world's poor
suffer terribly from poverty.

------
analyst74
As a foreigner, I have to ask, is life very different for non-white working
classes? Is it better, worse or equally suck in different ways?

~~~
nkurz
It's dangerous to generalize, but as a white American originally from a poor
rural part of the US with few minorities, I'd say that the regional and
economic differences usually trump the racial differences. In most communities
being white would be an advantage, but the rich/poor divide is often greater
than the white/non-white divide. Prejudice certainly plays a role in the
opportunities people have, but I think that may be more of a hindrance in more
lucrative and prestigious positions than for general labor. I'd guess the
difference is also larger for the unemployed than the employed.

~~~
alphonsegaston
I'm from a similar background and this is unfortunately untrue. The average
white household, for example, has something like 12 times the wealth as the
average black household, a near historic high. What this means is that despite
an appearance of greater equality in some circumstances, minority populations
are still in a much more tenuous position. A white household is more likely to
survey an inevitable crisis like losing a job or problems with health than
their black counterpart.

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-
wealt...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-
great-recession/)

~~~
mason240
You simply can't in good faith compare the averages of the two groups because
the range is different. You are treating a range of people from destitute
trailer park residents to Bill Gates as a homogeneous group.

~~~
goldbrick
Oh brother. Jay-Z and Floyd Mayweather are black, why don't you complain about
them being counted?

------
la6470
It is sad situation but it is true for all races and nationalities. Low
skilled work will be valued less and less. A structure of extended family is
important which modern society has forgotten.

------
bitL
As a non-american I would like to ask: did the affirmative action go too far
up to the point of endangering another group? If so, what correction steps
would you take?

~~~
Gibbon1
As an American my impression is blue collar white working class Americans
decided they'd rather give up the benefits of unionized employment in return
for not having to give up the racially based pecking order.

~~~
greggman
This is a new concept to me. Do have any good references for this I could read
up on?

~~~
Futurebot
It's called "Last Place Aversion":
[http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140116142/avoiding-last-
place-...](http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140116142/avoiding-last-place-some-
things-we-dont-outgrow)

------
ageek123
The best book on this topic is "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray. I highly
recommend it.

------
mback00
"Not lucky enough" \- that just gauls me every time I hear it. If someone
chooses to slack off (only HS education w/o trade and w/o entreprenurial
ambition)... They are automatically ranked by the willfully ignorant as
"unlucky." Please! There has never been a place and time in the history of
mankind when a man with a will could not make something of himself as today! A
man with an idea can easily and quickly form a company of one... And can hire
overseas to build his idea... Get it shipped to any market he chooses,
advertise his idea in any way he chooses, and make a profit in any way he
chooses. Today, the world is open to any individual that chooses to work.

~~~
rawTruthHurts
Those working lads extracting diamonds in Congo with their bare hands don't
have much of an opening in the world either. I'm sure they don't work hard
enough to deserve it.

~~~
mason240
It's pretty clear the domain of this discussion is first world, Western
countries of Canada, US, and the EU.

~~~
rawTruthHurts
But of course! Let me cater to those of your kind:

Those low class lads working for less than the minimum wage without any means
nor family support don't have much of an opening in the world either. I'm sure
they don't work hard enough to deserve it.

Refer to wikipedia for any futher clarifications on "poverty" or "poverty in
the First World" in general.

~~~
theworstshill
Very funny. Solutions to relative poverty in the first world are different
from solutions to absolute poverty everywhere else.

~~~
rawTruthHurts
The comment I was replying to wasn't talking about solutions, nor does the
article, not in depth.

