The more interesting question would be not if you are today better of then in the 50s but rather how much would you have today if the trend from the 50s has been continued until today.
You didn’t normalize house prices to Square footage. You didn’t talk about zoning laws which cause artificial scarcity in housing. You didn’t talk about how most good and commodities are waaay cheaper as measured in time prices (reference the book “superabundance”) You did not justify why “equality” is a sensible measurement to look at. Very sloppy video with a very clear ideological narrative.
@@ewrock7635 The invention of the Internet should not make it oke that people cant buy a house and that way of comparing is kind of scewed, cuz Internet woohooooo, better than everything.
Trouble is that 'prosperity' isn't just a matter of Working Hard anymore... You need to know how to play the 'financial games', how to use the stock market, and understand all the little 'tricks' that wealthy people use to establish their position. You can work as hard as you want at a 'regular' job, and unless you know how to exploit all the investment opportunities then you'll never really progress. The concept of 'Hard Work' and 'Nose To the Grindstone' is all just BS. And you're just killing yourself to make someone else more wealthy.
The world overall is significantly better now, if you look at infant mortality rates, maternal mortality, life expectancy, and the virtual eradication of a lot of diseases in the developed world.
TBF there's plenty of houses in the US that are $100k that have the exact same amenities people had in the 1950s. Even in the 1950s 1/4 of households didn't have an indoor bathroom, the average house didn't have insulation or ac etc. You can get a 900sqft shack with no ac, no insulation, no indoor plumbing for 100k in many places in the US.
THis is not fact finding nor fact narration. This is a "documentary" and mostly left wing propaganda I have seen time and time again. No one paid those 90% tax rates Immigration went into high gear in the 1970s after the 1965 immigration act. the rest of the world started to build industrial capacity. This guy doesn't talk about the fact that taxes make up the largest outflow of capital from the middle class - for me it's more than food and housing combined. And the services I get are totally garbage from DMV, to the post office to the pothole filled roads
One thing that is drastically different from 1955 to today is the expectations and lifestyles that simply waste away peoples money. Back then, houses were simple and small, maybe 1000 sq ft. (hence so much cheaper) Most people had gardens, canned food, seldom eat at restaurants, and vacations were usually camping, not an expensive trip to Disney or overseas. People repaired things, including clothes and people saved up for furniture etc. and that last one was a big one... People did not have credit cards and the lure of easy money in the form of credit was not readily available - and in many ways, this in itself has become a massive wealth transfer. Once people are hooked into the credit/debt system for liabilities instead of assets (e.g. luxury cars vs rental properties or investments)... wealth becomes harder to obtain as people use up their financial resources and reduce their options (and freedom).
So credit has always existed in one form or another, poor folks would often purchase furniture and appliances on credit. Since banks existed credit/loans have also existed, and loan sharks are old as the hills. Back then folks had more time to cook at home and the cheaper options were the locally produced fresh foods - as opposed to today's mass produced processed ready to eat for a worker constantly in the go crud. The biggest scandal with credit is the student loans, back in the day you could pay off college with your summer job. Also financial institutions purposely selling sub quality credit to people who blatantly cannot afford to pay them back (hence the 2008 crash).
@@Ebolahill88 WRONG! very few people had credit cards and even less used them! We had a thing called layaway. I challenge you to go back to 1955 and tell men to buy expensive fancy drive thru coffee every morning, or ask a family to order food from a restaurant and pay double to have it delivered (door dash) instead of cooking it from scratch. They'd call you CRAZY! y'all spend money on what you think is important: door dash is important, saving for a house... not so much.
@@josealexi5141you're focusing on credit cards, I'm talking about any type of credit product like loans, store credit etc. The 50s is when all appliances like washing machines, Hoover's and TVs first started hitting the market, average folks couldnt buy those outright. Hence using some type of credit product. The 50s was also famous for diners, refillable coffee etc. I agree it wasn't the norm to eat out then, for several reasons. Folks had more time to cook then, women generally didn't work and fresh local produce was the cheapest option. If you calculate how much fresh local produce costs these days, plus the time electric/gas to cook it then door dash generally wins.
I used to think that tax the rich was just jealousy on the part of the poorer people who were lazy, but this really opened my eyes! Thank you for putting in the time and effort to research and make this video !!!🎉
This video implies that the wealth is going to the CEO’s and being taken away from the lower class. It ignores countless other variables such as free trade that was passed in the 1990’s. If you took away the salaries of all CEO’s and spread out the wealth among their employees, the wage increase would be marginal. You would still see a wage disparity between 1955 and 2025. There are other variable that he ignored.
@@DeanCF1 It's true that Mr Harris did not manage to cover every detail of the world economy in this 24 minute video. On the other hand, the point remains that American wealth continues to move away from lower- and middle-class workers and concentrate in the hands of the wealthiest Americans, which includes but is not limited to CEOs. Also, two points: first, Mr Harris acknowledged that he only covered income, not wealth. Second, he never said or even particularly strongly implied that the money was all going to the CEOs. He continually focused on and referred to "high-earners", using CEO pay only as an example.
@@Racko. It really does feel like it's in our nature to just be greedy, we just had a time where we weren't greedy due to the massive trauma after world war 2 and desire to want to help each other (except minorities since it was the 1950's afterall)....
I graduated high school in 1985. One thing missing from the 90's and early 2000's in this video, and a key contributor of where we are today, is the massive amount of mergers and acquisitions that happened which reduced competition. The corporate mindset was to buy the competition instead of competing. Companies like JP Morgan, Tyson Foods, Auto Zone, Con Agra, Phillip Morris etc. bought or crushed all the mid-sized regional business and "Mom and Pops". You could do an entire episode on Cargill and how many companies they have acquired nearly cornering every market they were involved. Every sector of the economy had similar outcomes. Remember the Big Box stores that always had a "Low Price" guarantee or a promise of a meeting a competitors price? That was something more of the 2000's though. I was a Chef for most of my life and in the mid 90's wholesale food distributors were merging like crazy. Prices went way up over time. Specifically "house branded" products from companies like Sysco and US Foods were priced very close to brand name products where previously they could be bought a significant discount. Today those companies are charging retail prices to "wholesale" customers.
The video broadly touched on this by mentioning massive deregulation and changing of policies and such by our government starting in the 1980s and continuing onward. Freedom!
I'm 79 & was 9 in 1955, so I've personally experienced every one of those decades! My family had three kids & my WWII vet, Dad, worked one job, owned a two family house, one car & even bought land to build a bungalow, to vacation in. This was all on a salary of $95. a week! To me, the "American Dream" began to erode in 1973, with the first Arab Oil Embargo, when big businesses used this excuse to "skyrocket" prices!
My dad bought a house, assuming the VA home loan that was attached to it, in 1973. The payment was $95 a month. After that inflation took off. That house is now $660,000. After a lifetime of work, I couldn't afford to buy it now.
Rising oil prices did lead to stagflation (esp since our economy was more goods-based than now). Every economist agrees with that. The problem is, competition is supposed to bring proces back down after the oil prices normalize. But that doesn't always happen, due to something called price memory.
I'm 71, grew up upper-middle class in Canada. Dad worked. Mom stayed home. I read a lot about what a great life we had in the 60's and how it's all gone to shit. Let me give you the other side of the coin. Our first house had 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom for 6 of us. Now my wife and I live in a 3 bedroom, 4 bathroom house - average house for where we live. We had 1 black and white TV in the 60's - the repairman might as well have moved in with us we saw him so much. Now we have a beautiful HD TV that never breaks down. In the 60's we had 1 phone in the house that we all had to share. Now my wife and I each have a phone that we can take anywhere. My mom spent $50/week on groceries - the equivalent of $550 today. Now my wife and I spend less than $150 per week and we have more choice and better quality than the 60's. And if you wanted a nice "restaurant" meal you had to go to a hotel or the country club. Now we have hundreds of choices - every country in the world represented. And you couldn't have a beer with your meal in a restaurant or a beer anywhere on Sunday (not that I was drinking beer when I was a kid). Now you can get cash, food, gas, medication etc. etc. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Try doing that in the 60's - everything shut down at night and mostly on Sundays too. You wanna watch your favourite program on TV - better read the TV Times and make an appointment to sit in the family room at 8 o'clock Sunday and hope nobody else wants to watch a different channel. I made $1.50/hr as a kid working in my Dad's restauarnt, saved up and went to Europe in 1972 - paid about $400 to fly - approx $3000 in today's money. I just booked a flight a week ago to Ecuador for $780 roundtrip. I could go on but my 71 year old memory is failing me.
Yes, I forgot about all that, was so true. In the late 60's I was a waitress for 50 cents an hr, bought contact lenses and a prom dress with that. Tips were like 10 cents. Of course I was too young to have big responsibilities
The part that hit me hardest was when he said wages have basically flatlined since the '90s while productivity and CEO pay skyrocketed. It’s like we’re doing more with less and still getting nowhere. My parents raised a whole family on one income..I can barely afford rent on two." 😔
Same here. I used to think I just wasn't working hard enough or making bad money choices. But watching this made it clear the system has changed around us. Honestly, what helped me break out of that stress spiral was working with a financial advisor. Laura Grace Abels, specifically. She didn’t wave a magic wand, but she helped me take control of the things I could change investments, taxes, even negotiating better pay." "I didn’t realize how much I was leaving on the table until she broke it down for me. It’s like, you can’t win in a rigged game, but you can still play it smarter."
That name sounds familiar. I’ve been thinking about getting some help it feels like the financial ladder is missing a few rungs these days. How did you even find her? And did it actually feel worth it, like cost wise?"
"Found her through a friend she works mostly with regular folks, not just high-net-worth types. She was super transparent about costs, no salesy vibes. And yeah, totally worth it. I started with a free session she offered, and it snowballed into some big wins even helped me plan out buying a home in this absurd market. I’d recommend looking her up online you’ll find her credentials and everything you need to know. With years of experience, she’s an incredible resource for anyone navigating the financial markets.
That is in fact a feature, not a bug. When you generate more money than yesterday, your boss’s pay goes up and yours stays the same. Thats the point of being a boss, you get paid for work other people are doing.
@@hurricanefury439 Women flooding the workforce actually ruined it. They overturned supply and demand for jobs to where employers could pay everyone less because there were so many people in "need" of work. Except the big scam was that women were being cared for by their husbands and didn't actually need to work in the first place. Feminism ruined the American dream for everyone.
Yeah, George Carlin said that, and he was a millionaire.... The American Dream works if you avail yourself of it. It's not instantaneous and probably won't be easy. But it still works.
It doesn't take into account how technology makes workers less valuable but produces more, and it doesn't account for how the US now competes with other countries that were poor in the 50s, or how policy could make the investment of the world go away because today the US is not the only place, it doesn't account wasting money in wars or the future that has geopolitical uncertainty and how tech will make the worker even less valuable. We are talking of an entire redefinition of society in a formula nobody knows while people overconsume and eat into oblivion(something that didn't happen in decades ago). The problem is way more complex than just asking politicians for a solution they don't really know what it is
@@DuncanKassel the point of this comment/video is to get more awareness that there even is a problem. All these points are very valid and no, there is no easy solution, but it does give good insight into the current status
he didnt go into how the labor movement in this country , predominately led by socialist parties advocated , fought, and bled via strikes for the wages that were granted in the 1950s, spurned on by the fact that it was the average man who fought in ww2, and if his country truley cared for his sacrifice he would be rewarded. right around 1980 during the height of the cold war, reagan and the anti union lobby tricked americans into thinking labor unions were anti america commie bullshit and steared public oppionion agianst the only thing that lead to the prosperity of the common american man., wish we would of went into that. the labor struggle in this country needs to be more widely known.
I'm 29 and live with my parents. Even if I wanted to live by myself, there is no way I could afford it. And nobody wants to live with three strangers to make ends meet. This imbalance is destroying lives and plays a huge role in people not having children.
Food was over 30% of your income in the 50s, today it's 10-15%. Housing is the big added cost it's risen from 9% to well over 20%. Whilst luxury items are cheaper people are probably buying more of them and spending more of their income on these things than what they did in the 50s.
I own a BMW, nice clothes, a lot of tech stuff but no real estate at all. My parents bought a house in 2000 for around 200k that has increased in price by 5x since. I'd rather have a cheap house
They're actually not. It's just that people expect to buy more things with the same amount of money, are relatively same. The problem now is that people live beyond their means. They don't necessarily mean to, but they are driven to keep up with their neighbors and what they see on social media and TV. The average house isn't the same house you bought in the 1950s. The average house today is a thousand more square feet and is made of different materials and also cost more because of building codes. The only one anyone has to blame is the government and themselves.
@@MrDT82exactly! But you're expecting people to take responsibility for their actions for the problems they face. And that's a lost art in this country
America today in a nutshell: A guy making $140 million an hour tells a person making $40 an hour that everything what's wrong is in the world, is the fault of a person making $5 an hour.
Who the hell is making 140 million an hour. Even elon musk only makes between 1 and 6 million an hour. Are you talking about the Saudi princes or Satoshi Nakamoto?
I think he meant it as an exaggeration, but you don't have to do that. The cold reality of income inequality and don't forget wealth inequality is allready painful enough. And I don't think this is going to change in the next 4 years with all those billionaires in the oval office.
Johnny - first off, you make incredibly well-produced, thought-provoking videos. The way you tell stories, frame the data, and bring big ideas to life is impressive and why I keep watching. Thank you for putting in the work to spark these conversations. That said, I think this one oversimplifies a very complex topic. You’re absolutely right that income inequality has grown and mobility is harder than it was in the 1950s. The data you show is real. But I feel like the narrative you build around it leans heavily on the idea that capitalism itself is broken and that “changing the rules” is the solution - without ever really explaining what rules you mean or what changes would actually help. The truth is, government spending on social programs has already risen dramatically since the 1950s (adjusted for inflation and per capita). We already have a highly progressive tax system, and the top earners pay the vast majority of taxes. And yet here we are, still dissatisfied with outcomes. If redistribution alone solved the problem, it should have worked by now. I also think the story of the middle class today is more nuanced. Most people I know around my age (late 30s/40s) earn more than their parents did at the same age, adjusted for inflation - and they live in bigger houses, with far more technology, conveniences, comforts, and luxuries than their parents could have dreamed of. Yes, the gap to the top has widened, but that doesn’t mean the average person is poorer than before. It just means the richest have gotten richer faster. And while you argue the American Dream is fading, I’d say it’s not dead - it’s just harder. The ladder is still there, but it requires grit, vision, and willingness to adapt to climb it. I do worry that the narrative you’re presenting discourages people from even trying, by painting the system as hopelessly rigged and implying that only more government can save them. One other thing to point out - you yourself make a very healthy living by building your own personal brand and business on a platform run by massive corporations, in an economy that rewards creativity, risk-taking, and individual drive. That’s capitalism at work, and a great example of the opportunities that still exist. We absolutely need to keep talking about fairness and opportunity. But that conversation also has to include personal responsibility, education, entrepreneurship, and the choices we make as individuals - not just policy and redistribution. Thanks again for sparking this discussion - even when I don’t fully agree with your conclusions, I respect the way you raise the questions.
Thank you for injecting another perspective into a very complex topic. Like another poster said, way more young people go to college now, and college costs have become insane, hence massive student debt that holds our standard of living back. A discussion of "corporate greed" has to also include a discussion of bloated tuition and the higher-ed/student loan industrial complex.
@@SuperJolie2011 college is a scam. over-paid professors and administrators. at the same time they're giving degrees in BS subjects like underwater basket weaving and gender studies instead of STEM. Imagine trying to pay back 100K in student loans with an art history or lesb1an dance theory degree.
I’d agree with you about personal responsibility, if education were affordable. But the reality is, it isn’t anymore. People are drowning in student debt they’ll likely never pay off unless something changes soon. There are countries out there that show how much of a difference good policy and fair economic redistribution can make.
Most people I know own a home and are doing well. I'm also friends with upper middle class white people that benefit greatly from generational wealth. Our anecdotes don't erase the data. Johnny's success doesn't dismiss the data. He is a talented creator, but he's also lucky. Plenty of talented creators do not succeed. Moreover, what security does he have? Many people today don't have access to secure jobs with benefits, they work in a gig economy where prosperity is always uncertain and you are disposable. This is unlike previous generations where such positions were more common and things like insurance and pension were expected. People were unionized and able to demand these things. Today, we are atomized and placated by our commodities. Yes, we have access to more conveniences and luxuries, but few people of my generation, gen Z, will be able to own a house, or likely any real appreciating assets. They won't be able to build wealth like our grandparents could. We are moving towards comfortable feudalism and corporations are the new lords. I agree that policy change is not the only answer to these problems, though it could help with home prices. In my opinion, unionizing to demand higher pay and benefits would be the best antidote, but people are too busy doom scrolling and engaging in political theater to make any real shift.
Love your channel. Thank you for the deep dives Here’s the problem. Im 52, so I can only speak of my experience. In the 90s, I started selling cars, and made 55k. My wife worked part time. I was rich compared to my friends. Got married. Bought a house for $135k. Built a fence, fixed the deck. Remodeled it. Sold it for $185 a few years later. The devaluation of our dollar has made that same house worth $390,000 today. The house is still the same house. So, a 24 year old young couple has to pay $390,000 for the same house. They need to make $150,000 to be in the same position I was in. Do you know a lot of 24 year olds making $150k? The CEOs and the elites have robbed our children. The only answer is revolution. I can help my kids get ahead, but the system needs to be burned to the ground to help millions of children. We are all too busy fighting over color, and ethnicity when the real color to fight over is green.
Interesting, I got a house at $280,000 in 2015 in California Not the 1990's in the 1990's I was in the US Navy and got the zero down guaranteed loan. Not guaranteed loan but no down payment.
And who are the elites? Who runs the banks, Blackrock, Vanguard, The Fed, Wall Street, Hollywood and the Tech CEOs? Don’t they all have a certain ethnic background?
Well said! While the fight over color, race, gender are important, we've done great work in them, now it's time to fight for income equality & against weaponization of AI.
1/3 feel that they've achieved it lol. And there's been many great anecdotes throughout the history of the US and still is. Less achievable? Sure but still a thing
Activate, educate, become radicalized. New York is with Mumdani in the lead for Mayor. It’s what people did in the 1940’s that caused all of those decades of prosperity and it’s what we can do today. When you choose not to vote for leftist policies and politicians you are willingly handing money and power to the right, to the oligarchs, and to the politicians they’ve paid for.
@@RoidedGay NYC has been a Democratic strong hold since 1898. Giving power to the right has never been the problem in any Democrat run city. But they got people like you so brainwashed you will be voting for them for the next 200 years just like LBJ wanted. A city that has a "billionares row" and you don't think the left pays out to the rich and powerful? 🤡
you continue to throw out the politicians to bring in new ones. The aggregation of the data with AI is going to make it easier to determine who to vote for, and probably help voters decide who's actually going to make a difference for the people. It's too early on to be discouraged.
There are so many young people really suffering and blame themselves for having 2 jobs and still barely getting by. Thank you for making this video to help them realize that the system is failing them way more than their efforts.
I don't know anyone working two jobs. And if someone is working more than two jobs and the combined hrs only add up to 40 hours, is it? Considered two jobs.
And even not-so-young people! I’m 35, married with three kids. And I still feel like I’m underemployed when I compare myself to my parents’ hopes for me. So I not only feel like I’m letting my parents down, but my kids as well. It’s tough out here for everybody. But if we are all just a little easier on ourselves and one another, we can get through it. God bless.
@@ddtstrc9678 In this society even working over 40hr in a minimum payed job makes you a looser and that is not OK. I manage a restaurant and the servers used to not even know the name of the support who are hard working people working two jobs and barely even getting by. Ridiculous! This is severely pronounced in US specifically and only makes everyone more unhealthy and worse people. People are disconnected and therefore the disparity.
All of that window dressing is irrelevant. It is the message that is important. If the eye candy is what you paid attention to, you didn't comprehend the information.
When it comes to housing, our houses have changed radically as well. I grew up in the 60 -70s. We lived in a 1,100 sq ft house. It was the average size house at the time. We never felt like we were poor. Now a house that size is considered small or tiny. Now most houses are twice that size.
@@WestonMeyer-n6xno cahsier from the 50s could afford to buy a big house and 3 cars 😂 thts why when I pressued you into giving up your source, you couldn't even provide haha
Regardless of the specifics of the comment, what irritates me is that the people that were young adults/adults in the 1960’s will sit there and tell you “you gotta just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and do more” and “these kids are just lazy with their video games and phones”.
The more interesting question would be not if you are today better of then in the 50s but rather how much would you have today if the trend from the 50s has been continued until today.
That's essentially what the Jetsons is about. They extrapolated from then current trends, and assumed people would be so much better off. Kind of sad looking back how optimistic it was...
22:02 My grandfather was so LUCKY that his working years were 1946-1978, the exact range of the best income equality, almost entirely due to the year he was born. He had it even better than I thought. - Born 1926: Grew up in the aftermath of the Great Depression, so he learned early on - like starting at 8yo - to work hard, be frugal, and live modestly within his means. - 1946: Enlisted right at 18 so he could choose a branch instead of being drafted to the front lines like his brother. Ended up in the Navy in the Pacific at the *very* end of WWII, entirely missing all combat. - 1948: Left the military, used GI bill for some college but opted to not finish. Got a steady job with good benefits and pension at USPS like his uncle, and unlike his father who tried unsuccessfully to sell life insurance in the aftermath of the Great Depression. - 1950: Switched to being a fireman for Los Angeles County, because he saw some guys hanging out on days when everyone else was reporting to work and saw a recruitment poster soon after that, which listed middle class pay for the time and good benefits similar to USPS. - 1978: Retired from firefighting. His $60k annual income amounts to $300k in 2025. The houses he bought in the 1960-70s were ~$150k in 2025 dollars, or 6 months of pre-tax salary. In 2025, I make ~$70k and houses local to me are ~$725k+, or 10.4 years of income, a 20.5 fold increase. That's up from ~$400k just since 2020. - 2025: Happily retired and living on two government pensions (federal and LA county). He was able to have an eventful retirement before moving into a comfortable assisted living facility. In his lifetime he was able to buy a series of houses, starting with a tiny starter home and moving up as his family grew in size. He'd work on and improve each one and then when it was time to move up he sold it for only a modest profit, which was put towards the next one. He always lived modestly and never over his means. After I learned his income and average housing cost and then converted it to today's dollars, I told him about wages vs. costs now and how upside down the ratio is today. He was surprised by the contrast and finally understood why his daughter and granddaughters could never catch up to the same financial path as him. Neither of us knew just how perfectly he fit into those golden equality years. He got the ultimate middle class American Dream. I'll never get close.
Wow 60k in 1978 was balling out lol. I could still live high on the hog in rural Ohio on 60k even in 2025. I could easily invest 2k a month in the markets and have a solid retirement. Sadly I'm lucky to make 40k a year lol.
My grandfather was born in 1924 and also enlisted into the Navy! What a time to be alive. He and my grandmother lived on a single income and raised 5 kids.
Not with that attitude. Remember his roots, he’s frugal - do you have an iPhone 15 or 16? Also don’t forget pensions are EXPENSIVE. He’s got two, the city of LA and the federal government are/ did pay for his life you speak of
My grandpa, a mailman had 9 children, a large house with huge land around it, and sent all his kids to school My dad, an electrician only had 3 kids, and with my mom (who was a factory worker) were only able to afford a subsidized public house that took 20 years to fully paid off Me and my wife, both are employees, only have 1 child, still living in her parents' house, and barely make ends meet
@@someutubchannel69 He had 9 children. The inheritance of even a very forward thinking working class person doesn't go far split 9 ways, and a lot of what average people accumulate during their lives is spent on retirement and end of life care.
Your dad was doing something wrong as an electrician. Electricians make more than any other trade. My dad is an illegal immigrant who is a painter drywall guy and makes 300k a year. I don't know a single electrician that ever struggled to make money.
Have kids regardless. You’ll make it work and once you do you’ll realize it’s all that matters in life. I feel you on home ownership though. It’s tragic
I see you and I feel you. I am a bit disturbed how undisturbed I am by the hopelessness that comes with being an adult. I am becoming indifferent to it now as I accept it.
Don't feel hopeless, my friend. I'm 58 and have watched this all happen. I've had a very challenging life and if you work at it you can have peace in any situation, almost. But I understand you want to thrive. I'll tell you how you do it. Throw yourself into building a community around you that is determined to ensure your children can buy a home. I promise you if you throw yourself passionately into that purpose, you will thrive.
@bornalawyer1 you didn't seem to get the point of the video. Its a numbers game. Odds are stacked against us in a way thas wasn't imaginable when you grew up
@@DailyPragmatism THIS IS THE WORST ADVICE I HAVE EVER HEARD doesnt matter if you can barely feed yourself or live life at all have kids anyways so they can share in the poverty wtf no dont do this
You know what it feels like? Like we’re all stuck in this never-ending loop. Wake up, work, eat if you can afford it, sleep if the stress doesn’t eat you alive. Repeat. Every single day. Meanwhile, the rich, oh, they’re out there getting richer in their sleep. Their money makes more money while we’re out here trading our time, our health, our lives for scraps. We work jobs that barely pay enough to survive, and even when we do everything right, study, work hard, play by the rules, it’s like we’re running in place. Rent goes up, food costs more, bills keep coming. And the government? Don’t even get me started. They sit in their offices, drawing up laws we didn’t ask for, rules that don’t protect us, they protect them. Their money. Their friends. Their status. And when we cry out? When we say, “Hey, we’re drowning here!” we get silence. Or worse, we get told it’s our fault. That we didn’t work hard enough. That we should be more grateful. Grateful for what? For surviving? For getting by with less and less while billionaires race each other to space? They talk about progress like it’s for everyone. But we know better. Progress ain’t free. It’s built on our backs, our labor, our exhaustion. They profit from our pain, and then they tax us for it. We’re not lazy. We’re not entitled. We’re tired. Tired of the lies, the empty promises, the system that was never built for us in the first place. And all the while, they live above it all-safe, untouched, comfortable. While we live down here. In pain. Welcome to America.
You can become free. I only work 9h a week now, I'm often on multiple day adventures sleeping outside , doing odd jobs here and there in exchange for food or supplies
I hate to tell you this, but all of that is essentially the same as it's been for the last century. And nobody profits from your pain except you. If this is so intolerable to you, why don't you do something to change your own situation? You live in the only place in the world where you can literally pursue anything you want to, as an avocation, or as a hobby. Recent generations ARE, in fact, considerably lazier than previous generations; regardless of why, younger people don't want to work. You don't work, you don't get nice things.
Sorry you have such negative comments in response from people who can't comprehend that people are struggling. I'm not from the US, but I hear you. It's a worldwide problem. I'm not against being rich and I think most people would be, competition is good to a degree but not the way it is portrayed in a dishonest way about how you can achieve anything at your disposal because that is simply not true. Sure it's easier than living in Africa, but downplaying your struggles as a way to be grateful for not having it worse is rude. Thanks for expressing yourself, and I wish you the best of luck at working through it in the best way that you can. I find happiness in knowing that I tried, even if it at times feels pointless and extremely selfish to only look after myself.
I think another important thing to consider is happiness rates and life satisfaction. Just because people make more money, doesn’t mean they’re happier.
I think many studies show that in the aggregate, more money does lead to more happiness up to a point. THere is a law of diminishing returns but having enough money to not have to worry about basic needs is a big deal for well being
It *all* always leads back to Rotten Reagan. The worst part is that the ghouls behind his policy, the Heritage Foundation, is *still* around ruining our lives to this very day.
It wasn't Reagan alone. A combination of going off the gold standard to pay for Vietnam and Milton Friedman now convincing everyone that "all income is earned" and thereby setting the course for increased financialization of the economy. Because, why work when you can just move money around on screens all day.
Yup still y'all are electing egocentric leaders in the UK... Reform.... Run down the country even faster. Sorry bro, I hope your situation gets better, surely doesn't seem like it
Get a mortgage in a bad negihborhood, buy a house with 2-3 friend so that you can pay towards a house rather than juat rent. We are the same age, in Europe I've already paid 60% on the equity of my mortgage. - On a flat in an apartment building, but I've head you don't have those in America.
Two big changes, “coincidentally” both happening under Reagan. - War against unions. - Changing the rules to allow mergers and leveraged buyouts effectively without limit. Both have the clear consequence of growing inequality…
Economic booms were always under a replublican president. Now we have less than 1 percent of the population with mental illnesses. Those people believe a man can be a woman and vice versa.
Great informative video. First time viewer. I once asked my mother in the 90's age 50 who grew up in latinamerica what she thought was the best invention ever. Much to my surprise she replied, without hesitation, INDOOR PLUMBING. I was totally shocked and puzzled. I then realized that the answer lies in the past experience of the individual. As per me, I am a physician working long hours and saving many lives daily only making a fraction of what the CEO of my hospital makes while working 8am to 4pm and golfing on the weekends. I've been to his meetings which don't amount to much. His salary is always growing and approved by the board members of the hospital who are his golfing buddies. This I believe explains the graph in your presentation. I see this heading towards civil unrest. God forbid. Thank you.
Your mother is correct. It doesn't even matter that she lived in places without indoor plumbing, She is just smart. You say you were shocked and puzzled by her answer, but you can't come up with a better one.
Your CEO makes whatever he makes because he's worth it to the business...salaries are generally based on the replacement cost of the individual. Like most people in Corporate America, you really have no idea of what a CEO (or any c-suite officer) actually does for the business, or why they are there. You think they get paid for sitting around drinking coffee. Lee Iacocca addressed this in his autobiography. When people said similar things about executives, his reply was, "not any of the ones I know."
@@jamesw1659 So is your brother in law a CEO. You mentioned Lee Iacocca, of which when he head Ford Motor's made the company a lot of money. But I guarantee he did not design the ford mustang, or other cars that the public wanted. He just saw it as a good design that he rubber stamped, while the people that had the real creativity and hard work probably had a modest pay raise.As far as I'm concerned most CEO's are over paid bums, that take some one else's hard work and steals the lions share.
@@kerrryschultz2904 People are paid what they’re worth for the most part. I will give you that there is an exception when it comes to hospitals, big pharma and insurance. Other than that, all corporate guys I know work nonstop. Like, miserable lives except for the lavish vacation once or twice a year if they can get away. Everyone has a master my friend. If your master says no Bahamas, you cancel.
@jamesw1659 that's what suckers believe and say. It's time for you and those who believe as you do, to wake up. You're not part of their club, and you nor your children will ever be. Globalists like those who continue to fool people like you into believing that BS, will continue to steal from the people while telling you that they deserve their ill-gotten gains.
What recently shocked me is my friends job started hiring again for their starter positions and I asked him how much they are starting off at and he said 19$ an hour. I remember about 3 years ago they were hiring for the same exact amount. Blew my mind, in 3 years their starting wage didn’t go up a single cent. It’s a factory job.
If it was a union job then that could be correct as sometimes set wages are negotiated for the entirety of a contract and then adjusted and negotiated for the next contract.
@@yeert6931are there people that will work for that pay? Then that's thr economy. I dont like it either but the market and economy sets the wage of that job. If it was a higher skill job it would be less workers suitable and would pay higher. But it is what it is
@@raymondqiu8202 The point is that it doesn't need to be that way. We don't need to lie down while the top 1% amasses large and unnecessary amounts of wealth. That's what unions are for, but union power has been heavily degraded across the country
This sounds like trickle-down economics - the idea that if you tax the rich less, they’ll reinvest their savings to grow the economy and create jobs. In theory, the wealth is supposed to “trickle down” to everyone else. But honestly, it feels like the only thing trickling down is the excuse to keep widening the gap.
Instead of raising taxes, government should raise minimum wages and pressure businesses to pay workers more. Taxes are good and all, but who knows where those go. On the other hand, if you raise salaries it would benefit the little man and stop this idiotic credit slavery
@gamanzhiydanil then they'd just raise prices... Making the whole point moot... An alternative could be stronger unions, union jobs pay on average 25% higher, than the non union equivalent. The only thing what scares companies into playing fairly is the idea of there entire workforce striking...
One thing that debunks trickle down economics is, a rich person can only buy so many things. There’s only so many televisions, fridge freezers, mobile phones, laptops, cars, entertainment tickets, even coffee that one person can buy. But divide that rich persons wealth with a million people and then between them they can buy millions of televisions, fridge freezers, mobile phones, laptops, food and entertainment. This is how you stimulate an economy.
@@ShazzaCNRyep, unions are definitely the best way to protect workers. And all the rich hate unions. Ultimately, there are many ways to deal with the rich.
Alright lets say they raise the minimum wage to 100 dollars an hour. What happens next you think? Would the lower income suddenly be able to afford more or would every single business raise their prices with the same amount? and then achieve nothing because even with 100 an hour you still at that point can afford just as little as before. Taxing the rich and giving that money to the public through free education and healthcare is the way to go.
I heard an economist say elsewhere that from after ww2 to present was an anomaly. It had always been the rich who owned everything and the poor who make the rich richer. There was no middle class before the 50's. We are in the process or returning to that model but we dont notice as the correction takes place over half a human lifespan.
Mostly correct. The period from 1945 (end of WW2) to early 70s was an anomaly. Unlike Europe, which was in shambles, the US was mostly untouched (Pearl Harbor) during WW2. So at the end, America stood as an economic colossus and this lasted for decades... Eventually, other countries improved their economies, and then Reagan started and accelerated an excessively pro-corporation agenda. Game over.
Thomas Picketty’s Capital In The Twentyfirst Century discusses that. Basically we should tax the wealthy more, it’s quite literally excellent for the economy
how can you say this when we don't really have any reliable economic data for most of human history. civilizations started 10,000 years ago yet you only look at not even the last 1,000 years of economic data and say this is normal.
Our country didn't get rich. Certain people got rich. Saying the whole country got rich implies that we're all living our best lives, and that is certainly not anywhere close to the case.😂
You act like rich equals living your best life. The truth is the top 1% have the highest addiction rates, suicide rates, and are generally the unhappiest group of all the different income brackets. I don't think it's nearly as great as people think it is.
Q: what did you purchase this week that you did not need... Starbucks, cable 159 channels, 8th pair of sneakers, uber eats????? It is a keeping up with the jones lifestyle. What phone is in your hand right this very moment???? We ALL have money most just spend it foolishly. We got dumber not smarter .
@@stormfield9431lol statistics show that avoiding a morning coffee before work will not help you afford a home. Get real boomer. Shit ain’t the same anymore.
@@stormfield9431 What does that have to do with their comment about income disparity? People buying things they don't need has nothing to do with the fact that they aren't paid enough, even if they avoid unnecessary purchases, to afford a home.
Two things not mentioned in the video, besides houses getting out of reach for many near the bottom: health care and college tuitions have increased in price way faster than inflation. All three of these trends are major game changers for middle and low income earners. (One could argue health care is much better now, IF one can afford it.) Over time, these forces will push many more into poverty.
Price increased because of student loans. Since now everyone can get a mega loan to study universities crank up the price cause you can afford it with borrowed money. You are effectively competing with other poor people willing to borrow more. If you stop borrowing the bubble will burst
as long as you dont move out of the country, you dont have to pay your medical debt immediately. itll go on your credit for a little while and then drop off. this has saved me in a very bad situation
I was born in 1990. Financially, my family was ok. We weren't rich. We had out struggles. But we got by (until the economic crash in '08). I, along with many others in my generation, were fed that American Dream from society and school. And we believed it. I know I did. I did well in school. I was a hard worker. I went to college and got a degree... to only find struggle and debt after. And I know I'm not the only one with this story. I got married and my husband and I still struggle. To buy a house and start a family sounds like a literal dream and not a reality we can achieve. And trust me, it's not for a lack of trying. To see, in this video, the lines breaking apart in the '80s makes me feel like I, my husband, our friends, and so many others never had a chance. Not unless they were lucky and maybe had support. It's heartbreaking and, honestly, infuriating because our generation and younger generations were blamed and continue to get blamed for work ethic and not spending our money to help the economy. But what money? We work and work and barely get by. The oligarchy needs to end. Stop stealing the working class' money! We the people need to continue to rise up together and fight back. And I know this is only one part of the battle. There's so much to fight for right now. But together we can stop all of this!
My grandmother was a SAHM, my granddad was a janitor, yet they could afford a house and 6 kids and a car. My mom was a SAHM my early years, then worked in a daycare. My dad was a low skilled laborer. Purchased own house in the late 70s. 2 cars. 4 kids. My brother has an education (physiotherapist), lives in a rental, still paying off student debt at 40, no kids.
This is amazing. I was born in 76. I’ve 5 kids. My oldest are in their mid 20’s - youngest in high school. This is just the video I immediately sent to them bc it was done so well and explains so much! Well done. That was great! Well informed, researched and put together. Hats off to ya
It would be very tough to find something more educational, better quality and more professional than this youtube channel. Great job Johnny! I hope your hard work will continue paying off! Wish you the best of luck!
As an automotive technician, I make more than my dad ever did. He was a metrologist, had a steady job, was in demand for private airports for weather forecasts for airplanes. This was back in the 80's. I think his take home pay every 2 weeks was like $1100 after taxes. We had a nice house, good health insurance and dental ( thank you, dad), decent cars, and basically had what we NEEDED. I make about $1000 a week, struggle with the mortgage, car insurance, gas, electric bill in Texas ($300-400 a month in summer, which is 8 months out of the year), drive old cars and rarely go on vacation. Damn it....I miss the 80's.
You said that you make more money than your dad did in the 1980's. However, that may not be true, if you take inflation into account. Comparing 1980 with 2025, the purchasing power was 3.9 times as high then than now. If your dad made $2200 per month, you should make $7000 or more to match that. To be honest, $4000 per month is not a really good income these days in a Western country. I'm living in the Netherlands, and I'm glad that I now have a desk job that makes pretty good money, compared to my previous job outside, where I had to work much harder and got paid substantially less. My wife does not have to work, as my income suffices, but that's also due to the fact that we both tend to be frugal, saving money to get the mortgage totally settled. By the way, your electric bill is about $300 to 400 per month during summer? That's because of the constantly running air-conditioning, I guess. Or, is the kWh-price in summertime just considerably higher, because everyone is using more power then? What about solar panels? Many here have got themselves their roofs covered with panels, running their airco to get the house chilly during daytime, so that it remains nice during the evening, and the airco can run almost idle, not spending too much power from the grid.
As a person with an economics degree, this vid\docu slaps! You won't be hearing about sources on TV, but this is what objective reality looks like. Too bad we've switched to subjective, huh?
As someone who did deep dive into the economics during my course, I can say with confidence that we are lied to so much or more likely being told by people who haven't fully understood the situation. Things like distance don't matter all that matters is COST. That means a screw from across the planet will be bought over one that is from 1 street over.
Yes, goods & services from one country fill gaps in other countries economies and everyone had been participating effectively until the board has been upset by tariffs or the threat thereof
@@SigFigNewtonwhile true in some ways it's extremely hypocritical all round. Take Steel for example, Recycled steel is more valuable because it makes other projects look better for thing like climate change . Great it is a great idea until you get people ripping up perfectly good items, for example the was a railline that made in a city park that was popular with kids made almost 200k a year just doing a show tour of the local area for tourists. It was built about 50 years ago, well maintained and still 100% functional. He sold it 2 years ago as the owner was 80. 3 bids and the guy who bidded first/won scrapped it all for 3m
*Actually that still highlights the inequality, as the top tax rate 37% and many of the 1% richest people pay anywhere from 15% to 0 ZERO!* Tax cuts, loopholes, claiming no income but living off interest of millions in investments etc.
@@jasonbrannen7598 And yet the gaslighting continues as it's not the dollar amount of how you evaluate a contribution but the percentage that each person contributes to society.
I think this was really well done. I just think there’s two points you didn’t mention or include (seemingly unintentionally): 1. Your examples for a middle income worker doesn’t factor in the number of middle income workers who grow into high income workers throughout the course of their career, and; 2. The number of high income workers over time in your sample data for your graphs. For example, as high income wages increase, how much is that per high income worker in 1980 vs. 2010. The expectation is that low income workers grow into middle wage workers and then eventually grow into high income workers. If there was a significant increase in productivity, there’s probably some correlation to an increase in high income workers, causing the disparity to increase.
In pure economic terms the average person in the USA had it better in 1955. One could work as a shoe salesman and make enough money to purchase a house (made out of brick with 3 bedrooms and two bathrooms), pay the mortgage of the house, have two cars, have a stay-home wife, and support 2 children. Also, in 1955 that shoe salesman could save enough money for a decent retirement, have enough money to pay the kids college costs, travel once a year to visit relatives, and enjoy a summer family vacation! Because of inflation, political corruption, corporate greed and economic malfeasance, this is no longer the case.
Strip away the 70-inch TV, the iPhone plan, the TikTok-tax of streaming subscriptions, the 2,400-sq-ft climate-controlled house, and the eight airbags in the garage, and the 1955 budget suddenly looks laughably small. The “average” post-war home was barely 1,000 sq ft-less than half today’s new-build norm-yet people still griped about heating bills and window units because central air was almost unheard of, with national AC penetration under 15 % versus 87 % today. Cars had no belts, let alone airbags, and they killed drivers at roughly five deaths per 100 million miles, quadruple today’s rate, so you paid for “cheap” wheels with a much higher chance of dying in them. Consumer-expenditure surveys show we now devote a third of income to sprawling, gadget-stuffed houses and ladle thousands more into data plans, leisure travel, pet boutiques, and espresso habits that literally didn’t exist in ’55. Live like a fifties shoe clerk-900 sq ft brick box, no internet, one black-and-white TV, meat-and-potatoes dinners, one beater car you hand-crank windows on-and a modern median income would feel downright plush, leaving gobs of cash for investing, early retirement, or whatever 21st-century luxuries you still decide are worth it. In other words, it isn’t the economy that priced us out of the bargain; it’s our appetite.
In the late 1990s, my dad made $120k salary and he bought my childhood home for $230k, where he raised a number of kids and had a stay at home wife. I live in the same neighborhood 30 years later and make more than my dad ever did, but my exact childhood home is now $1.2m and living in this neighborhood absolutely requires dual income and expensive childcare. You have to make the choice whether you want to have kids or live a life better than you grew up with. The second you decide to have kids, the rat race begins until you die. Honestly, if you’re willing to live in “flyover country” and can make a comparable income, that’s probably the key to prosperity, but most young people want to live close to major cities, even if their company has a St. Louis, MO or Lincoln, NE branch office.
Technically is the dual income actually needed to live there? Unless your spouse makes more than what it costs for childcare along with less time to deal with taking care of the home and meals and spending time as a family.
1980’s can be summed up by the quote "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good" famously spoken by Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko in the 1987 film Wall Street.
Things are provenly more expensive today as it is more difficult to purchase a home. On the flip side, I think back to when my parents bought their first home in 1957 for $19,000... a suburban 3-BD, 1 BA 1,000 sf home with a basement, no garage. My dad paid for this on tradesman pay of what? $3.50 an hour? But life was also a lot less materialistic back then, simpler in many ways as they "needed" fewer things and experiences. Contrast to 2025. I can't begin to list out the "necessary" items we commonly pay for today... every kid a cellphone, electronic gadgets, multiple cars (we had 1 many years); pricier vacations, going out to eat, Starbucks, etc; memberships and subscriptions, more groceries every 4 days than my mom would buy in a month, club sports for kids, new clothes instead of hand me downs, Credit card interest, etc. Not saying many people today aren't still frugal... just saying collectively there is excess spending today that adds to some of the financial pain.
We also decided that wealthy people needed to keep all of their money. We cut their taxes until they stopped existing while forcing normal people to cut corners off of a circle.
@@raymondmeyers8983 The tax code affects more than just income tax. Lower corporate rates increase after-tax profits, which go to shareholders and CEOs and contribute to income inequality.
I'm relieved someone is finally talking about this, I felt trapped by my life and I felt guilty for everything that happened to me. As someone who studies stats and economics a great deal, I am relieved. I loved the animation, narration and factual accuracy, you've all come a long way since that Christopher Colombus video. I would have liked to see the employment rate, which is also lower than ever. An important caveat is that Inequality, Labor force participation, housing affordability, and economic growth have all gotten worse as the US has become a richer country in part because the richer a country is, the harder it is for it to grow. The countries with the highest growth rates are normally lower/middle income countries like India/Indonesia. South Korea and all the four asian tigers had their had day when they were poorer and then their growth rates flattened out, labor force participation rates went down quicker, their inequality got worse etc etc in the 2000s. However, the Inequality problem is particularly bad in the US owing to neoliberalism, a phenomenon which occurred in the entire english speaking world (E.G. Ireland/UK/Australia/Canada) while Eastern Europe, and Continental western Europe have both retained low Gini indexes. Labor force participation and inflation have been problems for the entire developed western democratic world, with only Singapore, Hungary, Poland and to some extent east asia managing to escape it in any meaningful way. Gracias por todo Juan, siempre es un placer ver tus videos, que te vaya bien, hasta luego! :)
"Inequality, Labor force participation, housing affordability, and economic growth have all gotten worse as the US has become a richer country in part because the richer a country is, the harder it is for it to grow." Syria's Price to Income is over 100, Ethiopia's, Cuba's, and Cameroon's are over 40, UK's is 9, US's is 3.3
Some of this jargon is over my head but it is fascinating to me. I wonder if increases in population make it harder for everyone to share wealth so everyone gets less? I don't know if population is up or down right now compared to the 50s.
Isnt it unfair though to compare the same placeconsidering the average lifestyle changes? Prosperity should increase but i feel like its really hard to compare the same place considering how much the community changed.
Comparing things like Kansas vs Minnesota is pretty fair. Kansas tried trickle down coming out of the Great Recession, Minnesota tried increasing the minimum wage and increasing taxes on people with money. Minnesota thrived, Kansas did not.
If there is one thing I know about economics and come to realise having studied economics in college, its that a bigger economy isn't always a good thing.
@@SigFigNewtonbut then they would spend less on consumer products and if the worst case scenario happens they are out of the economy and that effect will put a bigger dent into gdp so disease does reflect harm
Actually the reason Nixon took us off the gold standard was because the war in Viet Nam was costing 90 millilon dollars a day. Nixon did not want to raise taxes to pay for the war because he thought he would be running fo office again and he knew if he raised taxes it might cost him the election. So by halting the gold standard the government could just basically start printing money which they are still doing today.
And Americans that I work with every day are so entrenched in this nightmare reality that they consider Europeans “lazy” for having 30+ days off a year and actually having a work/life balance. In Europe the economy is for the people. In the US people are for the economy.
Great video with compact information. 3 things that I see impacting the ability of young families to progress are 1.) The cost of college (4x more than the in the seventies.) 2.) The cost of daycare 3.) The cost of healthcare.
As Americans we need to stop thinking about red and blue, we need to focus on what person has policies that benefit Americans and not top earners, voting just because it says Republican or Democrat does not help us one bit, focus on who makes the most sense when it comes time to vote. Please people for the sake of our collective futures.
That's what we did. The majority who don't care about politics realized democrats would rather give money to immigrants and gender studies so they voted Trump. Is he actually for the people and going to change things? I'm not sure. At this point we might have to consider that it doesn't matter who we vote for and that there's evil people behind the scenes who really are the one's controlling our future.
I agree, but we're tired. Most people don't want to and really don't have the energy or time to do an in depth analysis of political candidates. People are trying to do something, but it's tough.
The fact is that this guy always focus on the negativity of the one political party well ignoring that the policy of the opposite party that he mentioned has affected a lot in the divergence
I agree with Gary as well. From an American perspective, we have our class system here as well, but it does look a little different. Ours involves a lot of corporations on top, as well as some families. The Trump family, right now, is just the most outwardly corrupt at this point.
@raymond I think that’s the name of his RUclips channel, so you can learn who he is. Ex Wall Street guy pointing out the detrimental impacts of wealth inequality.
The 91% tax rate was a high headline number, but it didn't translate to actual collected revenue at that rate due to its limited application, tax code loopholes, and incentives for tax avoidance. While this doesn't mean that the wealthy paid significantly less in taxes compared to today (with effective rates in the 1950s still potentially higher than now), it clarifies why the top marginal rate didn't reflect the true tax burden..
agreed, very few people actually paid that 91%. It was really designed to encourage businesses and owners to re-invest profits and create more jobs, rather than declare profits and get hit on tax. High tax rates also encouraged businesses to begin offering non-cash remuneration to employees, such as company funded cars, health insurance etc. That also encouraged the growth of the auto and private insurance industries
13:44 it doesn't just "start" around 1979, it is *created* by the [austerity] and trickle down economics of the Reagan era. Breezing past this is criminal! What happened in the early 80s was the catalyst for much of the inequality we see today. We need to understand the causes!!!! Not just to say "look at this inequality that's happening, that's pretty bad huh?" This video could have been so much more than following some graphs through time. Edit: @thinktankdonahue brought up a good point. Austerity is not the best way of conveying the dire consequences of the Reagan era. His destruction of unions, along with the decimation of other predistributive policies and regulations were far more desastrous for the american people. His annhialation of labor market regulations and educational investments among other things had a far greater effect than his cuts to social spending. America continues to put more money into redistribution than other countries - even though it has far worse levels of inequality. Using the word austerity was not the best way of conveying Reagan's destructive force.
This is what i find troubling about neoliberals. They are able to point out the problems without telling you the reasons those problems exist in the first place. It then funnels people to the right since they don’t know any better.
I personally think he made it abundantly clear the exact year Reagan took office. I think he is trying to stay politically neutral so that people will see it for themselves and accept it and do something about it rather than taking the chance on them seeing it as an attack on their party and immediately push back. Anyone that cares about this enough to vote, could easily figure out why it started and who is responsible. And then let the knowledge expand organically so that people listen and own the knowledge. Could he have mentioned trickle down economics without mentioning Reagan. Yes, I think so. But since he didn't, it's up to people like us to propagate the message and the cause. Let's get to it.
I'm glad you said it. It was the first thing that came to my mind and Iwas waiting for Johnny to say it, but he didn't. Neoliberalism is the worst thing that has happened to us.
@@dampaul13We found a rich guy. Hi rich guy. I don't blame the rich for the wealth gap, I blame the government and the people that voted for it. All I can say to you is that I've never seen a hearse with luggage racks. Where you put your treasure, there your heart will be there also. Be well.
21:45, We DIDN'T change that. Do not mistakenly assume that corporations of the 1950s and 1960s truly "cared" about the workers. Economically, the technology of the 1950s/60s had a major role in shaping the workforce and production methods. While machines were becoming more advanced, the real productivity boom came from the cooperation between human labor and machines. Humans were essential in operating machinery, making decisions, and applying creativity to the production process, while the machines amplified productivity and efficiency. This symbiotic relationship created a balance where both labor and capital were crucial. In this system, corporations were dependent on their employees for output, and employees, in turn, enjoyed stable, well-paying jobs to support their families and livelihoods. In a capitalist system, the necessity of this balance meant that corporations had a vested interest in treating their workers well. Employees were the driving force behind production, and without their involvement, the machines and technology alone could not generate such profits. As a result, it was in the companies’ best interest to offer good wages, benefits, and job security to maintain a motivated workforce. For many workers, this relationship created a sense of stability, even as the broader economic landscape and policies shifted. This dynamic of mutual dependence between labor and capital, however, began to deteriorate in the following decades, as automation and global competition forced companies to seek cheaper labor and push for more efficiency. This shift marked the end of the post-WWII period of shared prosperity and set the stage for growing inequality in the years that followed. Corporations have existed to benefit the owners of capital, before the 1950s and after the 1960s. There was just a unique crossroad for a couple of decades where the two (labor and capital) needed each other. It's easy to see how a typical worker who started in the workforce in 1952 and retired in 1987 could mistake companies treating her/him well in the first two decades of work as benevolent...but that never existed, it was a means to an end. I understand there were some individual owners of capital who did care for employees, but obviously that was the exception and not the rule.
@@gustavobonato And to add to that: this is why we should not be worried about the birth rate. Only billionaires will stand to gain with more people on this earth. When the population goes down, people will have a better chance at a job and at better pay and conditions. Will it ultimately be enough? I don’t know, but raising global population is certainly not going to help things.
So, you don't think tax cuts make a difference? What about unions? Sure technology does make differences but to ignore the massive policy changes is just dishonest.
@5:33 "All 3 of these income brackets, are increasing their income rate, at the same rate." says this guy in the video. This has NEVER happened, EVER, with the Wealthy. They've ALWAY taken more. I don't understand where these "Facts" come from, lol.
My paternal grandparents came to West Germany from Southeastern Europe in 1957. A certified pediatric nurse and a welding specialist. To quote my Greek grandmother: “Your grandfather and I had your dad in my belly and a suitcase full of dreams.” They didn’t speak German (Croatian and Greek only), and both had to work. But they raised four children, saved enough money to pay off a five-room-apartment in what back then (and today) is one of the most expensive parts of Southern Germany, as well as bought property in Dalmatia and built a house there, that is now worth over €1.5 million. Without a university degree, without basic language skills, they owned real estate in two countries, a BMW, a Mercedes and a boat. That was in 1982. A generation later, my father (born 1958) went to university in Germany, earned a degree, had always been employed, and just recently paid off his apartment; given, after my mom’s passing, he re-married and started a new family. A generation later, I (born 1982) went to a private high school, studied in four countries, earned three university degrees, became fluent in several languages, and can only afford rent (though, in a very wealthy Swiss neighbourhood). My “social mobility”, is incomparable to my grandparents and parents. I lived between wealthy grandparents and successful parents, who were able to support us in every way. From private music lessons to sailing lessons and fencing. Everything my siblings, cousins and I wished for, we were granted. Today, with three passports, both - doors and opportunities - are open to me, that my grandparents could’ve hardly imagine back in their youth. The farthest they got to travel was Greece. But they did so in their own car. I’ve been to over sixty countries thus far (studied in four and lived in seven thanks to my profession) and still would have to take a loan to buy a new Mercedes. My purchase power will never match that of my grandparents or even my parents. I never owned a car, nor a boat, nor could I afford to buy a house in the Mediterraneans. But yes, unlike my grandparents, I don’t have to work night shifts, or weekends or holidays, and I have six weeks of paid vacation, while my grandparents had only four. They absolutely earned their wealth.
$84,000 for a house in 1950?? My parents bought a large Cape Cod house in 1973, in NJ for $28,000 and it was considered newly built. The average annual salary in 1950 was approximately $3,300, according to the Census Bureau. The $41k is really the avg salary today equal to what would the $3k annual salary be in the 50s
This was excellent, here are suggestions for 2 related videos: 1) the main reasons/policies that brought about this inequality, 2) the method to partially reverse said inequalities, and I'm not only referring to rules/policies but how to create consensus (or significant public support) around the goal and ways to achieve said reduction in inequality. In other words, how to overcome the political polarization on order to set ambitious goals for society.
1) The abandonment of the dollar to a fixed standard of measurement, which is the base of every economy. We've adopted a fiat currency standard. Since its inception, we've seen worker productivity increase while wages remain stagnant. Wealth has been funneled out of different sectors of the economy and placed into others. The ever encroachment of inflation eroding the dollar has stripped wealth from production into assets. Now those who produce can't even afford those assets. By fueling the economy with easy credit expansion, it causes prices to rise that is purchased with that credit until wages alone can no longer support the purchasing of those assets. That's why you see a drop in the standard of living.
2) We must reverse course. Of course, GDP and other conventional measures of the economy will indicate a recession, but wealth will begin to return to the producers. There will certainly be a downturn, as credit-fueled assets and jobs disappear, but the economy will start to stabilize and eventually bounce back. GDP is not a reliable measure of economic health-if it were, the recessions of 1946 and 1964 would appear worse than the Great Depression. Yet those years are widely remembered as the golden age of American prosperity. Many economists have predicted what is happening now. However, those most concerned with the wealth gap are typically on the left, while these particular economists are on the right. As a result, people on the left simply won’t listen. But neither will politicians on the right. The right will continue to ignore the problem, and the left will turn to the simplistic solution of government force for problems that are far more complex.
@@davidrush333good points 👍 part of my suggestion for a second video pertains to ways, approaches to make the right/left divide manageable, to break the political gridlock and standoff in order for smart apolitical solutions to be easily adopted and implemented. I think this type of work - methods to reduce polarization in a society, which then opens the door of meaningful reform - is in the field of journalists, historians, and even writers and artists!
I'm literally only 2 minutes into this intro and I know this is one of the best videos you've ever done... Not goal-posting you... This is just showing how much you've done to hone your skills. Thank you for always doing the work to share fun and fact based videos that can help people learn about things that sometimes are pushed back against. You really have outdone yourself here. Please, keep yourself refreshed and do not burn out... Your work is getting to a point where it is SO VALUABLE to people who refuse to learn from friends, and maybe they stumble upon one of these videos and learn about disparity, income, wealth, global issues, everything...
Your best video so far, in my opinion. Full of meaning, backed by solid data. On top of that, it's visually fun and very clear. Amazing work. Well done!
The outcome of this video: 1. Reagan screwed everything since the income inequality started to show up blatantly in the 1980s. 2. Changing the current situation by-election as Johnny stated at the end of the video is a huge myth, since a) you can't convince a senator benign funded by big corporations to change the laws against them, and b) the voting us ruled by a majority of uneducated people (loved mostly by republicans BTW) who can easily be manipulated by politicians into voting against their interests for more benefits to the top 1% of the rich and fewer benefits for the 99% of the people. In another way: the American dream is dead, unless you are the child of 1 of those 1%ers.
It can't just be the fault of one politician, after all this has occurred in every developed country in the whole world. You need a deeper explanation.
Also a part of this is the long-term strategy of people like Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society, the Lewis Powell memorandum, etc. - to take over the political and judicial world to destroy the progressive tendencies of the New Deal and Great Society programs. All this supported by right-wing talk radio and Fox News to make these policies popular with lies and disinformation.
Yes our economy is bigger than ever. All that means is the people at the top are collecting more. I’m old enough to remember when $15 a hour was enough to live and get a nice apartment. Now that $15 has you homeless
@@SeamusMcFitz-jz9if This idea that there necessarily needs to be "losers" in the economy is the problem. This isn't a zero-sum game where only a handful of winners deserve to reap the rewards.
@heptacon losers are those who didnt put in any effort but expect the same outcome as everyone else, equity. That's the height of entitlement Eg. homeownership Nope. If you can't afford a house then you don't deserve one. My last journal article was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I save cancer patients for a living. You?
@@SeamusMcFitz-jz9if This is not true, sorry. The middle class is being squeezed out while the %0.1 (134k households) hold $22.T of wealth. To put that into perspective the bottom %50 (67M households) hold 9.9T of wealth. The delta in wealth gap is massive beyond imagination. The problem ultimately come down to the wealthier you are the greater your breaks on tax and systems are built to benefit you. These are mostly built on the backs of the bottom %50 which makes it impossible for them to ever get out of that bottom %50. Its almost like the top %0.1 percent have built a system to basically have slaves to keep them at the %0.1.
My immigrant grandparents started with nothing and did well for themselves through hard work, even in the depression. Parents did the same with hard work and training. I did well with some college and hard work. My daughter is the best of all being a doctor. Each of us started with nothing and had no inheritance, until myself that has enough to leave behind . Each generation also spends a lot more on material possessions like fancy TV's, phones, self drive cars and bigger houses with air conditioning etc. My grandparents used kerosine lamps for lights. If you lived like your grandparents (well beneath your means) and work sunup to sundown as they did, you too will be in a much higher wealth bracket and able to leave a legacy as generational wealth for you children. Blaming the economy and lack of socialism on your wealth is a poor excuse for overspending and lack of work ethic.
It’s the same but worse basically. At least in the US in high demand industries like healthcare tech and finance you get paid very very well. Not so much in Europe. Houses cost the same in France as in the US pound for pound (like same space, age, features)
it is more or less the same, when Reagan “sucessfully” liberalize economy… Most of the western world soon followed..Remember Margaret Thatcher of the UK??
This is all by design by the evil "owners" who own everything in America. It isn't your fault. Not having a wife, kids, a house, and a good paying job is the new normal sadly. It is only going to get MUCH worse, because the "owners" don't want us having a good life and they don't want us to own anything.
Kid in my neighbor- Asian. Asian parents. Forced to study hard and succeed. Probably a BS in computer science from University of Washington. Makes way more than I ever made in medicine. And given my wages- I highly doubt my kids will make my salary - but they are still successful. A mostly stay at home mom and an Army officer. Both absolutely thrilled with their lives and don’t care if their dad made more than them. So while statistically correct video I don’t know it’s completely correct. 2 opposing state,ent can be true at the same time. As for YOU going from a factory worker to insurance changing jobs later in life can be a salary killer.
Looking at three options (Incase you didn't know) 1) Digital nomad jobs (there are numerous so search) then live somewhere cheap like southeast Asia. 2) Teaching (tech teachers are needed especially in Korea and China). Keep trying, don't give up, I know how scary it is, how difficult, but don't give up. Your life isn't over yet.
when the government outsourced the responsibility of redistributing economic wealth to corporations, the corporations took a huge chunk for themselves first.
Why should the government be redistributing wealth??? I don’t trust the government to do that. I trust corporations more because I CHOOSE to give them my money they don’t steal it.
@@aar0n709 The only goal of a corporation is to extract money from you and give it to its board of directors and shareholders. The only goal of a government is to do good for everyone. I guess youre fine with paying for water but taxing the people who got lucky enough to hoard more wealth than entire nations is theft apparently.
@johnnyharris in the 70s you failed to mention that we went off the gold standard, the government increased spending due to that and being out of money because only taxing the top 10% wasn't producing enough revenue. The the war and having less oil flow was a small part of. Getting off the gold standard also allowed for credit wealth where using debt at lower interest rate and investing for a higher rate.
The only reason American economy boomed post ww2 is because during ww2 every other major manufacturer of goods got blown to shreds except the USA so we were the only ones offering anything for sale basicly.
Back in the '50s and 60s we were self sustaining. We could cut ourselves off from the rest of the world because we produced what we needed to live. All those things that we produced have been moved to other countries to produce so our CEOs can reap record profits (they must be Ferengis). Stupid is, as stupid does.
This technically isn't true. German industrial capacity at the end of the war was 25% larger than it was before the war. There was MORE industrial capacity in the defeafed countries than there was after the war.
The measure of success for people in charge shouldn’t be things like private jets, yachts, or big houses. Look at the ones who are 40 to 50 years old-not the new ones. You should base the success of leadership on the growth of the people. Our system should be based on lifting up the bottom, not just expanding the top. If the U.S. birth rate is 1.6 now and it used to be over 2.0 just 20 years ago, we’re doing very poorly. It used to be above replacement level, and now it's not even close. I noticed this trend 20 years ago and tried to point it out to people who didn’t really understand the situation. I used to think the people in charge would eventually realize, “Hey, this isn’t working. This isn’t a long-term business model.” I figured they’d make smart adjustments and profit from them-like how Chrysler and General Motors adapted back in the days of Henry Ford and the Model T. Then the pandemic hit-and that’s when I realized: they have no idea what they’re doing.
In 1968 I was 10 years old and I lived with my family in a new house in a new subdivision in Tacoma, Washington. My father told me the mortgage payments were $300 a month. A loaf of bread was about fifty cents. A new car was under $3,000. How times have changed.
18:35 i live in canada and home prices did not go down after the 2008 recession and our salaries grew less than American salaries so housing is even worse here
Without our modern convivences ( washing machines, dishwashers, vacuums, fridge and freezer, preservatives, ... ) you needed someone "full time" to keep up with the housework and prepare meals for a family. Now it takes much less time and effort to keep a household clean and fed.
@@ericew What? Most homes in 1955 *did* have a clothes washer, vacuum, fridge, and freezer, and some had a dishwasher. My family was not wealthy, but I remember having all of those (except the dishwasher) in the mid-‘50s. But you’re correct in pointing out that women who didn’t have a job outside of the home *did* typically mend, garden, preserve food, cook almost all meals from scratch, and some sewed clothing for much of the family.
@@orjval Exactly. Even without the ‘extras’ (sewing, canning, etc.) that aren’t as common now, most women today still do the majority of housework and childcare -by far- *in addition* to their paid work.
A few things left out: In the 50s we were happy to own a 950sq.ft. home. The average size home in 2025 is 2650sq.ft. The door being opened to communist China for permanent normal trade relations (Clinton), plus other actions, allowed companies to move overseas for cheap labor. We now own a lot more ‘stuff’. Ever go in an old house? See those tiny closets? Middle income workers were happy with a whole lot less. Even just one car per household. College ‘administrators’ greatly multiplied & tuition went ridiculously high Monopolies were no longer broken up. Corporations were allowed to get too big. Politicians became intwined with corporations & ‘lobbyists’ became too powerful. I am just saying it is more complicated. If people here are implying socialism is better then they need to live in a socialist country with ‘government controlled groceries’. Have fun with your one choice of cereal & your rationed supply of meat, bread, eggs, sugar, etc…
You don't have to have an outright "socialism" as you described to have more equal prosperity. Imagine if, and hear me out, CEO and administrator pay was back down to even just 25x their av worker pay, and the rest went back into higher pay, better benefits and better retirement for the average worker. That means more people can contribute to the economy, more people can ask for variety and get what they want. You dont need to for form a gulag rampant communist society for the average person to have a better life than we currently have. You said "corporations got too big" followed by criticism of communism. I feel like you know what you want but are not sure the right way to get there. Why does every counter argument to "less income inequality, more wealth distribution, etc" lead to someone talking about how they will only have one type of bread like it's the inevitable conclusion. He just pointed out, there were many recent times where the average America how much better prosperity than we do now, and we never had socialism.
Its pretty well laid out. Higher taxes on wealthy and corps, and higher worker pay equals better society. We just passed a bill that would make Regan admin cream their slacks and so it's going to get worse. Home prices for homes built in 1950 are still bonkers. Stop believing fox news.
Get an exclusive 15% discount on Saily data plans! Use code johnnyharris at checkout. Download Saily app or go to saily.com/johnnyharris
First ❤
genAI booooo 👎 🍅 can't believe Saily supports genAI !!
The more interesting question would be not if you are today better of then in the 50s but rather how much would you have today if the trend from the 50s has been continued until today.
You didn’t normalize house prices to Square footage.
You didn’t talk about zoning laws which cause artificial scarcity in housing.
You didn’t talk about how most good and commodities are waaay cheaper as measured in time prices (reference the book “superabundance”)
You did not justify why “equality” is a sensible measurement to look at.
Very sloppy video with a very clear ideological narrative.
The number of children decreases but the size of the house grows😂.
1955: 1 job, 1 house, 3 kids. Now: 3 jobs, 1 room, no kids. Progress 👏
1955: No smartphone, no internet, no DoorDash, no Netflix. Give me 2025 all day long.
@@ewrock7635 The invention of the Internet should not make it oke that people cant buy a house and that way of comparing is kind of scewed, cuz Internet woohooooo, better than everything.
@@ewrock7635did you experience life before these 2025 perks?
Trouble is that 'prosperity' isn't just a matter of Working Hard anymore... You need to know how to play the 'financial games', how to use the stock market, and understand all the little 'tricks' that wealthy people use to establish their position.
You can work as hard as you want at a 'regular' job, and unless you know how to exploit all the investment opportunities then you'll never really progress.
The concept of 'Hard Work' and 'Nose To the Grindstone' is all just BS. And you're just killing yourself to make someone else more wealthy.
The world overall is significantly better now, if you look at infant mortality rates, maternal mortality, life expectancy, and the virtual eradication of a lot of diseases in the developed world.
Glad to know that a average factory worker in the 1950s could afford a house faster than me... 😭💀
thank womens rights
It could be worse, you could live in socialist country.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism, socialism. The problem within those system is greed and corruption. Both are human traits.
TBF there's plenty of houses in the US that are $100k that have the exact same amenities people had in the 1950s.
Even in the 1950s 1/4 of households didn't have an indoor bathroom, the average house didn't have insulation or ac etc.
You can get a 900sqft shack with no ac, no insulation, no indoor plumbing for 100k in many places in the US.
u think the us is bad. the uk is shambles. buying a 2 bed shithole is beyond most peeps reach.
1970: if I work extra hours I can afford a house.
2025: if I work an extra job, I can afford rent.
Yeah the prices today are so Growed
@@JoelvinisaacPerezReal_bogbe12 "Growed?" I wonder why you are not prospering? 🫢
2025: if I work an extra job, I MIGHT be able to afford rent.
THis is not fact finding nor fact narration.
This is a "documentary" and mostly left wing propaganda I have seen time and time again.
No one paid those 90% tax rates
Immigration went into high gear in the 1970s after the 1965 immigration act.
the rest of the world started to build industrial capacity.
This guy doesn't talk about the fact that taxes make up the largest outflow of capital from the middle class - for me it's more than food and housing combined. And the services I get are totally garbage from DMV, to the post office to the pothole filled roads
2035: If I work 23hrs a day I can afford to got to work for 23hrs a day.
One thing that is drastically different from 1955 to today is the expectations and lifestyles that simply waste away peoples money. Back then, houses were simple and small, maybe 1000 sq ft. (hence so much cheaper) Most people had gardens, canned food, seldom eat at restaurants, and vacations were usually camping, not an expensive trip to Disney or overseas. People repaired things, including clothes and people saved up for furniture etc. and that last one was a big one... People did not have credit cards and the lure of easy money in the form of credit was not readily available - and in many ways, this in itself has become a massive wealth transfer.
Once people are hooked into the credit/debt system for liabilities instead of assets (e.g. luxury cars vs rental properties or investments)... wealth becomes harder to obtain as people use up their financial resources and reduce their options (and freedom).
1,000% absolutely the problem and also the simplest to fix. It’s ALL about choices.
So credit has always existed in one form or another, poor folks would often purchase furniture and appliances on credit. Since banks existed credit/loans have also existed, and loan sharks are old as the hills.
Back then folks had more time to cook at home and the cheaper options were the locally produced fresh foods - as opposed to today's mass produced processed ready to eat for a worker constantly in the go crud.
The biggest scandal with credit is the student loans, back in the day you could pay off college with your summer job. Also financial institutions purposely selling sub quality credit to people who blatantly cannot afford to pay them back (hence the 2008 crash).
@@Ebolahill88 WRONG! very few people had credit cards and even less used them! We had a thing called layaway. I challenge you to go back to 1955 and tell men to buy expensive fancy drive thru coffee every morning, or ask a family to order food from a restaurant and pay double to have it delivered (door dash) instead of cooking it from scratch. They'd call you CRAZY!
y'all spend money on what you think is important: door dash is important, saving for a house... not so much.
@@josealexi5141you're focusing on credit cards, I'm talking about any type of credit product like loans, store credit etc. The 50s is when all appliances like washing machines, Hoover's and TVs first started hitting the market, average folks couldnt buy those outright. Hence using some type of credit product.
The 50s was also famous for diners, refillable coffee etc.
I agree it wasn't the norm to eat out then, for several reasons. Folks had more time to cook then, women generally didn't work and fresh local produce was the cheapest option.
If you calculate how much fresh local produce costs these days, plus the time electric/gas to cook it then door dash generally wins.
🙄 Oh, ffs. No, straight up, a home was more affordable on an average income. Smaller divide between home prices and income.
1955: Corporate grind.
1975: Vibes and vinyl.
2025: Asking AI how to pay rent
@Grok is this true?
@@Bakerbreakerno
2025: sleep in car, stack funds until you can afford a house
20 years vs 50 years
1955: pension? Yes
2025: what’s a pension?
This is not RED vs. BLUE. The real fight is OLIGARCHS vs YOU.
You just learned that word this year
@@PixelNomadzwell, then it was about time. "Government by organized money is as dangerous as government by organized mob", as FDR said
@@PixelNomadz
What’s your argument?
90% of team red is with the oligarchs and 50% of team blue is too. We're not breaking the cycle.
People will disagree with you and then watch a presidential inauguration with a line of the richest billionares seated neatly in the front
Can't believe you didn't start the video without saying look at this map
😂
Literally unwatchable
"Look at this graph" - Knickleback
😂
🤣
I used to think that tax the rich was just jealousy on the part of the poorer people who were lazy, but this really opened my eyes! Thank you for putting in the time and effort to research and make this video !!!🎉
This video implies that the wealth is going to the CEO’s and being taken away from the lower class. It ignores countless other variables such as free trade that was passed in the 1990’s. If you took away the salaries of all CEO’s and spread out the wealth among their employees, the wage increase would be marginal. You would still see a wage disparity between 1955 and 2025. There are other variable that he ignored.
I thought the same.
@@DeanCF1 It's true that Mr Harris did not manage to cover every detail of the world economy in this 24 minute video. On the other hand, the point remains that American wealth continues to move away from lower- and middle-class workers and concentrate in the hands of the wealthiest Americans, which includes but is not limited to CEOs.
Also, two points: first, Mr Harris acknowledged that he only covered income, not wealth. Second, he never said or even particularly strongly implied that the money was all going to the CEOs. He continually focused on and referred to "high-earners", using CEO pay only as an example.
@@DeanCF1let’s just spread out the wealth anyway to be sure.
@@DeanCF1 What are these other variables?
I'm European, so I'm not sure how common knowledge this topic is, but I've never seen a video that gave such a clear summary on a topic like this.
it's the same story in europe ...
@@cyrilsagesser18 UK here, definitely the same over in the UK :(
@@cyrilsagesser18it’s the same situation all over the west
@@Racko. It really does feel like it's in our nature to just be greedy, we just had a time where we weren't greedy due to the massive trauma after world war 2 and desire to want to help each other (except minorities since it was the 1950's afterall)....
@@cyrilsagesser18 Yeah, but I meant that I didn't know how it was in the US.
I graduated high school in 1985. One thing missing from the 90's and early 2000's in this video, and a key contributor of where we are today, is the massive amount of mergers and acquisitions that happened which reduced competition. The corporate mindset was to buy the competition instead of competing. Companies like JP Morgan, Tyson Foods, Auto Zone, Con Agra, Phillip Morris etc. bought or crushed all the mid-sized regional business and "Mom and Pops". You could do an entire episode on Cargill and how many companies they have acquired nearly cornering every market they were involved. Every sector of the economy had similar outcomes. Remember the Big Box stores that always had a "Low Price" guarantee or a promise of a meeting a competitors price? That was something more of the 2000's though.
I was a Chef for most of my life and in the mid 90's wholesale food distributors were merging like crazy. Prices went way up over time. Specifically "house branded" products from companies like Sysco and US Foods were priced very close to brand name products where previously they could be bought a significant discount. Today those companies are charging retail prices to "wholesale" customers.
Fascinating! Thanks for sharing
The graph of mergers and acquisitions started to increase significantly even before Reagan meaning the problem didn’t just start with him
Very good point. Now Amazon does this to the extreme. It's really sad.
The video broadly touched on this by mentioning massive deregulation and changing of policies and such by our government starting in the 1980s and continuing onward.
Freedom!
It's called monopolization. The enemy of a strong capitalist system.
I'm 79 & was 9 in 1955, so I've personally experienced every one of those decades! My family had three kids
& my WWII vet, Dad, worked one job, owned a two family house, one car & even bought land to build a
bungalow, to vacation in. This was all on a salary of $95. a week! To me, the "American Dream" began to
erode in 1973, with the first Arab Oil Embargo, when big businesses used this excuse to "skyrocket" prices!
My dad bought a house, assuming the VA home loan that was attached to it, in 1973. The payment was $95 a month. After that inflation took off. That house is now $660,000. After a lifetime of work, I couldn't afford to buy it now.
Gold standard gone! Printing unlimited money+ Jewish wars
And when Nixon took us off the gold standard in 1971
We shouldn't have supported isreal vs arabs 😢
Rising oil prices did lead to stagflation (esp since our economy was more goods-based than now). Every economist agrees with that. The problem is, competition is supposed to bring proces back down after the oil prices normalize. But that doesn't always happen, due to something called price memory.
I'm 71, grew up upper-middle class in Canada. Dad worked. Mom stayed home. I read a lot about what a great life we had in the 60's and how it's all gone to shit. Let me give you the other side of the coin.
Our first house had 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom for 6 of us. Now my wife and I live in a 3 bedroom, 4 bathroom house - average house for where we live.
We had 1 black and white TV in the 60's - the repairman might as well have moved in with us we saw him so much. Now we have a beautiful HD TV that never breaks down.
In the 60's we had 1 phone in the house that we all had to share. Now my wife and I each have a phone that we can take anywhere.
My mom spent $50/week on groceries - the equivalent of $550 today. Now my wife and I spend less than $150 per week and we have more choice and better quality than the 60's.
And if you wanted a nice "restaurant" meal you had to go to a hotel or the country club. Now we have hundreds of choices - every country in the world represented.
And you couldn't have a beer with your meal in a restaurant or a beer anywhere on Sunday (not that I was drinking beer when I was a kid).
Now you can get cash, food, gas, medication etc. etc. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Try doing that in the 60's - everything shut down at night and mostly on Sundays too.
You wanna watch your favourite program on TV - better read the TV Times and make an appointment to sit in the family room at 8 o'clock Sunday and hope nobody else wants to watch a different channel.
I made $1.50/hr as a kid working in my Dad's restauarnt, saved up and went to Europe in 1972 - paid about $400 to fly - approx $3000 in today's money. I just booked a flight a week ago to Ecuador for $780 roundtrip.
I could go on but my 71 year old memory is failing me.
Yes, I forgot about all that, was so true. In the late 60's I was a waitress for 50 cents an hr, bought contact lenses and a prom dress with that. Tips were like 10 cents. Of course I was too young to have big responsibilities
The part that hit me hardest was when he said wages have basically flatlined since the '90s while productivity and CEO pay skyrocketed. It’s like we’re doing more with less and still getting nowhere. My parents raised a whole family on one income..I can barely afford rent on two." 😔
Same here. I used to think I just wasn't working hard enough or making bad money choices. But watching this made it clear the system has changed around us. Honestly, what helped me break out of that stress spiral was working with a financial advisor. Laura Grace Abels, specifically. She didn’t wave a magic wand, but she helped me take control of the things I could change investments, taxes, even negotiating better pay."
"I didn’t realize how much I was leaving on the table until she broke it down for me. It’s like, you can’t win in a rigged game, but you can still play it smarter."
That name sounds familiar. I’ve been thinking about getting some help it feels like the financial ladder is missing a few rungs these days. How did you even find her? And did it actually feel worth it, like cost wise?"
"Found her through a friend she works mostly with regular folks, not just high-net-worth types. She was super transparent about costs, no salesy vibes. And yeah, totally worth it. I started with a free session she offered, and it snowballed into some big wins even helped me plan out buying a home in this absurd market. I’d recommend looking her up online you’ll find her credentials and everything you need to know. With years of experience, she’s an incredible resource for anyone navigating the financial markets.
How is there not a single chart on combined government spending as % of GDP, or explosion of regulatory restrictions to the economy over time?
That is in fact a feature, not a bug. When you generate more money than yesterday, your boss’s pay goes up and yours stays the same. Thats the point of being a boss, you get paid for work other people are doing.
"It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it"
Except it actually did work and we know who ruined it and why.
George Carlin
"We went to bed with the American dream, and woke up in Nightmerica", Dax w/ Tom Macdonald, Propaganda
@@hurricanefury439 Women flooding the workforce actually ruined it. They overturned supply and demand for jobs to where employers could pay everyone less because there were so many people in "need" of work. Except the big scam was that women were being cared for by their husbands and didn't actually need to work in the first place.
Feminism ruined the American dream for everyone.
Yeah, George Carlin said that, and he was a millionaire....
The American Dream works if you avail yourself of it. It's not instantaneous and probably won't be easy. But it still works.
This may well be the most important video you've ever made.
Indeed, but I wish that wasn’t true
It doesn't take into account how technology makes workers less valuable but produces more, and it doesn't account for how the US now competes with other
countries that were poor in the 50s, or how policy could make the investment of the world go away because today the US is not the only place, it doesn't account
wasting money in wars or the future that has geopolitical uncertainty and how tech will make the worker even less valuable. We are talking of an entire
redefinition of society in a formula nobody knows while people overconsume and eat into oblivion(something that didn't happen in decades ago).
The problem is way more complex than just asking politicians for a solution they don't really know what it is
@@DuncanKassel the point of this comment/video is to get more awareness that there even is a problem. All these points are very valid and no, there is no easy solution, but it does give good insight into the current status
he didnt go into how the labor movement in this country , predominately led by socialist parties advocated , fought, and bled via strikes for the wages that were granted in the 1950s, spurned on by the fact that it was the average man who fought in ww2, and if his country truley cared for his sacrifice he would be rewarded.
right around 1980 during the height of the cold war, reagan and the anti union lobby tricked americans into thinking labor unions were anti america commie bullshit and steared public oppionion agianst the only thing that lead to the prosperity of the common american man.,
wish we would of went into that. the labor struggle in this country needs to be more widely known.
Leftists talk about this all the time, but great videos like this might help simpleminded rightoids to visualize it
I'm 29 and live with my parents. Even if I wanted to live by myself, there is no way I could afford it. And nobody wants to live with three strangers to make ends meet. This imbalance is destroying lives and plays a huge role in people not having children.
It’s terrible out there and I worry for my grandkids.
@es4242its as bad as you think
I think what used to be a luxury (e.g. clothes, electronics) are now cheaper, but the basics (food, shelter) and more expensive.
underated comment
Food was over 30% of your income in the 50s, today it's 10-15%. Housing is the big added cost it's risen from 9% to well over 20%. Whilst luxury items are cheaper people are probably buying more of them and spending more of their income on these things than what they did in the 50s.
I own a BMW, nice clothes, a lot of tech stuff but no real estate at all. My parents bought a house in 2000 for around 200k that has increased in price by 5x since.
I'd rather have a cheap house
They're actually not. It's just that people expect to buy more things with the same amount of money, are relatively same. The problem now is that people live beyond their means. They don't necessarily mean to, but they are driven to keep up with their neighbors and what they see on social media and TV. The average house isn't the same house you bought in the 1950s. The average house today is a thousand more square feet and is made of different materials and also cost more because of building codes. The only one anyone has to blame is the government and themselves.
@@MrDT82exactly! But you're expecting people to take responsibility for their actions for the problems they face. And that's a lost art in this country
The animations here are wonderful. Great work to the animator!
The wonderful Karla Núñez!
Totally agree! It really makes the message come through 🤩
@@johnnyharris Its refreshing to see animations and journalism together. Now I just need to worry about being able to afford a house.
The answer is clear. Get into the animation business hehe!
sound design as well! theres a different keyboard click for each era
America today in a nutshell: A guy making $140 million an hour tells a person making $40 an hour that everything what's wrong is in the world, is the fault of a person making $5 an hour.
Who the hell is making 140 million an hour. Even elon musk only makes between 1 and 6 million an hour. Are you talking about the Saudi princes or Satoshi Nakamoto?
Exactly.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
@@SynchronicitySequence Making a million an hour is still as outrageous as 140 million an hour....
I think he meant it as an exaggeration, but you don't have to do that. The cold reality of income inequality and don't forget wealth inequality is allready painful enough. And I don't think this is going to change in the next 4 years with all those billionaires in the oval office.
they expect absolute loyalty while treating you like an unworthy and expendable slave
Johnny - first off, you make incredibly well-produced, thought-provoking videos. The way you tell stories, frame the data, and bring big ideas to life is impressive and why I keep watching. Thank you for putting in the work to spark these conversations.
That said, I think this one oversimplifies a very complex topic. You’re absolutely right that income inequality has grown and mobility is harder than it was in the 1950s. The data you show is real. But I feel like the narrative you build around it leans heavily on the idea that capitalism itself is broken and that “changing the rules” is the solution - without ever really explaining what rules you mean or what changes would actually help.
The truth is, government spending on social programs has already risen dramatically since the 1950s (adjusted for inflation and per capita). We already have a highly progressive tax system, and the top earners pay the vast majority of taxes. And yet here we are, still dissatisfied with outcomes. If redistribution alone solved the problem, it should have worked by now.
I also think the story of the middle class today is more nuanced. Most people I know around my age (late 30s/40s) earn more than their parents did at the same age, adjusted for inflation - and they live in bigger houses, with far more technology, conveniences, comforts, and luxuries than their parents could have dreamed of. Yes, the gap to the top has widened, but that doesn’t mean the average person is poorer than before. It just means the richest have gotten richer faster.
And while you argue the American Dream is fading, I’d say it’s not dead - it’s just harder. The ladder is still there, but it requires grit, vision, and willingness to adapt to climb it. I do worry that the narrative you’re presenting discourages people from even trying, by painting the system as hopelessly rigged and implying that only more government can save them.
One other thing to point out - you yourself make a very healthy living by building your own personal brand and business on a platform run by massive corporations, in an economy that rewards creativity, risk-taking, and individual drive. That’s capitalism at work, and a great example of the opportunities that still exist.
We absolutely need to keep talking about fairness and opportunity. But that conversation also has to include personal responsibility, education, entrepreneurship, and the choices we make as individuals - not just policy and redistribution.
Thanks again for sparking this discussion - even when I don’t fully agree with your conclusions, I respect the way you raise the questions.
Thank you for injecting another perspective into a very complex topic. Like another poster said, way more young people go to college now, and college costs have become insane, hence massive student debt that holds our standard of living back. A discussion of "corporate greed" has to also include a discussion of bloated tuition and the higher-ed/student loan industrial complex.
@@SuperJolie2011 college is a scam. over-paid professors and administrators. at the same time they're giving degrees in BS subjects like underwater basket weaving and gender studies instead of STEM. Imagine trying to pay back 100K in student loans with an art history or lesb1an dance theory degree.
I’d agree with you about personal responsibility, if education were affordable. But the reality is, it isn’t anymore. People are drowning in student debt they’ll likely never pay off unless something changes soon. There are countries out there that show how much of a difference good policy and fair economic redistribution can make.
Are you actually saying that the top wage earners are paying their share of taxes? Really?!
Most people I know own a home and are doing well. I'm also friends with upper middle class white people that benefit greatly from generational wealth. Our anecdotes don't erase the data. Johnny's success doesn't dismiss the data. He is a talented creator, but he's also lucky. Plenty of talented creators do not succeed. Moreover, what security does he have? Many people today don't have access to secure jobs with benefits, they work in a gig economy where prosperity is always uncertain and you are disposable. This is unlike previous generations where such positions were more common and things like insurance and pension were expected. People were unionized and able to demand these things. Today, we are atomized and placated by our commodities. Yes, we have access to more conveniences and luxuries, but few people of my generation, gen Z, will be able to own a house, or likely any real appreciating assets. They won't be able to build wealth like our grandparents could. We are moving towards comfortable feudalism and corporations are the new lords. I agree that policy change is not the only answer to these problems, though it could help with home prices. In my opinion, unionizing to demand higher pay and benefits would be the best antidote, but people are too busy doom scrolling and engaging in political theater to make any real shift.
Love your channel. Thank you for the deep dives
Here’s the problem. Im 52, so I can only speak of my experience. In the 90s, I started selling cars, and made 55k. My wife worked part time. I was rich compared to my friends. Got married. Bought a house for $135k. Built a fence, fixed the deck. Remodeled it. Sold it for $185 a few years later. The devaluation of our dollar has made that same house worth $390,000 today. The house is still the same house. So, a 24 year old young couple has to pay $390,000 for the same house. They need to make $150,000 to be in the same position I was in. Do you know a lot of 24 year olds making $150k? The CEOs and the elites have robbed our children. The only answer is revolution. I can help my kids get ahead, but the system needs to be burned to the ground to help millions of children. We are all too busy fighting over color, and ethnicity when the real color to fight over is green.
I loved the way you explained. You are spot on. The top earners today are Indian immigrants. Tech jobs make them millionaires in 5 to 6 years.
Totally correct. Devaluation of the Dollar.
Interesting, I got a house at $280,000 in 2015 in California Not the 1990's in the 1990's I was in the US Navy and got the zero down guaranteed loan. Not guaranteed loan but no down payment.
And who are the elites? Who runs the banks, Blackrock, Vanguard, The Fed, Wall Street, Hollywood and the Tech CEOs? Don’t they all have a certain ethnic background?
Well said! While the fight over color, race, gender are important, we've done great work in them, now it's time to fight for income equality & against weaponization of AI.
George Carlin famously wrote the joke "it's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it".
Carlin said it best lol
The american dream was made for foreigners not Americans.
Yet he first said that in the 70s. According to Johnny, it was good then. So who was right?
1/3 feel that they've achieved it lol. And there's been many great anecdotes throughout the history of the US and still is. Less achievable? Sure but still a thing
Matrix
I blame Reagan for his infamous tax cuts for the rich. It's amazing that there are still people who think he was actually a good president.
Reagan has screwed the people, im glad there someone else sees this😊
Oh look! Someone that didnt go to college giving us an opinion 😂
Now we've elected a man who failed to address the issue in his first term and is dead set on cutting taxes even further lol
the people who think he was a good president are mostly the ones who benefitted from his tax cuts or who's family did
Honestly looking at the results of his policies he's probably even worse than notorious evil people in terms of suffering
When the top 1% can buy all the politicians, what difference does it make who we vote for.?
It really doesn't matter much on the national stage. But local elections have local ramifications. Vote.
Activate, educate, become radicalized. New York is with Mumdani in the lead for Mayor. It’s what people did in the 1940’s that caused all of those decades of prosperity and it’s what we can do today. When you choose not to vote for leftist policies and politicians you are willingly handing money and power to the right, to the oligarchs, and to the politicians they’ve paid for.
@@RoidedGay NYC has been a Democratic strong hold since 1898. Giving power to the right has never been the problem in any Democrat run city. But they got people like you so brainwashed you will be voting for them for the next 200 years just like LBJ wanted. A city that has a "billionares row" and you don't think the left pays out to the rich and powerful? 🤡
Vote Bernie Sanders. But we all know you brainwashed people won't do this since you believe he is a communist.
you continue to throw out the politicians to bring in new ones. The aggregation of the data with AI is going to make it easier to determine who to vote for, and probably help voters decide who's actually going to make a difference for the people. It's too early on to be discouraged.
There are so many young people really suffering and blame themselves for having 2 jobs and still barely getting by. Thank you for making this video to help them realize that the system is failing them way more than their efforts.
People still defend millioners when somone say about taxing them
I don't know anyone working two jobs. And if someone is working more than two jobs and the combined hrs only add up to 40 hours, is it? Considered two jobs.
And even not-so-young people! I’m 35, married with three kids. And I still feel like I’m underemployed when I compare myself to my parents’ hopes for me. So I not only feel like I’m letting my parents down, but my kids as well.
It’s tough out here for everybody. But if we are all just a little easier on ourselves and one another, we can get through it. God bless.
@@ddtstrc9678 In this society even working over 40hr in a minimum payed job makes you a looser and that is not OK. I manage a restaurant and the servers used to not even know the name of the support who are hard working people working two jobs and barely even getting by. Ridiculous! This is severely pronounced in US specifically and only makes everyone more unhealthy and worse people. People are disconnected and therefore the disparity.
@@derek4412 So True, no change can happen in legislation if we all exist like islands, disconnected and not caring for each other.
Top-notch animation, sound design and storytelling. One of the most pertinent JH videos so far. Keep it up folks!!!
Much appreciated!
All of that window dressing is irrelevant. It is the message that is important. If the eye candy is what you paid attention to, you didn't comprehend the information.
@@RayPointerChannel chill bro
@@RayPointerChannel If this message was new or useful to you, then I´m glad the "eye candy" did not detract from your understanding of it.
I wonder how long the average video takes to produce.
When it comes to housing, our houses have changed radically as well. I grew up in the 60 -70s. We lived in a 1,100 sq ft house. It was the average size house at the time. We never felt like we were poor. Now a house that size is considered small or tiny. Now most houses are twice that size.
1955: cashier employees can buy a big house and 3 cars
2025: cashier employees living in a car
Tht is literally not true at all. Where on earth did you get tht information 😂 you've completely lost the plot lmao
@@zerog1037ignorance is going to kill you faster than you think
@@WestonMeyer-n6xno cahsier from the 50s could afford to buy a big house and 3 cars 😂 thts why when I pressued you into giving up your source, you couldn't even provide haha
@@zerog1037 thats just hyperbole dude
Regardless of the specifics of the comment, what irritates me is that the people that were young adults/adults in the 1960’s will sit there and tell you “you gotta just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and do more” and “these kids are just lazy with their video games and phones”.
The more interesting question would be not if you are today better of then in the 50s but rather how much would you have today if the trend from the 50s has been continued until today.
Would love to see a video addressing this!
It's would be extremely better. Politics (tax politics) dictates who get more income, not technological advancement.
I hope somebody picks up on this idea!
Yeah that's a great idea
That's essentially what the Jetsons is about. They extrapolated from then current trends, and assumed people would be so much better off. Kind of sad looking back how optimistic it was...
22:02 My grandfather was so LUCKY that his working years were 1946-1978, the exact range of the best income equality, almost entirely due to the year he was born. He had it even better than I thought.
- Born 1926: Grew up in the aftermath of the Great Depression, so he learned early on - like starting at 8yo - to work hard, be frugal, and live modestly within his means.
- 1946: Enlisted right at 18 so he could choose a branch instead of being drafted to the front lines like his brother. Ended up in the Navy in the Pacific at the *very* end of WWII, entirely missing all combat.
- 1948: Left the military, used GI bill for some college but opted to not finish. Got a steady job with good benefits and pension at USPS like his uncle, and unlike his father who tried unsuccessfully to sell life insurance in the aftermath of the Great Depression.
- 1950: Switched to being a fireman for Los Angeles County, because he saw some guys hanging out on days when everyone else was reporting to work and saw a recruitment poster soon after that, which listed middle class pay for the time and good benefits similar to USPS.
- 1978: Retired from firefighting. His $60k annual income amounts to $300k in 2025. The houses he bought in the 1960-70s were ~$150k in 2025 dollars, or 6 months of pre-tax salary. In 2025, I make ~$70k and houses local to me are ~$725k+, or 10.4 years of income, a 20.5 fold increase. That's up from ~$400k just since 2020.
- 2025: Happily retired and living on two government pensions (federal and LA county). He was able to have an eventful retirement before moving into a comfortable assisted living facility. In his lifetime he was able to buy a series of houses, starting with a tiny starter home and moving up as his family grew in size. He'd work on and improve each one and then when it was time to move up he sold it for only a modest profit, which was put towards the next one. He always lived modestly and never over his means.
After I learned his income and average housing cost and then converted it to today's dollars, I told him about wages vs. costs now and how upside down the ratio is today. He was surprised by the contrast and finally understood why his daughter and granddaughters could never catch up to the same financial path as him. Neither of us knew just how perfectly he fit into those golden equality years. He got the ultimate middle class American Dream. I'll never get close.
A lot of his generation until about 30 years after don’t understand this which is a huge part of the problem
Wow 60k in 1978 was balling out lol. I could still live high on the hog in rural Ohio on 60k even in 2025. I could easily invest 2k a month in the markets and have a solid retirement. Sadly I'm lucky to make 40k a year lol.
And lived to 99 ?
My grandfather was born in 1924 and also enlisted into the Navy! What a time to be alive. He and my grandmother lived on a single income and raised 5 kids.
Not with that attitude. Remember his roots, he’s frugal - do you have an iPhone 15 or 16?
Also don’t forget pensions are EXPENSIVE. He’s got two, the city of LA and the federal government are/ did pay for his life you speak of
Thanks!
My grandpa, a mailman had 9 children, a large house with huge land around it, and sent all his kids to school
My dad, an electrician only had 3 kids, and with my mom (who was a factory worker) were only able to afford a subsidized public house that took 20 years to fully paid off
Me and my wife, both are employees, only have 1 child, still living in her parents' house, and barely make ends meet
So, no generational net worth?
What did your grandfather do with all the wealth he created?
Which choices did He do ?
@@someutubchannel69 I thougth the point of the American dream was you can make it, no matter whos your parents.
@@williaaamj well said
@@someutubchannel69 He had 9 children. The inheritance of even a very forward thinking working class person doesn't go far split 9 ways, and a lot of what average people accumulate during their lives is spent on retirement and end of life care.
Your dad was doing something wrong as an electrician. Electricians make more than any other trade. My dad is an illegal immigrant who is a painter drywall guy and makes 300k a year. I don't know a single electrician that ever struggled to make money.
I feel so hopeless as a young adult. I’ll never own a home or have enough money to raise a child. I can’t express how sad that idea is
Have kids regardless. You’ll make it work and once you do you’ll realize it’s all that matters in life. I feel you on home ownership though. It’s tragic
I see you and I feel you. I am a bit disturbed how undisturbed I am by the hopelessness that comes with being an adult. I am becoming indifferent to it now as I accept it.
Don't feel hopeless, my friend. I'm 58 and have watched this all happen. I've had a very challenging life and if you work at it you can have peace in any situation, almost. But I understand you want to thrive. I'll tell you how you do it. Throw yourself into building a community around you that is determined to ensure your children can buy a home. I promise you if you throw yourself passionately into that purpose, you will thrive.
@bornalawyer1 you didn't seem to get the point of the video. Its a numbers game. Odds are stacked against us in a way thas wasn't imaginable when you grew up
@@DailyPragmatism THIS IS THE WORST ADVICE I HAVE EVER HEARD doesnt matter if you can barely feed yourself or live life at all have kids anyways so they can share in the poverty wtf no dont do this
You know what it feels like? Like we’re all stuck in this never-ending loop. Wake up, work, eat if you can afford it, sleep if the stress doesn’t eat you alive. Repeat. Every single day. Meanwhile, the rich, oh, they’re out there getting richer in their sleep. Their money makes more money while we’re out here trading our time, our health, our lives for scraps. We work jobs that barely pay enough to survive, and even when we do everything right, study, work hard, play by the rules, it’s like we’re running in place. Rent goes up, food costs more, bills keep coming. And the government? Don’t even get me started. They sit in their offices, drawing up laws we didn’t ask for, rules that don’t protect us, they protect them. Their money. Their friends. Their status. And when we cry out? When we say, “Hey, we’re drowning here!” we get silence. Or worse, we get told it’s our fault. That we didn’t work hard enough. That we should be more grateful. Grateful for what? For surviving? For getting by with less and less while billionaires race each other to space?
They talk about progress like it’s for everyone. But we know better. Progress ain’t free. It’s built on our backs, our labor, our exhaustion. They profit from our pain, and then they tax us for it. We’re not lazy. We’re not entitled. We’re tired. Tired of the lies, the empty promises, the system that was never built for us in the first place. And all the while, they live above it all-safe, untouched, comfortable. While we live down here. In pain. Welcome to America.
You can become free.
I only work 9h a week now, I'm often on multiple day adventures sleeping outside , doing odd jobs here and there in exchange for food or supplies
I hate to tell you this, but all of that is essentially the same as it's been for the last century. And nobody profits from your pain except you. If this is so intolerable to you, why don't you do something to change your own situation? You live in the only place in the world where you can literally pursue anything you want to, as an avocation, or as a hobby. Recent generations ARE, in fact, considerably lazier than previous generations; regardless of why, younger people don't want to work. You don't work, you don't get nice things.
Dude cry me a river lolol
Sorry you have such negative comments in response from people who can't comprehend that people are struggling. I'm not from the US, but I hear you. It's a worldwide problem. I'm not against being rich and I think most people would be, competition is good to a degree but not the way it is portrayed in a dishonest way about how you can achieve anything at your disposal because that is simply not true. Sure it's easier than living in Africa, but downplaying your struggles as a way to be grateful for not having it worse is rude. Thanks for expressing yourself, and I wish you the best of luck at working through it in the best way that you can. I find happiness in knowing that I tried, even if it at times feels pointless and extremely selfish to only look after myself.
@@carterdawsonn weird that you can't comprehend emotions
I think another important thing to consider is happiness rates and life satisfaction. Just because people make more money, doesn’t mean they’re happier.
I think many studies show that in the aggregate, more money does lead to more happiness up to a point. THere is a law of diminishing returns but having enough money to not have to worry about basic needs is a big deal for well being
Its funny how the disparity starts when Reagan is in office
Liberalism baby...
It *all* always leads back to Rotten Reagan. The worst part is that the ghouls behind his policy, the Heritage Foundation, is *still* around ruining our lives to this very day.
It wasn't Reagan alone. A combination of going off the gold standard to pay for Vietnam and Milton Friedman now convincing everyone that "all income is earned" and thereby setting the course for increased financialization of the economy. Because, why work when you can just move money around on screens all day.
@@bobthebuilder9509I’m not a fan but it’s ridiculous to blame everything on him and none on anyone else afterwards
I thought it was Michael Douglas's fault when he said "Greed is Good" and no one contradicted him.
the editing on this video was phenomenal
I'm 35 and own nothing. Rental flat. Rental car. Rental TV. Rental life.
Yup still y'all are electing egocentric leaders in the UK... Reform.... Run down the country even faster. Sorry bro, I hope your situation gets better, surely doesn't seem like it
We feel you man
You'll own nothing and thank your boss for it!
Get a mortgage in a bad negihborhood, buy a house with 2-3 friend so that you can pay towards a house rather than juat rent. We are the same age, in Europe I've already paid 60% on the equity of my mortgage.
- On a flat in an apartment building, but I've head you don't have those in America.
@@dariusdareme You have heard correctly. We don't have apartment buildings in America.
I've never heard the American dream described as "making more money than your parents". Interesting.
Two big changes, “coincidentally” both happening under Reagan.
- War against unions.
- Changing the rules to allow mergers and leveraged buyouts effectively without limit.
Both have the clear consequence of growing inequality…
The very first leveraged buyout of Houdaville Industries involved the theft of employee pensions and healthcare. Never forget this fact.
Plus he dumped the fairness doctrine and FOX NEWS was born.
Always republicans. Always the conservative....
Economic booms were always under a replublican president. Now we have less than 1 percent of the population with mental illnesses. Those people believe a man can be a woman and vice versa.
@@Kluezeeand the other party does absolutely nothing for the majority, except tax the hell out of us.😂😂 😂
Great informative video. First time viewer. I once asked my mother in the 90's age 50 who grew up in latinamerica what she thought was the best invention ever. Much to my surprise she replied,
without hesitation, INDOOR PLUMBING. I was totally shocked and puzzled. I then realized that the answer lies in the past experience of the individual. As per me, I am a physician working long
hours and saving many lives daily only making a fraction of what the CEO of my hospital makes while working 8am to 4pm and golfing on the weekends. I've been to his meetings which don't amount to much. His salary is always growing and approved by the board members of the hospital who are his golfing buddies. This I believe explains the graph in your presentation. I see this heading towards civil unrest. God forbid. Thank you.
Your mother is correct. It doesn't even matter that she lived in places without indoor plumbing, She is just smart. You say you were shocked and puzzled by her answer, but you can't come up with a better one.
Your CEO makes whatever he makes because he's worth it to the business...salaries are generally based on the replacement cost of the individual. Like most people in Corporate America, you really have no idea of what a CEO (or any c-suite officer) actually does for the business, or why they are there. You think they get paid for sitting around drinking coffee. Lee Iacocca addressed this in his autobiography. When people said similar things about executives, his reply was, "not any of the ones I know."
@@jamesw1659 So is your brother in law a CEO. You mentioned Lee Iacocca, of which when he head Ford Motor's made the company a lot of money. But I guarantee he did not design the ford mustang, or other cars that the public wanted. He just saw it as a good design that he rubber stamped, while the people that had the real creativity and hard work probably had a modest pay raise.As far as I'm concerned most CEO's are over paid bums, that take some one else's hard work and steals the lions share.
@@kerrryschultz2904 People are paid what they’re worth for the most part. I will give you that there is an exception when it comes to hospitals, big pharma and insurance. Other than that, all corporate guys I know work nonstop. Like, miserable lives except for the lavish vacation once or twice a year if they can get away. Everyone has a master my friend. If your master says no Bahamas, you cancel.
@jamesw1659 that's what suckers believe and say. It's time for you and those who believe as you do, to wake up. You're not part of their club, and you nor your children will ever be. Globalists like those who continue to fool people like you into believing that BS, will continue to steal from the people while telling you that they deserve their ill-gotten gains.
Johnny's best video. This needs to be seen by everyone
Gary Stevenson is an ex banker who's advocating for wealth tax to make places more equal from the 1% to the average person
I think the Norway army video was great though and the mettalic blocks on the sea tooo
Its currently #18 trending video here on RUclipss trending page.
Thank you. Very good work. We probably have a very similar situation in UK too.
Genuinely got more relevant education from this guy than school
School should have given you the skills to research this kind of information on your own if you payed attention
@@scharpmeisteroh yeah i know but you kinda need money to do this type of research and fun fact most schools don’t teach that 😂😂
@@henareacts3330 the internet is free
maybe pay more attention???
@@henareacts3330Nah, you really don’t. Libraries are full of books and computers… for now.
What recently shocked me is my friends job started hiring again for their starter positions and I asked him how much they are starting off at and he said 19$ an hour. I remember about 3 years ago they were hiring for the same exact amount. Blew my mind, in 3 years their starting wage didn’t go up a single cent. It’s a factory job.
If it was a union job then that could be correct as sometimes set wages are negotiated for the entirety of a contract and then adjusted and negotiated for the next contract.
@@IndependantMind168That’s the crazy part they’re not union. The company isn’t stretched for cash either. They just refuse to hire for more
@@yeert6931are there people that will work for that pay? Then that's thr economy. I dont like it either but the market and economy sets the wage of that job. If it was a higher skill job it would be less workers suitable and would pay higher. But it is what it is
@@raymondqiu8202 The point is that it doesn't need to be that way. We don't need to lie down while the top 1% amasses large and unnecessary amounts of wealth. That's what unions are for, but union power has been heavily degraded across the country
Union jobs increase pay more over time than nonunion jobs. But yes it can come in the form of a spike followed by a flat period.
This sounds like trickle-down economics - the idea that if you tax the rich less, they’ll reinvest their savings to grow the economy and create jobs. In theory, the wealth is supposed to “trickle down” to everyone else. But honestly, it feels like the only thing trickling down is the excuse to keep widening the gap.
Instead of raising taxes, government should raise minimum wages and pressure businesses to pay workers more. Taxes are good and all, but who knows where those go. On the other hand, if you raise salaries it would benefit the little man and stop this idiotic credit slavery
@gamanzhiydanil then they'd just raise prices... Making the whole point moot... An alternative could be stronger unions, union jobs pay on average 25% higher, than the non union equivalent. The only thing what scares companies into playing fairly is the idea of there entire workforce striking...
One thing that debunks trickle down economics is, a rich person can only buy so many things. There’s only so many televisions, fridge freezers, mobile phones, laptops, cars, entertainment tickets, even coffee that one person can buy.
But divide that rich persons wealth with a million people and then between them they can buy millions of televisions, fridge freezers, mobile phones, laptops, food and entertainment.
This is how you stimulate an economy.
@@ShazzaCNRyep, unions are definitely the best way to protect workers. And all the rich hate unions. Ultimately, there are many ways to deal with the rich.
Alright lets say they raise the minimum wage to 100 dollars an hour. What happens next you think? Would the lower income suddenly be able to afford more or would every single business raise their prices with the same amount? and then achieve nothing because even with 100 an hour you still at that point can afford just as little as before. Taxing the rich and giving that money to the public through free education and healthcare is the way to go.
This is the 2nd video this week that blames the rise in inequality on the 80s and not coming off the gold standard in the 70s.
1000% correct!
I heard an economist say elsewhere that from after ww2 to present was an anomaly. It had always been the rich who owned everything and the poor who make the rich richer. There was no middle class before the 50's. We are in the process or returning to that model but we dont notice as the correction takes place over half a human lifespan.
what we call the middle class today didn't really start to form until the 1920s.
Interesting. Seems that economist might be right. There used to be many industry magnates like rockefeller and carnegie
Mostly correct. The period from 1945 (end of WW2) to early 70s was an anomaly. Unlike Europe, which was in shambles, the US was mostly untouched (Pearl Harbor) during WW2. So at the end, America stood as an economic colossus and this lasted for decades...
Eventually, other countries improved their economies, and then Reagan started and accelerated an excessively pro-corporation agenda. Game over.
Thomas Picketty’s Capital In The Twentyfirst Century discusses that.
Basically we should tax the wealthy more, it’s quite literally excellent for the economy
how can you say this when we don't really have any reliable economic data for most of human history. civilizations started 10,000 years ago yet you only look at not even the last 1,000 years of economic data and say this is normal.
Our country didn't get rich. Certain people got rich. Saying the whole country got rich implies that we're all living our best lives, and that is certainly not anywhere close to the case.😂
You act like rich equals living your best life. The truth is the top 1% have the highest addiction rates, suicide rates, and are generally the unhappiest group of all the different income brackets. I don't think it's nearly as great as people think it is.
The whole country still got upgrades in terms of facilities and all
Q: what did you purchase this week that you did not need... Starbucks, cable 159 channels, 8th pair of sneakers, uber eats????? It is a keeping up with the jones lifestyle. What phone is in your hand right this very moment???? We ALL have money most just spend it foolishly. We got dumber not smarter .
@@stormfield9431lol statistics show that avoiding a morning coffee before work will not help you afford a home. Get real boomer. Shit ain’t the same anymore.
@@stormfield9431 What does that have to do with their comment about income disparity? People buying things they don't need has nothing to do with the fact that they aren't paid enough, even if they avoid unnecessary purchases, to afford a home.
Two things not mentioned in the video, besides houses getting out of reach for many near the bottom: health care and college tuitions have increased in price way faster than inflation. All three of these trends are major game changers for middle and low income earners. (One could argue health care is much better now, IF one can afford it.) Over time, these forces will push many more into poverty.
@@adarchitect you are confusing quality of life and standard of living.
@@marcgruppe5783nope you’re on a phone point proven lol ask anyone in the 50s if they liked radio only and cold medicine for cancer
Price increased because of student loans. Since now everyone can get a mega loan to study universities crank up the price cause you can afford it with borrowed money. You are effectively competing with other poor people willing to borrow more. If you stop borrowing the bubble will burst
Good point. Student debt has a lot to do with it. Something that was not a factor back then.
as long as you dont move out of the country, you dont have to pay your medical debt immediately. itll go on your credit for a little while and then drop off. this has saved me in a very bad situation
I was born in 1990. Financially, my family was ok. We weren't rich. We had out struggles. But we got by (until the economic crash in '08). I, along with many others in my generation, were fed that American Dream from society and school. And we believed it. I know I did. I did well in school. I was a hard worker. I went to college and got a degree... to only find struggle and debt after. And I know I'm not the only one with this story. I got married and my husband and I still struggle. To buy a house and start a family sounds like a literal dream and not a reality we can achieve. And trust me, it's not for a lack of trying. To see, in this video, the lines breaking apart in the '80s makes me feel like I, my husband, our friends, and so many others never had a chance. Not unless they were lucky and maybe had support. It's heartbreaking and, honestly, infuriating because our generation and younger generations were blamed and continue to get blamed for work ethic and not spending our money to help the economy. But what money? We work and work and barely get by. The oligarchy needs to end. Stop stealing the working class' money! We the people need to continue to rise up together and fight back. And I know this is only one part of the battle. There's so much to fight for right now. But together we can stop all of this!
My grandmother was a SAHM, my granddad was a janitor, yet they could afford a house and 6 kids and a car. My mom was a SAHM my early years, then worked in a daycare. My dad was a low skilled laborer. Purchased own house in the late 70s. 2 cars. 4 kids. My brother has an education (physiotherapist), lives in a rental, still paying off student debt at 40, no kids.
This is amazing. I was born in 76. I’ve 5 kids. My oldest are in their mid 20’s - youngest in high school. This is just the video I immediately sent to them bc it was done so well and explains so much! Well done. That was great! Well informed, researched and put together. Hats off to ya
Trust me I think your kids are well aware of what's going on
Cringe
give them your money boomer
I don't think born in 76 is a boomer@@realevents123
your kids know you had it better than them
It would be very tough to find something more educational, better quality and more professional than this youtube channel. Great job Johnny! I hope your hard work will continue paying off! Wish you the best of luck!
No video needed 1955 hands down!!
People actually had a chance back then
As an automotive technician, I make more than my dad ever did.
He was a metrologist, had a steady job, was in demand for private airports for weather forecasts for airplanes. This was back in the 80's. I think his take home pay every 2 weeks was like $1100 after taxes.
We had a nice house, good health insurance and dental ( thank you, dad), decent cars, and basically had what we NEEDED.
I make about $1000 a week, struggle with the mortgage, car insurance, gas, electric bill in Texas ($300-400 a month in summer, which is 8 months out of the year), drive old cars and rarely go on vacation.
Damn it....I miss the 80's.
You said that you make more money than your dad did in the 1980's. However, that may not be true, if you take inflation into account. Comparing 1980 with 2025, the purchasing power was 3.9 times as high then than now. If your dad made $2200 per month, you should make $7000 or more to match that.
To be honest, $4000 per month is not a really good income these days in a Western country. I'm living in the Netherlands, and I'm glad that I now have a desk job that makes pretty good money, compared to my previous job outside, where I had to work much harder and got paid substantially less. My wife does not have to work, as my income suffices, but that's also due to the fact that we both tend to be frugal, saving money to get the mortgage totally settled.
By the way, your electric bill is about $300 to 400 per month during summer? That's because of the constantly running air-conditioning, I guess. Or, is the kWh-price in summertime just considerably higher, because everyone is using more power then? What about solar panels? Many here have got themselves their roofs covered with panels, running their airco to get the house chilly during daytime, so that it remains nice during the evening, and the airco can run almost idle, not spending too much power from the grid.
As a person with an economics degree, this vid\docu slaps! You won't be hearing about sources on TV, but this is what objective reality looks like. Too bad we've switched to subjective, huh?
That’s just like, your opinion, man
As someone who did deep dive into the economics during my course, I can say with confidence that we are lied to so much or more likely being told by people who haven't fully understood the situation.
Things like distance don't matter all that matters is COST.
That means a screw from across the planet will be bought over one that is from 1 street over.
Yes, goods & services from one country fill gaps in other countries economies and everyone had been participating effectively until the board has been upset by tariffs or the threat thereof
To clarify, distance does matter, but only to the extent that it alters cost.
@@SigFigNewtonwhile true in some ways it's extremely hypocritical all round.
Take Steel for example, Recycled steel is more valuable because it makes other projects look better for thing like climate change .
Great it is a great idea until you get people ripping up perfectly good items, for example the was a railline that made in a city park that was popular with kids made almost 200k a year just doing a show tour of the local area for tourists.
It was built about 50 years ago, well maintained and still 100% functional.
He sold it 2 years ago as the owner was 80. 3 bids and the guy who bidded first/won scrapped it all for 3m
The top effective tax rate for the rich in 1955 was about 42%. The “published” marginal tax rate was ~91%… which no one paid.
This whole video is lopsided trash
And those rates were lowered in the 1960s....the economy grew faster *and* the government collected more tax revenue.
*Actually that still highlights the inequality, as the top tax rate 37% and many of the 1% richest people pay anywhere from 15% to 0 ZERO!* Tax cuts, loopholes, claiming no income but living off interest of millions in investments etc.
@@2Bluzin and yet the top 10% pay 72% of the income tax dollars the IRS collects.
@@jasonbrannen7598 And yet the gaslighting continues as it's not the dollar amount of how you evaluate a contribution but the percentage that each person contributes to society.
I think this was really well done. I just think there’s two points you didn’t mention or include (seemingly unintentionally):
1. Your examples for a middle income worker doesn’t factor in the number of middle income workers who grow into high income workers throughout the course of their career, and;
2. The number of high income workers over time in your sample data for your graphs. For example, as high income wages increase, how much is that per high income worker in 1980 vs. 2010.
The expectation is that low income workers grow into middle wage workers and then eventually grow into high income workers. If there was a significant increase in productivity, there’s probably some correlation to an increase in high income workers, causing the disparity to increase.
In pure economic terms the average person in the USA had it better in 1955. One could work as a shoe salesman and make enough money to purchase a house (made out of brick with 3 bedrooms and two bathrooms), pay the mortgage of the house, have two cars, have a stay-home wife, and support 2 children. Also, in 1955 that shoe salesman could save enough money for a decent retirement, have enough money to pay the kids college costs, travel once a year to visit relatives, and enjoy a summer family vacation! Because of inflation, political corruption, corporate greed and economic malfeasance, this is no longer the case.
Inflation has nothing to do with it.
You must be kidding🤦🏽♂️@@Optamizm
@@Optamizminflation has nothing to do with it? Inflation is the biggest culprit.
Strip away the 70-inch TV, the iPhone plan, the TikTok-tax of streaming subscriptions, the 2,400-sq-ft climate-controlled house, and the eight airbags in the garage, and the 1955 budget suddenly looks laughably small. The “average” post-war home was barely 1,000 sq ft-less than half today’s new-build norm-yet people still griped about heating bills and window units because central air was almost unheard of, with national AC penetration under 15 % versus 87 % today. Cars had no belts, let alone airbags, and they killed drivers at roughly five deaths per 100 million miles, quadruple today’s rate, so you paid for “cheap” wheels with a much higher chance of dying in them. Consumer-expenditure surveys show we now devote a third of income to sprawling, gadget-stuffed houses and ladle thousands more into data plans, leisure travel, pet boutiques, and espresso habits that literally didn’t exist in ’55. Live like a fifties shoe clerk-900 sq ft brick box, no internet, one black-and-white TV, meat-and-potatoes dinners, one beater car you hand-crank windows on-and a modern median income would feel downright plush, leaving gobs of cash for investing, early retirement, or whatever 21st-century luxuries you still decide are worth it. In other words, it isn’t the economy that priced us out of the bargain; it’s our appetite.
@@fernandomarturet2486 it's not inflation because as you can see the money is there it's wealth consolidation that stole people's wages
In the late 1990s, my dad made $120k salary and he bought my childhood home for $230k, where he raised a number of kids and had a stay at home wife. I live in the same neighborhood 30 years later and make more than my dad ever did, but my exact childhood home is now $1.2m and living in this neighborhood absolutely requires dual income and expensive childcare. You have to make the choice whether you want to have kids or live a life better than you grew up with. The second you decide to have kids, the rat race begins until you die.
Honestly, if you’re willing to live in “flyover country” and can make a comparable income, that’s probably the key to prosperity, but most young people want to live close to major cities, even if their company has a St. Louis, MO or Lincoln, NE branch office.
Having kids would mean a modification of your lifestyle regardless of your income.
he made $120K in 1999? that's $232K in 2025. y'all were rich
Technically is the dual income actually needed to live there? Unless your spouse makes more than what it costs for childcare along with less time to deal with taking care of the home and meals and spending time as a family.
1980’s can be summed up by the quote "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good" famously spoken by Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko in the 1987 film Wall Street.
Things are provenly more expensive today as it is more difficult to purchase a home. On the flip side, I think back to when my parents bought their first home in 1957 for $19,000... a suburban 3-BD, 1 BA 1,000 sf home with a basement, no garage. My dad paid for this on tradesman pay of what? $3.50 an hour? But life was also a lot less materialistic back then, simpler in many ways as they "needed" fewer things and experiences. Contrast to 2025. I can't begin to list out the "necessary" items we commonly pay for today... every kid a cellphone, electronic gadgets, multiple cars (we had 1 many years); pricier vacations, going out to eat, Starbucks, etc; memberships and subscriptions, more groceries every 4 days than my mom would buy in a month, club sports for kids, new clothes instead of hand me downs, Credit card interest, etc. Not saying many people today aren't still frugal... just saying collectively there is excess spending today that adds to some of the financial pain.
1000 sq.ft.? A basement? You were rich! Probably had 2 tv sets, too. We didn't get a second set - a small one in the kitchen - until I was 15 in '65.
The groceries were probably healthier too back then than now.
So I don't know if you know this but you literally need a phone for jobs now...
This inequality started in the 1970s. What happened in the 1970s. We completely went off the gold standard and to total fiat currency.
We also decided that wealthy people needed to keep all of their money. We cut their taxes until they stopped existing while forcing normal people to cut corners off of a circle.
@@Tähestikuline_järjekord we didn't decide that, the rich and elected did.
@@Tähestikuline_järjekordthe tax code does not contribute to income inequality since taxes are assessed after the income is already made.
@@raymondmeyers8983 The tax code affects more than just income tax. Lower corporate rates increase after-tax profits, which go to shareholders and CEOs and contribute to income inequality.
And that was the moment our currency went from being based on shared assets, to being based on government debt (which is ever increasing rapidly).
the Yugioh LP sfx on income digits is underrated
Yeah I notice that too! Hahahah
He did it in his wealth comparison video too!
True that!!!
I literally said Johnny is knocking off some of my life points when I heard it 😂
Came to the comments to look for this
I'm relieved someone is finally talking about this, I felt trapped by my life and I felt guilty for everything that happened to me. As someone who studies stats and economics a great deal, I am relieved. I loved the animation, narration and factual accuracy, you've all come a long way since that Christopher Colombus video.
I would have liked to see the employment rate, which is also lower than ever. An important caveat is that Inequality, Labor force participation, housing affordability, and economic growth have all gotten worse as the US has become a richer country in part because the richer a country is, the harder it is for it to grow. The countries with the highest growth rates are normally lower/middle income countries like India/Indonesia. South Korea and all the four asian tigers had their had day when they were poorer and then their growth rates flattened out, labor force participation rates went down quicker, their inequality got worse etc etc in the 2000s.
However, the Inequality problem is particularly bad in the US owing to neoliberalism, a phenomenon which occurred in the entire english speaking world (E.G. Ireland/UK/Australia/Canada) while Eastern Europe, and Continental western Europe have both retained low Gini indexes.
Labor force participation and inflation have been problems for the entire developed western democratic world, with only Singapore, Hungary, Poland and to some extent east asia managing to escape it in any meaningful way.
Gracias por todo Juan, siempre es un placer ver tus videos, que te vaya bien, hasta luego! :)
"Inequality, Labor force participation, housing affordability, and economic growth have all gotten worse as the US has become a richer country in part because the richer a country is, the harder it is for it to grow."
Syria's Price to Income is over 100, Ethiopia's, Cuba's, and Cameroon's are over 40, UK's is 9, US's is 3.3
Some of this jargon is over my head but it is fascinating to me. I wonder if increases in population make it harder for everyone to share wealth so everyone gets less? I don't know if population is up or down right now compared to the 50s.
Check out Gary's Economics or, hey, Bernie Sanders....
Isnt it unfair though to compare the same placeconsidering the average lifestyle changes? Prosperity should increase but i feel like its really hard to compare the same place considering how much the community changed.
Comparing things like Kansas vs Minnesota is pretty fair.
Kansas tried trickle down coming out of the Great Recession, Minnesota tried increasing the minimum wage and increasing taxes on people with money.
Minnesota thrived, Kansas did not.
This is such a good video concept
If there is one thing I know about economics and come to realise having studied economics in college, its that a bigger economy isn't always a good thing.
More people getting a disease that is expensive to treat might increase GDP
BUT BIG NUMBER IS GOING UP
@@SigFigNewtonbut then they would spend less on consumer products and if the worst case scenario happens they are out of the economy and that effect will put a bigger dent into gdp so disease does reflect harm
Exactly-bigger GDP numbers don’t mean better lives when most of the gains vanish into thin air at the top.
That turning point is where the gold standard was removed 1971 for international exchange
Came here to say that as well
This
Actually the reason Nixon took us off the gold standard was because the war in Viet Nam was costing 90 millilon dollars a day. Nixon did not want to raise taxes to pay for the war because he thought he would be running fo office again and he knew if he raised taxes it might cost him the election. So by halting the gold standard the government could just basically start printing money which they are still doing today.
Skyrocketing costs + stagnant wages + PR-driven policies = the one-percent’s playbook. We’re all on the wrong end of that deal.
Can’t believe there’s no mention of this in the video tbh…
And Americans that I work with every day are so entrenched in this nightmare reality that they consider Europeans “lazy” for having 30+ days off a year and actually having a work/life balance.
In Europe the economy is for the people.
In the US people are for the economy.
The economy in Europe to the one in the US is like what the Democrats are to the Republicans; slightly less shit
Would definitely prefer the European work/life balance
Yes and no. Europe is doing better than America we’re still on the same trajectory
And Europe is failing.
@@EricWeissgarber-ib1rmno it isn’t?
Great video with compact information. 3 things that I see impacting the ability of young families to progress are
1.) The cost of college (4x more than the in the seventies.)
2.) The cost of daycare
3.) The cost of healthcare.
TAXES!
As Americans we need to stop thinking about red and blue, we need to focus on what person has policies that benefit Americans and not top earners, voting just because it says Republican or Democrat does not help us one bit, focus on who makes the most sense when it comes time to vote. Please people for the sake of our collective futures.
That's what we did. The majority who don't care about politics realized democrats would rather give money to immigrants and gender studies so they voted Trump. Is he actually for the people and going to change things? I'm not sure. At this point we might have to consider that it doesn't matter who we vote for and that there's evil people behind the scenes who really are the one's controlling our future.
I agree, but we're tired. Most people don't want to and really don't have the energy or time to do an in depth analysis of political candidates. People are trying to do something, but it's tough.
The fact is that this guy always focus on the negativity of the one political party well ignoring that the policy of the opposite party that he mentioned has affected a lot in the divergence
Gary’s economics has been preaching this for some time now
Gary is the GOAT
and many many many others before him
Who is he
I agree with Gary as well. From an American perspective, we have our class system here as well, but it does look a little different. Ours involves a lot of corporations on top, as well as some families. The Trump family, right now, is just the most outwardly corrupt at this point.
@raymond
I think that’s the name of his RUclips channel, so you can learn who he is.
Ex Wall Street guy pointing out the detrimental impacts of wealth inequality.
The 91% tax rate was a high headline number, but it didn't translate to actual collected revenue at that rate due to its limited application, tax code loopholes, and incentives for tax avoidance. While this doesn't mean that the wealthy paid significantly less in taxes compared to today (with effective rates in the 1950s still potentially higher than now), it clarifies why the top marginal rate didn't reflect the true tax burden..
agreed, very few people actually paid that 91%. It was really designed to encourage businesses and owners to re-invest profits and create more jobs, rather than declare profits and get hit on tax. High tax rates also encouraged businesses to begin offering non-cash remuneration to employees, such as company funded cars, health insurance etc. That also encouraged the growth of the auto and private insurance industries
Back then they cheated their way down from 91% to 40%
Now they cheat their way down from 40% to 0%
Excellent, as always. High quality, well researched, accessible. 👍
13:44 it doesn't just "start" around 1979, it is *created* by the [austerity] and trickle down economics of the Reagan era. Breezing past this is criminal! What happened in the early 80s was the catalyst for much of the inequality we see today.
We need to understand the causes!!!! Not just to say "look at this inequality that's happening, that's pretty bad huh?"
This video could have been so much more than following some graphs through time.
Edit: @thinktankdonahue brought up a good point.
Austerity is not the best way of conveying the dire consequences of the Reagan era. His destruction of unions, along with the decimation of other predistributive policies and regulations were far more desastrous for the american people. His annhialation of labor market regulations and educational investments among other things had a far greater effect than his cuts to social spending.
America continues to put more money into redistribution than other countries - even though it has far worse levels of inequality. Using the word austerity was not the best way of conveying Reagan's destructive force.
This is what i find troubling about neoliberals. They are able to point out the problems without telling you the reasons those problems exist in the first place. It then funnels people to the right since they don’t know any better.
YAY, reaganomics!
I personally think he made it abundantly clear the exact year Reagan took office. I think he is trying to stay politically neutral so that people will see it for themselves and accept it and do something about it rather than taking
the chance on them seeing it as an attack on their party and immediately push back. Anyone that cares about this enough to vote, could easily figure out why it started and who is responsible. And then let the knowledge expand organically so that people listen and own the knowledge. Could he have mentioned trickle down economics without mentioning Reagan. Yes, I think so. But since he didn't, it's up to people like us to propagate the message and the cause. Let's get to it.
I'm glad you said it. It was the first thing that came to my mind and Iwas waiting for Johnny to say it, but he didn't. Neoliberalism is the worst thing that has happened to us.
@@dampaul13We found a rich guy. Hi rich guy. I don't blame the rich for the wealth gap, I blame the government and the people that voted for it. All I can say to you is that I've never seen a hearse with luggage racks. Where you put your treasure, there your heart will be there also. Be well.
21:45, We DIDN'T change that. Do not mistakenly assume that corporations of the 1950s and 1960s truly "cared" about the workers. Economically, the technology of the 1950s/60s had a major role in shaping the workforce and production methods. While machines were becoming more advanced, the real productivity boom came from the cooperation between human labor and machines. Humans were essential in operating machinery, making decisions, and applying creativity to the production process, while the machines amplified productivity and efficiency. This symbiotic relationship created a balance where both labor and capital were crucial. In this system, corporations were dependent on their employees for output, and employees, in turn, enjoyed stable, well-paying jobs to support their families and livelihoods.
In a capitalist system, the necessity of this balance meant that corporations had a vested interest in treating their workers well. Employees were the driving force behind production, and without their involvement, the machines and technology alone could not generate such profits. As a result, it was in the companies’ best interest to offer good wages, benefits, and job security to maintain a motivated workforce. For many workers, this relationship created a sense of stability, even as the broader economic landscape and policies shifted. This dynamic of mutual dependence between labor and capital, however, began to deteriorate in the following decades, as automation and global competition forced companies to seek cheaper labor and push for more efficiency. This shift marked the end of the post-WWII period of shared prosperity and set the stage for growing inequality in the years that followed.
Corporations have existed to benefit the owners of capital, before the 1950s and after the 1960s. There was just a unique crossroad for a couple of decades where the two (labor and capital) needed each other. It's easy to see how a typical worker who started in the workforce in 1952 and retired in 1987 could mistake companies treating her/him well in the first two decades of work as benevolent...but that never existed, it was a means to an end. I understand there were some individual owners of capital who did care for employees, but obviously that was the exception and not the rule.
It’s the sad truth of this economy
Best comment and perfect addition to the video. As humans are less needed, they are paid less.
@@gustavobonato And to add to that: this is why we should not be worried about the birth rate. Only billionaires will stand to gain with more people on this earth. When the population goes down, people will have a better chance at a job and at better pay and conditions. Will it ultimately be enough? I don’t know, but raising global population is certainly not going to help things.
So, you don't think tax cuts make a difference? What about unions? Sure technology does make differences but to ignore the massive policy changes is just dishonest.
@5:33 "All 3 of these income brackets, are increasing their income rate, at the same rate." says this guy in the video.
This has NEVER happened, EVER, with the Wealthy. They've ALWAY taken more. I don't understand where these "Facts" come from, lol.
My paternal grandparents came to West Germany from Southeastern Europe in 1957. A certified pediatric nurse and a welding specialist. To quote my Greek grandmother: “Your grandfather and I had your dad in my belly and a suitcase full of dreams.”
They didn’t speak German (Croatian and Greek only), and both had to work. But they raised four children, saved enough money to pay off a five-room-apartment in what back then (and today) is one of the most expensive parts of Southern Germany, as well as bought property in Dalmatia and built a house there, that is now worth over €1.5 million. Without a university degree, without basic language skills, they owned real estate in two countries, a BMW, a Mercedes and a boat. That was in 1982.
A generation later, my father (born 1958) went to university in Germany, earned a degree, had always been employed, and just recently paid off his apartment; given, after my mom’s passing, he re-married and started a new family.
A generation later, I (born 1982) went to a private high school, studied in four countries, earned three university degrees, became fluent in several languages, and can only afford rent (though, in a very wealthy Swiss neighbourhood).
My “social mobility”, is incomparable to my grandparents and parents. I lived between wealthy grandparents and successful parents, who were able to support us in every way. From private music lessons to sailing lessons and fencing. Everything my siblings, cousins and I wished for, we were granted.
Today, with three passports, both - doors and opportunities - are open to me, that my grandparents could’ve hardly imagine back in their youth. The farthest they got to travel was Greece. But they did so in their own car.
I’ve been to over sixty countries thus far (studied in four and lived in seven thanks to my profession) and still would have to take a loan to buy a new Mercedes. My purchase power will never match that of my grandparents or even my parents. I never owned a car, nor a boat, nor could I afford to buy a house in the Mediterraneans.
But yes, unlike my grandparents, I don’t have to work night shifts, or weekends or holidays, and I have six weeks of paid vacation, while my grandparents had only four. They absolutely earned their wealth.
Amazing story
Grüezi aus Züri! 🇨🇭
@taquinsuisse Salut de Genève! Grüezi uus Gänf! Saluti da Ginevra! 🇨🇭
$84,000 for a house in 1950?? My parents bought a large Cape Cod house in 1973, in NJ for $28,000 and it was considered newly built. The average annual salary in 1950 was approximately $3,300, according to the Census Bureau. The $41k is really the avg salary today equal to what would the $3k annual salary be in the 50s
He adjusted all costs for inflation..the $84k is 2025 dollars
This was excellent, here are suggestions for 2 related videos:
1) the main reasons/policies that brought about this inequality,
2) the method to partially reverse said inequalities, and I'm not only referring to rules/policies but how to create consensus (or significant public support) around the goal and ways to achieve said reduction in inequality. In other words, how to overcome the political polarization on order to set ambitious goals for society.
Agreed!
Absolutely 💯
1) The abandonment of the dollar to a fixed standard of measurement, which is the base of every economy. We've adopted a fiat currency standard. Since its inception, we've seen worker productivity increase while wages remain stagnant. Wealth has been funneled out of different sectors of the economy and placed into others. The ever encroachment of inflation eroding the dollar has stripped wealth from production into assets. Now those who produce can't even afford those assets. By fueling the economy with easy credit expansion, it causes prices to rise that is purchased with that credit until wages alone can no longer support the purchasing of those assets. That's why you see a drop in the standard of living.
2) We must reverse course. Of course, GDP and other conventional measures of the economy will indicate a recession, but wealth will begin to return to the producers. There will certainly be a downturn, as credit-fueled assets and jobs disappear, but the economy will start to stabilize and eventually bounce back. GDP is not a reliable measure of economic health-if it were, the recessions of 1946 and 1964 would appear worse than the Great Depression. Yet those years are widely remembered as the golden age of American prosperity.
Many economists have predicted what is happening now. However, those most concerned with the wealth gap are typically on the left, while these particular economists are on the right. As a result, people on the left simply won’t listen. But neither will politicians on the right. The right will continue to ignore the problem, and the left will turn to the simplistic solution of government force for problems that are far more complex.
@@davidrush333good points 👍 part of my suggestion for a second video pertains to ways, approaches to make the right/left divide manageable, to break the political gridlock and standoff in order for smart apolitical solutions to be easily adopted and implemented.
I think this type of work - methods to reduce polarization in a society, which then opens the door of meaningful reform - is in the field of journalists, historians, and even writers and artists!
I'm literally only 2 minutes into this intro and I know this is one of the best videos you've ever done...
Not goal-posting you... This is just showing how much you've done to hone your skills.
Thank you for always doing the work to share fun and fact based videos that can help people learn about things that sometimes are pushed back against.
You really have outdone yourself here. Please, keep yourself refreshed and do not burn out... Your work is getting to a point where it is SO VALUABLE to people who refuse to learn from friends, and maybe they stumble upon one of these videos and learn about disparity, income, wealth, global issues, everything...
And two minutes in, you were EXACTLY RIGHT. I am going to post this all over Facebook.
Appreciate that-you can tell the intro’s tight when it hooks you in seconds. Feels good knowing the craft landed right away.
The team absolutely killed it with the visuals and animations for this video. Bravo!
Your best video so far, in my opinion. Full of meaning, backed by solid data. On top of that, it's visually fun and very clear. Amazing work. Well done!
This deserves way more views. Absolutely underrated
The outcome of this video:
1. Reagan screwed everything since the income inequality started to show up blatantly in the 1980s.
2. Changing the current situation by-election as Johnny stated at the end of the video is a huge myth, since a) you can't convince a senator benign funded by big corporations to change the laws against them, and b) the voting us ruled by a majority of uneducated people (loved mostly by republicans BTW) who can easily be manipulated by politicians into voting against their interests for more benefits to the top 1% of the rich and fewer benefits for the 99% of the people.
In another way: the American dream is dead, unless you are the child of 1 of those 1%ers.
It can't just be the fault of one politician, after all this has occurred in every developed country in the whole world. You need a deeper explanation.
It wasn't Ronald Reagan who screwed everything, it was Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt.
@@diplodocus462 point b) explains it ALL for EVERY country sadly
Also a part of this is the long-term strategy of people like Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society, the Lewis Powell memorandum, etc. - to take over the political and judicial world to destroy the progressive tendencies of the New Deal and Great Society programs. All this supported by right-wing talk radio and Fox News to make these policies popular with lies and disinformation.
Yes our economy is bigger than ever. All that means is the people at the top are collecting more. I’m old enough to remember when $15 a hour was enough to live and get a nice apartment. Now that $15 has you homeless
The economy evolves. If you don't have relevant skills, you lose. That's on you. What degrees do you have from what universities?
@@SeamusMcFitz-jz9if This idea that there necessarily needs to be "losers" in the economy is the problem. This isn't a zero-sum game where only a handful of winners deserve to reap the rewards.
@heptacon losers are those who didnt put in any effort but expect the same outcome as everyone else, equity. That's the height of entitlement Eg. homeownership
Nope. If you can't afford a house then you don't deserve one.
My last journal article was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I save cancer patients for a living. You?
@@heptaconyou put in what you get out. i doubt all the wealthy people in the 50s were fast food window workers
@@SeamusMcFitz-jz9if This is not true, sorry. The middle class is being squeezed out while the %0.1 (134k households) hold $22.T of wealth. To put that into perspective the bottom %50 (67M households) hold 9.9T of wealth. The delta in wealth gap is massive beyond imagination. The problem ultimately come down to the wealthier you are the greater your breaks on tax and systems are built to benefit you. These are mostly built on the backs of the bottom %50 which makes it impossible for them to ever get out of that bottom %50. Its almost like the top %0.1 percent have built a system to basically have slaves to keep them at the %0.1.
My immigrant grandparents started with nothing and did well for themselves through hard work, even in the depression. Parents did the same with hard work and training. I did well with some college and hard work. My daughter is the best of all being a doctor. Each of us started with nothing and had no inheritance, until myself that has enough to leave behind . Each generation also spends a lot more on material possessions like fancy TV's, phones, self drive cars and bigger houses with air conditioning etc. My grandparents used kerosine lamps for lights. If you lived like your grandparents (well beneath your means) and work sunup to sundown as they did, you too will be in a much higher wealth bracket and able to leave a legacy as generational wealth for you children. Blaming the economy and lack of socialism on your wealth is a poor excuse for overspending and lack of work ethic.
I desperately need this in a german/european Version of this. It’s really hard to show my parents how fucked my generation is.
I’m pretty sure Europe has seen much less overall economic growth.
If it makes you feel any better, none of our parents here in the U.S. will understand either, even if we show them content like this.
It’s the same but worse basically. At least in the US in high demand industries like healthcare tech and finance you get paid very very well. Not so much in Europe. Houses cost the same in France as in the US pound for pound (like same space, age, features)
it is more or less the same, when Reagan “sucessfully” liberalize economy… Most of the western world soon followed..Remember Margaret Thatcher of the UK??
@@ASkippingRock Ok what about the wealth distribution in non UK Europe?
Im 31 years old with a bachelor's degree in Computer Science but no job, still unemployed, no kids and still living at home with my parents.
This is all by design by the evil "owners" who own everything in America. It isn't your fault. Not having a wife, kids, a house, and a good paying job is the new normal sadly. It is only going to get MUCH worse, because the "owners" don't want us having a good life and they don't want us to own anything.
Why aren't you employed?
Kid in my neighbor- Asian. Asian parents. Forced to study hard and succeed. Probably a BS in computer science from University of Washington. Makes way more than I ever made in medicine. And given my wages- I highly doubt my kids will make my salary - but they are still successful. A mostly stay at home mom and an Army officer. Both absolutely thrilled with their lives and don’t care if their dad made more than them. So while statistically correct video I don’t know it’s completely correct. 2 opposing state,ent can be true at the same time. As for YOU going from a factory worker to insurance changing jobs later in life can be a salary killer.
why tho, jobs ARE out there
Looking at three options (Incase you didn't know)
1) Digital nomad jobs (there are numerous so search) then live somewhere cheap like southeast Asia.
2) Teaching (tech teachers are needed especially in Korea and China).
Keep trying, don't give up, I know how scary it is, how difficult, but don't give up.
Your life isn't over yet.
when the government outsourced the responsibility of redistributing economic wealth to corporations, the corporations took a huge chunk for themselves first.
The government re-distributing resources is communism. Not a single example in history shows this is a good idea.
Why should the government be redistributing wealth??? I don’t trust the government to do that. I trust corporations more because I CHOOSE to give them my money they don’t steal it.
@@aar0n709 The only goal of a corporation is to extract money from you and give it to its board of directors and shareholders. The only goal of a government is to do good for everyone. I guess youre fine with paying for water but taxing the people who got lucky enough to hoard more wealth than entire nations is theft apparently.
@johnnyharris in the 70s you failed to mention that we went off the gold standard, the government increased spending due to that and being out of money because only taxing the top 10% wasn't producing enough revenue. The the war and having less oil flow was a small part of. Getting off the gold standard also allowed for credit wealth where using debt at lower interest rate and investing for a higher rate.
The only reason American economy boomed post ww2 is because during ww2 every other major manufacturer of goods got blown to shreds except the USA so we were the only ones offering anything for sale basicly.
Exactly, Europe and Japan were in ruins. China a backward country. We were the only game in town for awhile.
Back in the '50s and 60s we were self sustaining. We could cut ourselves off from the rest of the world because we produced what we needed to live. All those things that we produced have been moved to other countries to produce so our CEOs can reap record profits (they must be Ferengis). Stupid is, as stupid does.
A very overlooked key component to the issues we see now.
that doesnt change the fact we could still be in that same situation and you could still make pennies as compared to the guy in charge.
This technically isn't true. German industrial capacity at the end of the war was 25% larger than it was before the war. There was MORE industrial capacity in the defeafed countries than there was after the war.
Get your thumbnail artist to change up the hair in the thumb. I’d love to see Johnny with hilarious oldies hair 😂
What this video does not say. What are the policy changes from the 1980s that caused this inflection in the economic graphs?
Well well well, gold standard dippin out… but who has been accused for taking countries into crippling debt just about 109 times/by 109 countries
The measure of success for people in charge shouldn’t be things like private jets, yachts, or big houses. Look at the ones who are 40 to 50 years old-not the new ones. You should base the success of leadership on the growth of the people. Our system should be based on lifting up the bottom, not just expanding the top.
If the U.S. birth rate is 1.6 now and it used to be over 2.0 just 20 years ago, we’re doing very poorly. It used to be above replacement level, and now it's not even close.
I noticed this trend 20 years ago and tried to point it out to people who didn’t really understand the situation. I used to think the people in charge would eventually realize, “Hey, this isn’t working. This isn’t a long-term business model.” I figured they’d make smart adjustments and profit from them-like how Chrysler and General Motors adapted back in the days of Henry Ford and the Model T.
Then the pandemic hit-and that’s when I realized: they have no idea what they’re doing.
In 1968 I was 10 years old and I lived with my family in a new house in a new subdivision in Tacoma, Washington. My father told me the mortgage payments were $300 a month. A loaf of bread was about fifty cents. A new car was under $3,000. How times have changed.
18:35 i live in canada and home prices did not go down after the 2008 recession and our salaries grew less than American salaries so housing is even worse here
“My wife doesn’t work”, but she sews, mends, comparison shops, maybe puts up preserves and bakes bread…
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Without our modern convivences ( washing machines, dishwashers, vacuums, fridge and freezer, preservatives, ... ) you needed someone "full time" to keep up with the housework and prepare meals for a family. Now it takes much less time and effort to keep a household clean and fed.
@@ericew What? Most homes in 1955 *did* have a clothes washer, vacuum, fridge, and freezer, and some had a dishwasher. My family was not wealthy, but I remember having all of those (except the dishwasher) in the mid-‘50s. But you’re correct in pointing out that women who didn’t have a job outside of the home *did* typically mend, garden, preserve food, cook almost all meals from scratch, and some sewed clothing for much of the family.
She doesn't have a paid job, but she's for sure doing unpaid labor , we've always been. Now we just work twice, progress!!
@@orjval Exactly. Even without the ‘extras’ (sewing, canning, etc.) that aren’t as common now, most women today still do the majority of housework and childcare -by far- *in addition* to their paid work.
A few things left out: In the 50s we were happy to own a 950sq.ft. home. The average size home in 2025 is 2650sq.ft.
The door being opened to communist China for permanent normal trade relations (Clinton), plus other actions, allowed companies to move overseas for cheap labor.
We now own a lot more ‘stuff’. Ever go in an old house? See those tiny closets? Middle income workers were happy with a whole lot less. Even just one car per household.
College ‘administrators’ greatly multiplied & tuition went ridiculously high
Monopolies were no longer broken up. Corporations were allowed to get too big.
Politicians became intwined with corporations & ‘lobbyists’ became too powerful.
I am just saying it is more complicated. If people here are implying socialism is better then they need to live in a socialist country with ‘government controlled groceries’. Have fun with your one choice of cereal & your rationed supply of meat, bread, eggs, sugar, etc…
You don't have to have an outright "socialism" as you described to have more equal prosperity. Imagine if, and hear me out, CEO and administrator pay was back down to even just 25x their av worker pay, and the rest went back into higher pay, better benefits and better retirement for the average worker. That means more people can contribute to the economy, more people can ask for variety and get what they want. You dont need to for form a gulag rampant communist society for the average person to have a better life than we currently have.
You said "corporations got too big" followed by criticism of communism. I feel like you know what you want but are not sure the right way to get there.
Why does every counter argument to "less income inequality, more wealth distribution, etc" lead to someone talking about how they will only have one type of bread like it's the inevitable conclusion. He just pointed out, there were many recent times where the average America how much better prosperity than we do now, and we never had socialism.
Its pretty well laid out. Higher taxes on wealthy and corps, and higher worker pay equals better society. We just passed a bill that would make Regan admin cream their slacks and so it's going to get worse. Home prices for homes built in 1950 are still bonkers. Stop believing fox news.
Not everything is black and white, a bit of socialism has hurt nobody, same goes for capitalism. It's not a question about whether or 🤨