Bio not provided
@136 or 142 @johnkawakami i've been found out!I wasn't saying Smith was laissez faire. I was saying that laissez faire, Smith, and marginalism also have popular influence. What about them?
3 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116479/onion-americas-finest-marxist-news-source
Another reason why the taxi market is highly regulated.
4 months, 1 week ago on Sabotage! Uber employees allegedly called and cancelled over 5,000 Lyft rides since October
@Todd Dunning @johnkawakami @RobinTedlock I'm not going to correct you, but you need to read it more carefully.
4 months, 1 week ago on Even if SketchFactor isn’t “racist,” it encourages mockery of mental illness and poverty
@RobinTedlock This actually happens a lot in some neighborhoods, and the news doesn't report it because a lot of kids would try to rob the vans.
Here's the reason: people don't like the news. They show up in some of these neighborhoods, and it's a negative story. In nearly any neighborhood, these news vans stick out, but in working class communities, they really stand out because, often, the crew include older white people. Really pale ones, too. They just stick out. And if you think they're going to talk crap about your community, some people are going to have an adversarial attitude. And the local crooks know there's a lot of expensive equipment in the van.
That's why the neighborhood folks were saying it's a nice place, because they want the story to change.
The two behaviors are totally different, but the basis for them is the same.
Those descriptions people can use to describe the areas are totally useless. And crowdsourcing from clueless people is pointless.
“Guy dancing in street. Seemed friendly…no pants. SketchFactor: 2.”????No way. Sketch factor 4. He might be high, or mentally ill, or, probably both. The fact they might think it's only a 2 is trouble, right there."Guy in street, naked, cussing, slapping the sidewalk. Looks like the person who did Kony 2012."Sketch factor 5. Do not engage. Mental breakdown for sure."Guy across street, pulls pants down, shows me his anus."Sketch factor 5. Probably high as hell. If he starts to cross the street, go inside the BBQ spot and see if they know this guy, and if he's dangerous will they call the police on the non-emergency number."Guy on corner, 1 am, standing there. Won't look at me."Sketch factor 5. Might be a sentinel for drug dealers. Remember his face."Drunk Bros, 5 in a group, all one race, 1:30am outside the bar."Sketch factor 4. Pass with extreme caution or cross the street. Factor 5 outside of California.
@thesoapysamurai If a chubby dude were following me in a truck, while I was walking home after buying some snacks at the market, I'd consider that really "sketchy".
@Todd Dunning @rbottoms Correlation doesn't imply causation.
What happens is that in high-crime areas in dense cities, the residents end up favoring gun control more. Over time, gun control becomes the popular political platform. If you spend several months listening to two rival gangs shoot each other every night, you end up wanting gun control (unless you really don't trust the police under any circumstances).
The reverse happens in rural areas with less crime. People get guns because the police cannot respond quickly. They use guns, but don't experience it as part of crime, generally. The logic of gun control stops making sense.
It's not mayo on white bread. That's for the poor. It's roast beef and brie on dark rye. Or California roll.
@rbottoms @Todd Dunning @kpn320 I already feel like a robot implementing the wisdom of StackOverflow.:)
4 months, 1 week ago on Michael Malone: “In fifteen years, the face of Silicon Valley will be an Indian woman”
@Todd Dunning @rbottoms @kpn320 The essence of America would be a green card visa, not a "guest worker" visa. The guest worker laws have, and always have, led to the creation of labor contracting companies. These contracting companies end up abusing workers.
@Todd Dunning Do you know that they have a computer programmer's union in India?
4 months, 2 weeks ago on Michael Malone: “In fifteen years, the face of Silicon Valley will be an Indian woman”
@ad77 @johnkawakami @BruceMajors4DC All this talk about how the 1% have taken over is depressing.
real big news is the fact there's now a challenger that emerged in the
Occupy Wall Street movement. It attracted so many people, including
libertarians. Wealth and poverty have returned as political subjects.
The real stories of real people are moving people, and throwing your libertarian greed nonsense philosophy straight into the garbage.
4 months, 2 weeks ago on Homophobia, racism and the Kochs: San Francisco’s tech-libertarian “Reboot” conference is a cesspool
@ad77 @johnkawakami @BruceMajors4DC "Just because the Heritage Foundation writes something doesn't make it "right wing"." LOL yeahright.
It's loaded with special interests by design: it's a national health plan that preserves insurance company interests.
The US is anti-socialist, and here's what I mean. In the past 40 years, there's been this push to privatize everything the government does. Once upon a time, some soldiers cooked food for other soldiers. Today, that is outsourced to KBR. That's how it's done now. At the smaller governments, most services are outsourced, usually to the larger county or state agencies above them, but just as often to private companies. Politicians don't always have an interest in running their cities or counties - they outsource that - and wish to spend more time courting businesses. And that's crony capitalism right there.
The fact is, this trend is global. The Labour parties in Europe have been doing this as well. But the real force behind this is, and has always been, the right wing.
Also, WRT to federal versus state - Piketty made a good point - we need some global coordination if we're going to tax these transnational corporations that are making the 1% wealthier, and corrupting the governments. When more and more of your tax collection is done at the local level, what happens is that the rich areas will tax themselves and only provide services to themselves. The poor areas are depleted of income, taxes, and public services.
We see this over and over. Rich neighborhoods can pass a tax called Mello-Roos (in Calif.) and use that money to improve their schools. Gentrifying areas can pass a tax called a Business Improvement District and use it to pay for private security and also enforce additional regulations. So the rich will tax themselves and add regulations, if it benefits themselves.Otherwise, they try their darndest to reduce taxes, reduce regulations, and reduce everything that will help anyone except themselves.
@ad77 @johnkawakami @Truth_Quest30 @BruceMajors4DC hahahahahahahahhahahahahaha
@ad77 @johnkawakami @BruceMajors4DC You are unfamiliar with the plan proposed by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts? It's the predecessor to the ACA, aka Obamacare. It absolutely was the right wing model. The fact the Repubicans have no ideological consistency, and are only interested in politics and mobilizing the racists against Obama doesn't change the conceptual basis of the ACA.
Economically and fiscally, we are one of the most anti-socialist of the wealthy countries.
Also, the fact you make the range form Reagan to Obama shows how confused you are. The correct spectrum would be LBJ to Bush.
Tax policy shouldn't be discussed in terms of federal versus state taxation. That said, most federal taxes go toward things like war, border enforcement, helping banks, and redistribution from blue states to red states... so maybe you have a point.
@ad77 @johnkawakami @Truth_Quest30 @BruceMajors4DC The number of owners shouldn't be the standard. Most of our employment laws exempt only businesses that have fewer than a small number of employees - the ACA, affirmative action, etc. They take effect at 50 employees, usually. This scotus decision gives a lot of power to companies that are privately held by families.
Most shareholders of large companies are institutional investors, and the little folks who own a piece of Apple do so through retirement funds, mutual fund, etc. The richer people do it through hedge funds. They don't make the decisions directly (or even indirectly) to purchase the stock, and also have no voting rights as shareholders.
You're not a "libertarian" at all. You're a shill for big business and corporations. You're seriously reality-challenged.
@ad77 @johnkawakami @BruceMajors4DC Obama is a DLC Democrat. He didn't really present himeself as a progressive during the campaigns. In 2008, he ran to the right of Clinton, particularly with regard to economics. He even made an oblique reference to the Chicago Boys during some event.
BTW, US Democrats, the DLC kind, have balanced the budget, cut welfare, are attacking public education, taking some risky steps toward eroding social security, and we'll see what happens with healthcare. Clinton is the reason for Tony Blair and New Labour. That's why progressives are not happy. The garbage started under Clinton, and Obama seems OK with at least talking about eroding social security. That needs to stop.
You know we've drifted rightward too far when two of the leading Progressives, Howard Dean and Elizabeth Warren, are refugees from the Republican Party. I guess Clinton is, too.
@ad77 @johnkawakami @Truth_Quest30 @BruceMajors4DC Hobby Lobby has 18k employees. They are a big business. And, those three decisions extending personal rights to companies is oniy increasing the power of the wealthy business people to influence poltiics.
@ad77 @johnkawakami @BruceMajors4DC This reply is a little late, but I don't think this presidency has been that disastrous. It hasn't been fantastic, but there was some kind of healthcare reform passed, even if it was the right-wing version. He expended a lot of political capital, and so he's been unable to push for immigration reform to much effect. The economy's a mess if you're poor or middle class, but if you're upper middle class, it's okay, and if you're in the internet business, it's doing very well.
Lately, I've been seeing reality from both sides of the tracks - the high tech side, and the poor barrio side - and there are recoveries at both ends. At the upper end, salaries are high, but property values are nutty again, so that negates itself. It's absurd. The poor are seeing a kind of reprieve due to Obamacare, because they have more stable healthcare options. Medicaid's overhaul is changing the system from one where providers are reimbursed after treatment, to one that operates more like an HMO. And on another front, I notice the underground economy has a lot of fruit-based food vendors, and not many tamale vendors, so the food desert is eating healthier.
There are problems at both ends, too. At the poor end, there's just this persistent unemployment, and in a community that's heavily undocumented, there's a pervasive fear of ICE, and general malaise. At the upper end, there's a sense of instability and a fear of a crash, even as millions of online ad dollars and venture funding money are pouring into the neighborhoods there. The bubble, combined with the turmoil in web-dev tech, and the risky situation with the big app stores can't be helping.There's a vast middle class in between, and I think their situation is pretty bad and unstable. At least that's the drama I keep hearing from the middle class. There's a lot of fear, and a sense that it's never going to be as easy as it used to be. Now, personally, I cannot relate to this new anomie, but the sense that "the middle class is over" is out there. I've been thinking it since the 1990s, and preparing for the "end times" by spreading ideas about collective survivance, mutual aid, and cooperation among the aliens who live online :)
@ad77 @johnkawakami @BruceMajors4DC Obama isn't considered a "progressive". The progressive wing in the Dem party is the PDA - Progressive Democrats of America, and they're basically social democrats, which is like Western European socialism. That's not the same as the USSR socialism. The western Euro socialism is just universal welfare services like healthcare and education and a state pension. The productive enterprises are generally left to the market.
Obama is considerd a "DLC" or Democratic Leadership Council Democrat, which is considered centrist within the party. They're not as pro-business as the Blue Dogs, but are pretty close. They get associated with the labels "New Democrat" or even "New Economy." Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton are also DLC Dems.
There's no such thing as "pure capitalism". It's an ideological trope.
I rank it up there with "real communism", as in "the USSR wasn't real communism, so you shouldn't just communism based on the USSR, China, etc.".
@Truth_Quest30 @johnkawakami @ad77 @BruceMajors4DC Point of fact, I said "crony capitalism", not corruption.
I classify a lot of totally legal, possibly not even corrupt practices as part of crony capitalism. If a business donates a lot of money to a candidate, and they are considered favorably for a contract, that's crony capitalism. If a company gives a campaign donation and organizes others in their industry to do so, hoping to get favorable legislation, that's cronyism, as well. It's also common and legal.
There's also more common forms of cronyism, like cartels, or business networks, or religious or ethnic networks that favor one vendor over another. These aren't even considered cronyism by the people who engage in it, but it's pretty similar.
All this stuff used to contribute to Republican campaigns more than Democrat. Now the Dems are getting an increasing amount of this money.
Also, while I noted that labor and coastal politics were reasons for this, I forgot to mention that the huge grassroots fundraising that Obama (and Dean before him) did was also a factor. As the grassroots contributed, the corporations also increased their donations.
The reasons were probably because the grassroots surge made it look like Obama would win - and every business wants access to the winner, no matter what party - and also because they wanted to neutralize this grassroots influence.
@Truth_Quest30 @johnkawakami @ad77 @BruceMajors4DC Traditionally, most of the crony capitalism has been on the Republican side, but lately it's crossed over. I think that's partly due to who is in office, and partly due to the fact that a lot of large businesses are located in "blue states" like California and New York. That and the decline of unions has made unions less of a factor - and thus less of a polarizing element. Additionally, after many decades, corporations are no longer whites-only operations, so someone like Cory Booker can get corporate money.
@Truth_Quest30 @johnkawakami @ad77 @BruceMajors4DC I'm aware of that. Governments shouldn't be investing in companies, but that's the big trend. The CIA has a fund that they used to invest in Facebook. The government needs to stay out of banking, and develop a more hostile relationship to corporations and banks.BTW, Solyndra is nothing compared to what Haliburtion got through Cheney, and what the United Fruit Company got in the 19th century.There's also the %$#@! supreme court, with the Citizens United and McCutcheon and Hobby Lobby decisions. Look at who is on the side of the crony capitalists: it's the right-wing side.
@ad77 @rbottoms The recovery effort has only failed in that the rich got richer, and the middle class and poor got a little poorer. The reason was obvious - they followed a monetary policy when we needed fiscal policies of direct job creation. That said, we didn't slide into what will become a 20+ year recession like Japan saw after their bubble popped. They experienced a lot of recessions.
We avoided that with the big spending projects - but we really didn't send the right signal to Wall Street. HAMP was a joke. They needed to open the door to some "cram-downs" and force some banks to eat the losses. That would have been a pretty direct transfer of capital to the middle class, at the expense of investors. That would have put some fright into the banks, and could have opened the way to government doing more direct lending, like they started to do with student loans.
@ad77 @johnkawakami @BruceMajors4DC How does progressive politics get associated with crony capitalism? Progressives are social democrats or socialists and want increased government services. It's the right wingers who want to privatize everything, and create what people called "public-private partnerships" in the 1980s. Also, the current trend is to contract out most of government, so there *is* a lot of corruption, but in the past, "crony capitalism" referred more to what industrial capitalists did, which was to be friends with the politicians. That has always been an aspect of capitalism -- after all, what would you call Columbus or the Dutch East India Company? They were businesses that were extremely close to the monarchs, who formed an alliance with these mercantile interests. I think cronyism is inherent to capitalism.
@rbottoms Romeny would have been a farce. One thing about Obama I kind of like is that it's predictable what he'll respond to. If you can mount a political attack from the left, he'll respond. The main problem with the left is that we're not mobilizing all the time.
4 months, 3 weeks ago on Homophobia, racism and the Kochs: San Francisco’s tech-libertarian “Reboot” conference is a cesspool
@ad77 @johnkawakami @BruceMajors4DC Obama isn't that progressive. I didn't think he was in the first place. We hoped he'd be responsive to entreaties, but he's only thrown us a few bones here and there.
@ad77 @johnkawakami @rbottoms Can you quantify why you think this change will happen?
@BruceMajors4DC Your ignorance on the issue is appalling. Everything's changed in the past few years.
@ad77 @johnkawakami @rbottoms you can think of it as "moving beyond", but I think of it as "not facing reality". I've been reading, on an off, about (various) communism, anarchism, some extreme right-wing sects, libertarianism (including the LP), and mainstream politics since my teens. I've been in the Green and P&F parties. So I've been in the area "beyond" the two party dichotomy.What we have is a two party system. There are third parties, but they are ineffective for a few structural reasons. The most effective third party move in recent memory was the "Tea Party", which is a fusion party within the Republican Party. It was brilliant (and yes, it was grassroots but became astroturfed quickly). This system is not simplistic - it's complex, and getting anything accomplished seems difficult.
I'm in the left wing of the Democratic Party with civil libertarian tendencies, and am basically OK with that. I'm always disappointed :). I like inside/outside strategies. I can handle working with religious people - and like religious people - even though I'm an atheist. Change is usually slow. Sometimes, it's not. The struggle never ends.
@ad77 @rbottoms The Democrats support the separation of church and state. We have a lot of religious diversity and atheism in the Dem. party. If you look up "separation of church and state democrats" and you get a lot of organizations upholding it. If you look up Republicans... well, it's mainly a bunch of attacks on Republicans for not supporting the separation of church and state. So there must be a better term to search for...Try: "God's law" Republicans.
There you go.
@KennonGilson The conflict within the left is between old line communists and anarchists, mainly because some communists are leaning more anarchist, and anarchism, for some time, had more visibility and was growing faster. A bit more than 10 years ago, there were conflicts because anarchists tended to publish criticisms of state communism, but today with the general decline of of state communism (succumbing to some kind of neoliberal trend), those critiques aren't made, and that conflict is largely forgotten. This really doesn't have anything to do with the subject of this article, which is about the growth of elements in the far-right adopting the label of "Libertarians".
Self described progressives tend to be "social democrats" or the left wing of the Democratic Party. They're the old New Dealers, and are getting weaker within the party, largely due to increasing neoliberalism within the party. Clinton and Obama are disappointments to us because they enabled or promoted right-wing styles of social welfare. Progressives were always opposed to Nazisim and Apartheid.
Libertarians have been involved in anti-Fascist and anti-Apartheid organizations and I've met them at demonstrations and online, however, this is also not about *that* faction. Libertarians have also been anti-war. These are the old-line Libertarians of the Libertarian Party of 20 years ago and before. I'd describe these people as "freaks" or people naturally apart from society at large, hoping not to be arrested by the system.
The movement, I think, has been taken over by traditional right wingers, John Bircher types, and Ron Paul and Rand Paul. These aren't people who are freaks, they're reactionaries. They are social traditionalists: Christians, socially conservative, uncomfortable with a Black president, heterosexual, 2nd Amendment, white, male, and pro-business. Some are even pro-war under the guise of The War on Terror. They feel left behind by the changes in society.
@fcLundberg you'd think... but the definition of "libertarian" has changed (again)
4 months, 4 weeks ago on Two Valley entrepreneurs nobody really cares about like Rand Paul. Conservatarianism rising!
@Todd Dunning @johnkawakami I've written to politicians about LGBT rights when that was so controversial several years ago. I generally got form letters back. Since I'm in a blue state, it wasn't controversial.As far as laws I was talking about, I was referring to laws prior to the Civil RIghts Act of 65. Post 65, those laws are now considered unconstitutional, and when they are found, are quickly repealed. However, that doesn't negate the fact that these laws existed, and some are still on the books.
Post 65, the main group of people who don't have equal civil rights within the law are LGBT people.
Civil rIghts, in practice, are still not equal, however. The guy who got killed is a civil rights situation - where African American people in NYC under this current gentrification seem to have fewer rights than other people and experience worse treatment from the police.
I think you're the whackjob. Try writing a letter to someone in government with your ideas and see what happens.
@krrishd @johnkawakami @Todd Dunning It's not necessarily "the government" that opposes gay people or abortion - though it has in the past. It's other people who hate lgbt people and abortion, and will attack or harass or otherwise interfere. LGBT people, women, and others are demanding that the government intercede to protect them from people who would otherwise harm them.
@Todd Dunning This is where Libertarians get it all wrong - the idea that lgbt rights, racial justice, abortion, and women's rights are non-issues. So they ignore these issues. That's willful ignorance in the fact of numerous laws that have stripped everyone who is not white and who is not male of numerous rights and privileges.
If you don't think these identity-politics issues have no intersection with economics, business, prosperity and liberty... you need to think a little more.
In NYC, a Black man was choked to death by police because he was selling individual cigarettes. Why did this happen?
Is it because he was in violation of some fine print on the package that stated that the cigarettes were to be sold as a pack, not individually, so New York's finest took it upon themselves to enforce that contract?Or is it because NYC is gentrifying, and the cops see the working class and poor African American as "trouble", and using force - a choke hold which has been banned in Los Angeles, incidentally - for social control?
@rbottoms Do you know about Bright Future Jobs? They're pushing for H1B reform. There are so few orgs doing anything about this problem, but this is one, and they're working with other organizations. I donate to them.If you have a minute, I can give you the rundown about them. I'll find a way to send you my phone # privately.
4 months, 4 weeks ago on Homophobia, racism and the Kochs: San Francisco’s tech-libertarian “Reboot” conference is a cesspool
@rbottoms @Todd Dunning @deleted_54432724_rrbottoms @paulcarr Just a minor correction about racism in housing. I don't know about across the country, but in Los Angeles and other areas in California, the restrictive covenants and contracts that limited ownership to whites were innovated in the 1910s. Prior to that, communities were somewhat blended.This innovation was popular and common as older agricultural subdivisions were developed into the new suburbs. I suspect this was the main reason for white flight - the new housing, which was affordable to all, had racist restrictions. That left people of color, and some whites like Jews and Southern and Eastern Europeans, to live in older communities. So urban people moved to the suburbs before the postwar era, but the suburbs were, by contract, mainly for white buyers.
Then in 1948, the SCOTUS ruled that the courts would not enforce the CCRs. Private discrimination was allowed - but if you could find a non racist who would sell, POC could buy. This continued until the Rumford Act of 1963 which ended CCRs.So, pertaining to libertarianism and racism - the market forces conspired to create residential segregation, and the FHA later supported it through redlining. Then, when the court was leaning toward ending it, the market and FHA continued to perpetuate residential segregation.Progressives like to say the market and people are racist, and the government is the tool to end it. Libertarians say the government is racist, and the people and market will end it. History says racism is perpetuated by the government and the market, and daring individuals fight both to end it.
5 months ago on Homophobia, racism and the Kochs: San Francisco’s tech-libertarian “Reboot” conference is a cesspool
@FromOverThere @Truth_Quest30 It's not popularity as much as political power. Replacing "Oriental" with "Asian" is a way of demonstrating power. Denying that minor request is a way of denying power. It's symbolic - but what about politics isn't?
@tpkroger "disruption" sounds more cool than "consolidation" and "monopolization" and "privatized regulation" of the underground "sharing" economy.
@Truth_Quest30 @skyshoes the Southern faction is pretty much Christians.
I had to look up the Gini ratio, but I think you can experience a rise in inequality without a corresponding rise in the Gini if the range of incomes grows and the fraction of higher-income people grows at the same time, creating a more bimodal distribution.
5 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116479/onion-americas-finest-marxist-news-source
@EugenePatrickDevany It's hardly an "attack" when compared to Marx, who wanted to eliminate private property.
Let's have a 100% inheritance tax above a half million dollars, a 35% cap gains tax, and a progressive asset tax. While we are at it, any vacant homes or apartments that aren't rented out in 12 months can be seized and given to the homeless as long as there are more than 0.1% of the population homeless.
6 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118024/piketty-and-marx-where-they-disagree
@Bud 1 @johnkawakami Ummm. Do you mean center-left American liberals? I don't really think of the NYT as that liberal or left, more northeastern upper middle class urbanites, but I know that self-described conservatives think of the NYT as a bastion of pinko Democrats.
What about the huge influence of laissez faire, Adam Smith, and marginalism?
6 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116479/onion-americas-finest-marxist-news-source
@Bud 1 What do you mean by "liberal"? There are the American and international definitions, which are different. If you mean Democrats, you're wrong to point your finger at them, as most of the advocacy for "free trade" comes from Republicans. This is an issue that cuts across party lines, and there are "free trade" advocates in both parties, and they are the dominant group. The critics of "free trade" are in the minority, and, again, are in both parties, but mainly in the populist left. The populist right is split between libertarians and xenophobes.
The roots of this trade ideology are in the ideas of comparative advantage innovated by David Ricardo. The main people pushing it are the economic liberals; that is the international definition of "liberal", which means that trade should be unrestricted by tariffs, and businesses should pay low taxes. The constituency most interested in this are large businesses that can move manufacturing operations to other countries.
The New Republic, I think, is a "liberal" magazine in that way. I never felt it was "liberal" in the sense of being aligned with Democrats, and most definitely not aligned with the left.
@ChristopherHart @johnkawakami @fbaldy @KarlFaulstich @jeregol Incidentally, there is data that supports my statement about drinking. Drinking correlates with income, and the people earning around 25k per year have an alcohol use rate of around 25%, while people earning over (I think) 80k per year are above 75%. It's a dramatic difference.
6 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117973/why-has-there-been-no-great-recession-backlash-against-plutocracy
It went to 18 then in 1940 went to 14. War started in 41 causing unemployment to basically go to zero but it showed up as 9 on the tables so i assumed it is an average. The socialist fixes i'm talking about were the public works projects and jobs programs. A lot of it was stuff the private sector didnt and doesnt do. What industry records folk music and interviews poor folks? What enterprise builds bridges and dams? None. The alphabet soup was pretty careful about not stepping on the toes of the private sector. They did overlap, but they made up some odd things, like hiring a bunch of artists and writers.
Another thing - I think the thesis is incorrect, that there won't be an uprising. There will be, but not from the Baby Boomers. Gen X and later generations have a different perspective, and reality has been a lot harder on these generations. The last period of widespread propserity for white people was the late 90s, and even that was not as good as the 80s. The last period of widespread black prosperity was the 70s, with a middle class breaking away by the 1990s. A lot of people have existed in an economic downturn or recession - and that causes a lot of people to be upset.The old middle class uprisings were by a middle class that was far more working class than what we consider "middle class". Likewise, the next uprisings will be from the middle class who are a lot less "middle class" than the middle class of the 1980s.
@ChristopherHart it was 14% in 1940. 24.75% in 1933 was the highest unemployment. The alphabet soup of socialist fixes helped reduce the unemployment number - but anecdotes indicate that the wages were very low. From u-s-history.com.