Very few people have a sense of history, especially aggregate economic history. Piketty among others has shown that economic divergence from the very wealthy compared to everyone else has rarely, almost never, been more egalitarian than in the U.S. during the late 20th Century. However, that history means nothing to people who measure economic wellbeing against their actual memory, against a single generation or two past.
Another factor that I don't see Mr. Turchin considering with the weight I think it deserves is the sense that universal media now provides to consumers of that media of what life should be like. What I mean is that the media all throughout presents background pictures of a lifestyle that is more settled, more adventurous, and just generally richer than many (perhaps most) people experience in their actual lives. This sense of the expected "normal" lifestyle is absorbed consciously and subconsciously, and when people measure it against their actual reality and realistic potential, they often become resentful and discontent. This is one source of current immiseration that I think should be better explored.
You have highlighted the problem with the Economics profession that has cost them dearly in mainstream credibility. Aggregate numbers on the economy mask the distributional divergences between gainers and losers, and perpetuate the perception gap. If 20% of the people are better off by 10%, and the other 80% have fallen backwards by 2%, the aggregate numbers say the economy grew by 0.4%. The vast majority of the people did not experience an improvement in their situation.
Here's a twist. New household creation (children --> adults (who move out)) lowers the home ownership number. The decline in birth rates artificially increases the home ownership number, essentially the metric loses it's validity
You can bayonet a straw man till your arms are too heavy to lift, it still doesn't kill the straw man.
When I was very young I read Bobbsey Twins, a child's book series about (unsurprisingly) a family of two sets of twins, one set blond the other set very brunette (which is retrospect is surprising.) Our library had lots of old books, including old editions of these (I gather like Stratemeyer Syndicate books they were updated over the decades.) In the oldest ones I read, the family had one or more servants, a mother who nevertheless didn't work, extended vacations if not a vacation home, vehicles with lap robes but maybe also a stable for horses. It is too easily forgotten what counts as middle class is negotiable with history. Comparisons with the past should not just look at economic indicators for individuals but look at family trajectories. I think that's implicitly a point Prof. Turchin is making. If so, I agree.
Very few people have a sense of history, especially aggregate economic history. Piketty among others has shown that economic divergence from the very wealthy compared to everyone else has rarely, almost never, been more egalitarian than in the U.S. during the late 20th Century. However, that history means nothing to people who measure economic wellbeing against their actual memory, against a single generation or two past.
Another factor that I don't see Mr. Turchin considering with the weight I think it deserves is the sense that universal media now provides to consumers of that media of what life should be like. What I mean is that the media all throughout presents background pictures of a lifestyle that is more settled, more adventurous, and just generally richer than many (perhaps most) people experience in their actual lives. This sense of the expected "normal" lifestyle is absorbed consciously and subconsciously, and when people measure it against their actual reality and realistic potential, they often become resentful and discontent. This is one source of current immiseration that I think should be better explored.
See also "Yes, inflation made the median voter poorer" at https://jzmazlish.substack.com/p/yes-inflation-made-the-median-voter . Among other things, it claims that the median change in wages is more important than the change in median wages, and it was bad under Biden.
You have highlighted the problem with the Economics profession that has cost them dearly in mainstream credibility. Aggregate numbers on the economy mask the distributional divergences between gainers and losers, and perpetuate the perception gap. If 20% of the people are better off by 10%, and the other 80% have fallen backwards by 2%, the aggregate numbers say the economy grew by 0.4%. The vast majority of the people did not experience an improvement in their situation.
Here's a twist. New household creation (children --> adults (who move out)) lowers the home ownership number. The decline in birth rates artificially increases the home ownership number, essentially the metric loses it's validity
Unfortunately Medicare premiums are going to jump and a lot of Medicare advantage plans being canceled
Real difficulty in USA for most people is their risk profile
Precarity as Charles Hugh Smith writes about
The us government spends $1 trillion on Medicare and another $1 trillion on health insurance. Every year.
You can bayonet a straw man till your arms are too heavy to lift, it still doesn't kill the straw man.
When I was very young I read Bobbsey Twins, a child's book series about (unsurprisingly) a family of two sets of twins, one set blond the other set very brunette (which is retrospect is surprising.) Our library had lots of old books, including old editions of these (I gather like Stratemeyer Syndicate books they were updated over the decades.) In the oldest ones I read, the family had one or more servants, a mother who nevertheless didn't work, extended vacations if not a vacation home, vehicles with lap robes but maybe also a stable for horses. It is too easily forgotten what counts as middle class is negotiable with history. Comparisons with the past should not just look at economic indicators for individuals but look at family trajectories. I think that's implicitly a point Prof. Turchin is making. If so, I agree.
If 60% are not struggling, that implies that 40% are struggling. Not a majority, but a lot of people.
Coincidentally, a related article in today’s WSJ, “Big Spenders Are Keeping the Party Going in NYC”:
https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/new-york-city-wealth-e0ef94dc