This is an answer to Cranky Cuss's post of today: http://open.salon.com/blog/cranky_cuss/2010/10/27/is_anybody_happy_anymore#
People aren't happy any more because things are worse than they used to be. Why? A variety of reasons.
Real incomes haven't risen in the United States for nearly forty years but expenses certainly have. Americans adjusted, first by wives going to work, then by getting into debt, and in many cases kids moved back home because they couldn't afford to live on their own, often even if they're employed.
We aren't manufacturing what we used to, but that isn't strictly because of cheaper labor overseas. Germany still manufactures a whole lot and they certainly don't have cheap labor. Why aren't we still building like we used to? There are a few reasons peculiar to specific industries such as the hubris displayed by the Big Three automakers before they got real competition from Japan. We lost our consumer electronics industry in the space of a few years, not due to our being uncompetitive as is widely assumed but because we were essentially mugged by a Japanese government/industry alliance that our government neither acknowledged nor understood. (I can explain this on request - the best book I know on the topic is Trading Places by Clyde Preztowitz.) However, most reasons aren't industry-specific.
The biggest cause for things getting worse is that campaigning became expensive. This meant that candidates had to worry about raising money to a far greater extent than they ever had to before. It's more efficient to solicit money from a few big sources than a bunch of small ones.
Unfortunately, that gives these big sources a great deal of influence, and what they've done with that influence is what is ultimately responsible for our economic tailspin. They reduced taxes on the rich and major corporations, which led to a major loss of tax revenue. They then got us to reduce spending on social programs on the grounds of fiscal responsibility when the real fiscal irresponsibility was their no longer providing their fair share of revenue. The government pulling back on these programs made life more expensive for the middle class and also, initially, for small businesses, which is important because small business has been the major engine for American job growth for decades. Eventually, some of these financial burdens affected big business, resulting in problems like our auto industry spending far more money per employee than overseas competitors not due to labor itself but due to factors like medical insurance and pensions, factors which often aren't private functions overseas.
Some of these corporations reacted by putting the burden on their employees. Wal-Mart reacted by making most of their jobs part-time, with just few enough hours not to legally obligate themselves to pay their employees benefits. That gave Wal-Mart cheaper labor, resulting in their out-competing small town competition but, in doing so, replacing good jobs with a whole lot of Working Poor.
The pharmaceutical industry managed to leverage their influence into a federal policy where the Federal Government didn't allow itself to negotiate price with them for drugs for Medicaid/Medicare. The banking industry reduced regulation to the point where they could invest in questionable instruments without oversight, they allowed themselves to charge consumers higher interest rates (if you get in trouble with a credit card company, they can charge you roughly 30% interest - which used to be usury, the sort of rate you'd expect from a loan shark), they weren't forced to lend to businesses even with money the Federal Government bailed them out with, they changed bankruptcy laws so that consumers weren't protected from policy changes (that originiated with the banks themselves) which resulted in a whole lot of forclosures. All sorts of industries could transfer jobs and theoretical international headquarters offshore without tax consequences - again, a little campaign money saved them a fortune in taxes. The oil industry got all sorts of subsidies and kept money out of renewable energy resources, which would not only save us money but which would create a colossal number of high-paying jobs, jobs that are now being created in China and Europe, often with our own technology, because our own technology isn't profitable to invest in here because (up until very recently) government policy didn't make such investments a good bet.
All this resulted in the middle class having less disposable income. Aside from the direct misery brought on by this, there's the further hugely significant consequence that American business has a far less healthy customer base, resulting in a loss of sales which results in a loss of jobs which results in a further loss of both.
Government policies should be geared to encouraging job formation, encouraging education, creating an economic climate that puts disposable income in the hands of average people such that American businesses have customers with money. However, the process encouraging such policies has been hijacked. After the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to behave as individuals when it comes to campaign contributions, the degree of that hijacking has just been ratcheted up a lot farther.
So now we take antidepressants because it's easier than changing the real world (and it puts more money in the hands of the pharmaceutical companies). Some of us are angry, but some of those angry people have joined the Tea Party, which is sponsored and led by the same rich guys who screwed us up in the first place and want to continue - so they'll distract us any way they can, telling us the problem is government deficits (which they helped cause be reducing its income), illegal immigration (the effects of which they constantly exaggerate), too much regulation (we'd have been far better off with more rather than less - most recent financial disasters would have been prevented with better regulation), and Washington inaction (caused primarily by their own party).
Things weren't better in all respects in the old days. We're mostly better to ethnic minorities, women, and GLBT people than we used to be. However, in most respects, things are worse.
Pass the antidepressants. And be very careful about how you vote.

Salon.com
Comments
Thanks for the analysis, Kosh.
Lezlie
Cranky,
Thanks for your post, your comment, and posting my link. i appreciate all three.
Jan,
You have made the primary point I've been making ever since I started blogging. My first post (which I eventually re-posted because I thought the point was important enough to make again) was about why income polarization is a bad thing. You've made the point with elegant conciseness. Thank you. As to why businesses are astounded by the fact that their customers need to make money to spend money with them, I haven't a clue. It's certainly obvious to me.
Linnn,
That's the other half of the lack of disposable income equation: Not only less spending with businesses, less tax contributions to government. In short: lose-lose.
Libmom,
It's gotten to the point where even the billionaires have stopped laughing. There is now a significant movement among American billionaires, spearheaded by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, to donate 50% of their net worth either during their lifetimes or in their estate immediately afterward. Even the individuals who benefit most by this have realized that it's gotten out of hand.
Lezlie,
That's one of the best compliments I've ever received on OS, actually probably the single best. Thank you thank you thank you
Stellaa,
Welcome. To the first comment, my conclusion over time is unexpected, particularly to me: long-term efficiency and fairness actually go hand in hand. My problem with current policies is not that they value efficiency over fairness but that they accomplish neither. The world's strongest economies are the ones with strong middle classes, which is to say more equal distribution than Third World countries, where income distribution is extremely polarized. The problem we have at the moment is that we're heading toward the Third World model rather than away from it. For the primary reason polarization is a bad thing, scroll up and read Jan Sand.
Regarding your antidepressant point: Firstly, I will admit to engaging in a little exaggeration/sarcasm, and, secondly, I think we're talking more about chronic conditions than mere moods. However, though depression can certainly be caused by external factors and can get severe enough to interfere with daily functioning, in one respect it's a little like paranoia: It's only paranoia if no one is out to get you.
I think you are on point otherwise, particularly when you address campaign finance laws, the courts and the stranglehold the plutocracy has on them. This is exactly what I was alluding to in my own blog when I said there has to be a shift in the political and power paradigms if most Americans are ever going to get out of debt.
Jack Heart said I should read you, and I see why.
Thank you. Of course it makes more sense to vote for the lesser of evils - voting for the greater of evils brings (drum roll please) Greater Evil. (As my wife would say: What it is is in the name.) I understand the temptation of a protest vote but the distribution of both money and power are currently so far out of whack that I'm afraid we're too close to a tipping point producing God only knows what result. In short, I think the country could really, really be more screwed up in a period as short as a couple of years.
Brassawe,
Of course the citizenry is ultimately responsible. Of course, a shrinking percentage of college-educated Americans and some national news sources that are more openly partisan than any recent predecessors make the citizenry less reliable because accurate information is now something that has to be sought rather than tripped over. The idea that the owner of a major national network could contribute a million dollars to the Republican Party and there not be an immediate flap about it tells you what kind of trouble we're in.
Jack,
I'm not voting Republican because those guys scare me. It would be one thing if we disagreed about method to be used on solving a given problem; the trouble is that we don't agree on what the biggest problems are in the first place. By the way, thanks for sending Antisocialgrace over.
Sweetfeet,
Thank you
Antisocialgrace,
Firstly, welcome. Regarding illegal immigration: I'm not claiming it's a nonexistent problem but I am claiming it's an exaggerated problem. It is nasty competition for unskilled American labor and it is illegal. However, most of the other factors I mentioned cost us as a nation more. The low price of labor means lower prices for groceries because those groceries are being picked more cheaply; these savings have to be subtracted from the differences in labor costs to find a net loss; you don't hear about that calculation being done by people who scream reflexively about illegal immigration. Some companies have expanded because of this cheap labor and have been forced to hire American managers for that labor, resulting in some more Americans employed, and at higher wages. Illegal immigrants aren't typically eligible for social programs, yet they pay taxes here. It's mostly a bad thing but in calculating costs we should remember to look at the whole picture, which is to say costs in which savings are taken into account. Whenever you ask a financial question, remember that it has two parts:
1. How much will it cost if I do this?
2. How much will it cost if I don't do this?
Without the second question, the analysis is worthless.
Rated.
Part of the problem is that there aren't models to follow that we trust. Unregulated capitalism is something we tried a little over a century ago; it didn't work very well. If we tried it now, we'd look kind of like Russia. On the other hand, we don't want to look like France either, where a sense of entitlement can supplant initiative. We aren't suspicious of earning money. We don't resent people for being rich though, if current trends continue, that could change, which I don't think is a good thing. Now that I'm thinking about it, the problem may be that unlike in France where the middle class feels entitled, in the US the rich feel entitled. That's not good either.
What has changed is the "myth," the Founding, legitimizing myth of America, that of the "American Dream" has been irrevocably punctured and torn assunder. Without this myth, the legitimacy of the system is seriously questioned by the population. The Elites are doing much to distract us, but this is the issue.
Some are happy, some are sad, some are mad. The truth is that America has really entered a whole new world. It is not the world my parents or grandparents knew. Things are now, fundamentally, different. We are not only back in the "Gilded Age," but the lower classes have forgotten everything they knew back then and they are actively brainwashed by TV and movies.
Its like Brave New World.
Thank you.
Rw,
I would agree about the malaise Carter discussed. I don't think people had any idea at that point that middle class growth that they noticed was missing would stay missing for at least another thirty years and counting. Things are different. However, (I'm thinking in real time here so I haven't thought this out yet) I think that people of the period (and some now) attributed the malaise to social problems rather than economic problems. That's why they thought Reagan would save them. But the problem isn't increased tolerance for GLBT people or the greater presence of Muslims or even of illegal Mexican immigrants - it's that the old socio-economic contract has been broken and they don't understand how, why, or by whom.
Thanks, and where do I find that article? If there's a link, please post it here. Thank you.
The rich just keep getting richer....
R
Yes, they do.
Jonathan,
Thank you. I appreciate that.