• Deme@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    I disagree somewhat. Yes it was appeasement to a significant extent, but I think the middle class was primarily created to grow the consumer base to fuel the growth of the economy by giving a subset of the working class enough wealth to make them better consumers. At the same time they get bombarded with marketing to keep them using their limited wealth for this purpose. The rich can’t get richer if the economy (that they own) doesn’t grow in size and it can’t grow if workers can’t afford to be consumers for the products and services they produce. Financialization is the key thing that is currently (since like, Reagan and Thatcher) shaking things up. The real economy isn’t growing like it used to, with economic growth now coming primarily from asset inflation. Rent extraction and high interest debts gain even more prevalence and guess who’s paying…

    • Archangel1313@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      This is all true. It should be noted, that was also in response to the Great Depression effectively wiping out the working class, which led directly to the need to give them that economic boost. The economy had all but stalled during the 1930’s for this reason. If they didn’t find a way to inject spending money back into the lower economy, the entire thing might have collapsed.

      However, once the economy had a chance to recover, the wealthy decided they shouldn’t have to pay for these loafers to prosper anymore, and convinced politicians like Reagan and Thatcher to implement policies that would allow them to stop giving the working class any more handouts. We’ve been backsliding ever since.