.
I mean, a "middle class" which is made up of workers is a relatively new phenomenon in the grand scheme of things. It is the result of an industrial revolution that allowed subsistance framers and craftsmen to move to the city to become "workers". The increased output reduced the price of goods so workers could afford them, if they were paid a reasonable wage. Agricultural automation allowed the growth in yields per acre, and transportation (first trains, then refrigerated transportation) allowed farmers to produce enough food so workers could purchase it.
.
For the first time, workers could produce income and income could buy goods - and susbistance receded and the middle class grew. Policy and regulation by the government (both Democratic or Republican in the olden days) ensured that all the benefits didn't go to the wealthiest by enforcing 6 then 5 day work weeks, outlawing child labor and allowing union organization. Monopolies were broken and overtime workplace safety was mandated.
But the social contract isn't iron-clad, and is - in fact - no longer assumed as a social good. Worker safety in China isn't widely enforced. Manufacturing first, now some software development even x-ray reading chases low cost. Good middle class jobs leave - some to low wage countries, some to automation and some to obsolescence - and don't appear to return or be recreated at the same rate.
.
Industries that paid (book publishing and stores, recording industries and retail, photo developing and infrastructure) move to the internet and spread the costs out to a base that provides them for free, and pays relatively few and rewards a tiny sliver.
.
It is "normal", and I get it (I'm not a Luddite). But, if you stop and think, the question of the value of the middle class is real. I mean it is really only about 100 years old. Out of at least 4,000 years of human history, a brief bright moment like this might extinguish if it isn't valued. And our pay-to-play democracy doesn't really value the middle class anymore.
.
Think, the middle class was created from whole cloth by leaders that valued people. Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt who forced a public good onto Oligarchs. Even the Oligarchs of the day, the Astors, the Carnegies, Roickefellers, the Fords - they promoted a middle class based on their location. Less for altruistic reasons than because they couldn't readily jump on a plane a retired to some secure location in tropics (no Air Conditioning!).
.
But our present gaggle of world-wide Oligarchs feel no such devotion to any single location, country or state (except maybe Warren Buffet). They flit at will and buy influence not for any public good, but for their own enrichment. For the present (and the recent past) they have been able to shelter their greed by obfuscating their agenda, but as they become richer and more powerful (politically) they feel the need to hide less and less. The Koch Brothers buy the LA Times and Chicago Tribune. Sheldon Anderson spends over $110,000,000.00 in one election cycle and learns laughs that it is less than 0.5% of his fortune and his lesson is that you have to spend more and more focussed. Multi-millionaires decamp for Singapore or Monaco or Russia or whatever country grants them the best taxes rates. Where they can keep all their money and contribute nothing.
.
In a world where this is okay... Where a billionaire runs for President and doesn't disclose his income like everyone else... Where a liberal software founder leaves for Singapore so as not to give back to the state and country that pays for his success... Where we are all okay with this... Well in that world, is the middle class viable? Over the long run.
.
You may say, in fact the argument that the rich in the media provide, is that they rich can only get and stay rich with a vibrant middle class. But the richest man in the world is from Mexico - and fleets of chauffeured cars run in India, China and the Middle East. Very few Americans would join the "middle class" of those countries. But as we stripmine our economies for the benefit of the few, perhaps we are moving our "middle class" down market.
.
And it will destroy the democracy. We already see a move to make voting harder for the poor. Fewer polling stations, reduced hours in poorer locations. Requiring identification that "everyone has". But that is the obvious and blunt force method. More insidious is the absence of impact. If "they are all crooks", why bother voting? And there, we lose our voice.
.
Lost in increments. First the politicians are bought and become ineffective - a sideshow. Now, hidden from view, agencies are made powerless. The National Labor Relations board hasn't functioned in years because Congress refuses to seat a quorum. The Consumer Protection Agency doesn't have a leader. Congress has said the EPA can't regulate some pollutants. They list goes on.
.
Congress can move with lighten speed when airlines are delayed, but can't fix a veteren's administration backlog that has grown to multiple years.
.
I think it is a Murder. Like a "murder of crows", a "murder of multimillionaires" and a "blight of billionaires". I don't dislike or reject "rich people" as a class. I am not envious of them. But, in aggregate as opposed to individually, they are showing no respect to the populace. They are moving into a mind set of feudal lords. Where they haven't just earned what they have, they are entitled to it. And entitled to avoiding the little people and their problems.
.
And how long before that breaks. I used to think the rich were shooting themselves in the foot. That they would create a backlash. I underestimated their collective intelligence and propaganda ability. I think they can pit "us" verses "them" until there is no "us" left. After all, they don't veel part of "us" to begin with.