The Deterioration of the Standard of Living of Working People in the US

The economic system in the United States was broken well before Trump started to run for President. For decades going back at least to the Clinton presidency, the Democratic Party has failed to prioritize improving the lives of working people.  Since the Democrats were not working to make their lives better, nobody was, and their lives became harder and harder.  The fact that the Democratic Party was not fighting for working people and the resulting negative impact on their lives were two of the primary reasons that working people turned against the Democrats and helped elect Trump in 2016 and again in 2024. 

 

Since the economic system has been rigged against working people and in favor of the rich and powerful for decades, policies aimed at returning to the way things were before Trump does not solve the problem. Democrats must propose dramatic and transformative policies to improve the lives of working people, reverse the movement of wealth to the top 1% and seek equity for all.  Small and incremental changes to get back to the status quo ante Trump will just lead to even worse economic conditions for working people and yet another defeat for Democrats and even more claims by the Republicans and the oligarchs that authoritarianism is the only thing that can help working people.

 

Working people have suffered in many ways because of our broken economic system.  Their share of household income and wealth has fallen well behind those on the top of the economic ladder.

 

While household incomes at all levels of income have risen over the last 50 years, the incomes of the top 10% have risen at a much higher rate than those of the bottom 50%.  According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, the median household income from 1973 to 2023 rose 16.6% while the household income for the top 10% rose 50.0%.  

 

To give you an idea of how much income the various levels have, Census Bureau data indicates the following for 2023

Top 5%                        $526,200

Top quintile                 $297,300

2^nd quintile                  $129,400

Median                        $80,730

4^th quintile                  $47,590

Bottom quintile           $17,650

 

A Federal Reserve study on household wealth from 1989 to 2025 demonstrates that during that period 

·      the wealth of the top 0.1% increased 67% 

·      the wealth of the rest of the top 1% increased 22.5%

·      the wealth of the rest of the top 10% decreased by 4%

·      the wealth of the 50% to the 90% decreased 18.2%

·      the wealth of the bottom 50% decreased by 26.5%

 

In my view there are many reasons for this deterioration of the financial wellbeing of working people.  I will discuss several important ones – income tax rates, estate tax rates, decline of union membership and the increase in monopolistic power.

 

The maximum individual income tax rate has fallen over time, and the amount of income it applies to has also fallen.

 

In 1950 the maximum rate was 91%, and it applied to income over $400,000 ($5.4 million).

In 1975 the maximum rate was 70%, and it applied to income over $200,000 ($1.8 million).

In 2000, the maximum rate was 39.6%, and it applied to income over $288,350 ($542,659).

In 2025, the maximum rate was 37%, and it applied to income over $751,600 ($751,600)

 

The dollar amounts in parenthesis are the amount expressed in 2025 dollars.  As you can see the wealthy are not paying anywhere near their fair share, if you define fair share as what they were paying in 1950 or even 1975.

 

The same is true for estate tax rates and exemption amounts.

In 1954, the maximum rate was 77% on amounts over $10 million ($118 million).

In 1977, the maximum rate was 70% on amounts over $5 million ($27 million)

In 2009, the maximum rate was 45% on amounts over $3.5 million ($5.3 million)

In 2025, the maximum rate was 40% on amounts over $14 million ($14 million)

 

Once again, the rich are not paying their fair share and more and more generational wealth is moving to the very, very rich due to government policies.

 

A report issued by the Library of Congress in 2023 discusses union membership from the 1880s to 2022. The percentage of the workforce that were union members reached a peak in 1945 at 34.2% and stayed above 30% until 1961 when it dropped to 29.2%.  During the 1960s and 1970s, it dropped steadily but slowly.  In 1980 22.2% of the US workforce were members of unions.  After that the rate of union membership dropped faster to just 9.4% in 2022.

 

While I cannot say that there is a direct causation, there is certainly a correlation between the decline of union membership and fact that working people have fallen behind in the share of household income and wealth. 

 

The increased monopolistic power within the US economy has also had an adverse impact on the economic condition of working people.  As an October 2016 report from the Council of Economic Advisors states:

 

There is also growing concern about an additional cause of inequity—a general reduction in competition among firms, shifting the balance of bargaining power towards employers (Furman and Orszag 2015). Such a shift could explain not only the redistribution of revenues from worker wages to managerial earnings and profits, but also the rising disparity in pay among workers with similar skills. These trends also have broader implications for the economy as a whole: instead of promoting growth, forces that undermine competition tend to reduce efficiency, and can lead to lower output, employment, and social welfare.

 

Since that report, Trump has essentially stopped all anti-trust enforcement.  Unfortunately, even during times when Democrats controlled the White House, anti-trust enforcement has not been a priority.  

 Government policies related to income tax, estate taxes, unions and anti-trust as well as others have concentrated most of wealth and political power in the hands of a few very wealthy individuals and corporations (the "oligarchs") and have had a significant negative impact on working people.  Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have prioritized making the lives of working people better.  It is no wonder that working people are angry and frustrated.  They abandoned the Democrats because the Democrats took them for granted and never really prioritized making their lives better.  They moved to Trump because at least he promised them a better life.  It is now clear even to the working people who supported him, that Trump was lying.

 

Consequently, the Democrats have an opening to regain the votes of working people by enthusiastically embracing a platform of government policies that will improve their lives.  The word of the day is “affordability” and that is critical to improving working people’s lives, but it doesn’t stop there.  High quality childcare, education, health care, food, unemployment benefits and retirement benefits are not just affordability issues they are also quality of life issues.  Of course, part and parcel of all these issues is to reclaim our democracy where working people share equally and fully in the power and prosperity of our country.  Their voices must be heard.  The oligarchs cannot be permitted to continue to buy our elections and politicians.

 

In later posts, I will discuss what policies the Democrats should embrace to enhance the lives of working people and save our democracy.

 

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Trump's Unconstitutional and Illegal War of Choice against Iran

 Dear Friends,

President Trump has initiated and is prosecuting an illegal war against Iran with the direct complicity of some members of his cabinet, some members of Congress and some senior military officers.  The oaths of office of all these officials contain the following words in one form or another, “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”. 

The Constitution and subsequent Supreme Court interpretations make it clear that only Congress can declare war.  President Trump has not provided any evidence that Iran was about to attack the United States in any way.  So, he cannot use the theory of a preemptive strike to prevent an imminent attack on the United States as an excuse for his illegal action.  He has, however, referred to what he is doing in Iran as a “war”.  Congress has not authorized a war against Iran.  Congress has not approved the use of military force against Iran.  Congress has not even debated any form of armed conflict with Iran, much less a war of choice against Iran. 

 

Consequently, Trump’s war of choice against Iran is unconstitutional and illegal.  He has violated his oath of office, is violating the Constitution and is issuing illegal orders to the Secretary of Defense and senior military officers.  He needs to be impeached by the House of Representatives, tried by the Senate, found guilty and removed from office.

 

The President of the United States is not the only one that must face the consequences of his illegal actions.  The Secretary of Defense and some senior military officers are obeying Trump’s illegal orders and are issuing illegal orders to their subordinates to prosecute an illegal war.  They have violated their oaths of office, they have dishonored their offices, they have shown cowardice at a time when bravery is required.  The Secretary of Defense needs to be impeached and removed from office. The senior military officers who are participating in this illegal war need to be court martialed, if not by this Administration, then by the next one.

 

The members of Congress who are supporting Trump’s illegal war and who are mainly Republicans, are violating their oaths of office as well by not asserting the powers of Congress.  At I write this piece, it is not even clear that Congress will hold any votes on Trump’s illegal war of choice.  Members of Congress are willing to ignore their duty and let American service members die, be wounded and put their lives at risk, but they are too cowardly to even have a vote on the issue.  They all need to be voted out of office and publicly shamed for their dereliction of duty and immoral behavior.

 

The authors of the Constitution did not want one person, the President of the United States, to be able to start a war on his own.  The Constitution set up a process which would result in a debate on the merits of going to war.  Since that debate would take place in Congress, the American people would have a say in whether to take the monumental step of going into war.  

 

I don’t know if going to war was the best approach for American interests because there has been no debate – no facts disclosed, no goals, no strategies or tactics discussed, no risk assessments, no exit strategies, no plan b, etc.  All of which should have been thoroughly discussed before we started a war of choice.  The comments about the reasons and goals for this war of choice by President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and General Caine have been inconsistent, constantly changing, without factual evidence and always ignoring the constitutional requirement that Congress, not the President make the decision.

 

President Trump wants to be a dictator.  There is no clearer indication that a leader is a dictator than when he assumes the right to take the country into a war of choice without following the Constitution.  We, the people, cannot let this decision stand.  Congress must act to restrain the President.

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal

Villefranche-sur-mer - Winter 2026-6

Dear Friends,

Our time in Villefranche is rapidly coming to an end.  We are always sad when we must leave our French teacher, our friends and our home away from home.  This year is no different.  We had our last french lesson of this trip this morning.  We thought back on our time here this year and in the past.  We could never live here full time, but we still love to come here and hate to leave.  We are lucky that we can spend 3 months a year here.

After our last French lesson of the trip, we couldn't face making our own lunch so we went out to Bakaro, a small Italian bakery/coffee shop/cafe/wine bar that is just a three minute walk from our apartment.  If we go out for breakfast, it is our favorite spot.  They also have wonderful treats, great coffee and good lunches.  Today, Jane had an omelette.  They are really good especially with ham and cheese.  They are served with a little green salad.  I had their lasagna bolognaise.  Since we were sad that we would be leaving soon, we each had a glass of wine.  Jane had a wonderful little cookie with apricot filling and a noisette (small espresso with foamed milk).  I had a chocolat chaud.  Here is a picture of our dessert from lunch today.

noisette, chocolat chaud and cookie

Chocolat chaud is hot cocoa, but the Italian version and some French versions bear little to no relation to what we think of as hot cocoa.  I have written about chocolat chaud many times before.  Here is one example.  Since writing that blog, I discovered the Italian version of chocolat chaud in Ventimiglia.  It is a town located just into Italy from France and easy to get to on the train from Villefranche.  

The Italian chocolat chaud is much thicker than the french style.  The chocolat chaud at the Gran Caffe in Beaulieu-sur-mer which I had thought was the best was the Italian style but not so thick.  The chocolat chaud in Ventimiglia was great and very thick, but today I tried the chocolat chaud at Bakaro.  It is a whole new level of melted chocolat just barely able to be drunk.  

You can see from the photo below how thick the chocolat chaud is.  It is barely able to slip off the spoon.

Bakaro is so passionate about their chocolat chaud, they have a special sign describing the different styles.

Here is a very loose translation.  

Three ways to savor your chocolat chaud.

• "The Lapping" (normal)
• light, fluid, comforting 
• "The Swell" (thick)  [as in a big wave]
• more body, a texture that envelops your patate
• "The Depths" dense, intensely rich,
• to savor with a spoon

I asked the server for the thickest kind.  She actually told me after that she made me one between the "Swell" and the "Depths'.  Anyway, it was fantastic.  If it had been any thicker, I would have needed a knife.  I won't be able to go again this trip to Bakaro, but I will stop by in October to try the full on "Depths".

Thanks for reading and please comment,

The Unabashed Liberal