"The accelerating decline of the socioeconomic [...] of ~99%"

Have you looked at economical data? I mean there is genuine problem of wage stagnation but it's hard to call it as decline. Moreover, a clear income growth is already visible in much wider category of "top 10%".

"decline of [...] sociopolitical viability"

Aren't we observing that growing dissatisfaction of masses with their elites have in last decade turned into numerous moderately successful anti-establishment movements generally coalescencing around populist right?

MCP, thanks for your very rational reply! Yet, though your consideration of the realities seems sensible, I think we need to include the "real" rates of currency devaluation & sociopolitical destabilization that impact about 99% of us disproportionately (compared to members of the lucky ~0.1% class managers of kleptopia). Do y'all See what i mean (or care?), or are we already off the deep end?

The term "underclass," in turn of social science, has undergone critical scrutiny and transformation. Coined initially to incorporate such a bouquet of social burdens (Jencks, 2007), the term has been criticised for being ambivalent, without examining or clarifying terminologies that underscore individualistic, potentially racist perceptions (Cameron et al., 2012). A few claims lean towards departing from conventional class definitions based on education, employment, and income, intending to focus on subjective criteria of social dislocation (Zelly & Walton, 1995). In spite of the contentions surrounding its usage, from the 1980s into the 1990s, research strived to put an objective measure into operation, and while this initially indicated growth, an even greater scale of decline disorientated the 1990s (Jargowsky & Yang, 2006). All in all, this is a multifaceted notion, with differing interpretations suggesting trends from growth in the economy, mixed trends in the moral sphere, and a downward trajectory in educational differentials, especially in Black America (Jencks, 2007). The debate over the linguistic and communicational suitability and practicability of the term still runs the whole gamut in the literature of social science.

Thanks RR. Great recap of the problem with academic chauvinism etc., etc , etc. Yet, it seems my suspicion about systemic denialism being intrinsic or inherent to most egos below top tier ruling-class status may soon , eh?be confirmed "in spades" (across the board, or from lowest percentile low- & median-income strata on up). Sigh... Oh, well, we get & put up with the kleptocrats & plutocrats we deserve

Michael Lucas Monterey

How are you exactly defining "real rates of currency devaluation"? I mean if you don't take official deflator at face value, you are entering highly technical area of calculating shifting prices with changing not only proportions in consumption basket but outright changing products, so here the calculations starts being murky.

"sociopolitical destabilization" vs. "decline of [...] sociopolitical viability"

For practical purposes you can't really have both. Either masses are inert and powerless, then the system should be highly stable, or masses are fuming and start to organize, then we're observing sociopolitical destabilization.

I'd opt for interpretation that we have combination of wage stagnation, elites living in their own bubble (some decisions really appear as if they were made by someone shielded even from receiving bad new in case of them not conform to their ideology) and growing destabilization due to compounding problems and establishment loosing credibility. (like famous graph showing US steadily declining trust in mainstream media)

Dear MPW et al - How do I define "real rates of devaluation"? I recently stumbled across a Wikipedia article on The Fed's 1934 $100,000 bill ("USD"). The post featured content from The Fed saying that it would now be worth quite bit more than $2.3 million devalued Fed bucks. In the past I also studied the real buying power of America's original money and our pre-independence colonial "Scrip" systems. To get a better sense of the real devaluation ("inflation"/dillution) of Anglo-American currencies, recall that in our colonial days we not only had "half-penny" coins, but also "farthings" (each half a half-penny). Hence, if we look at the real rates of devaluation between 1777 and 1913 (when The Fed cabal took over, for USA, Inc.), and since then, we find that the relative "buying power" of The Fed's debt-bucks (i.e., micro-CDOs) is now about as close to 0.n...% as it can get. Oh, and when I was 21, in 1969, working as an intermediate-level architectural draftsman (for the lead design firm on KCI Airport and the KC Chiefs & Royals stadiums, etc.), my pay was $5.00 per hour, $200 weekly. Back then my rent was $80/month, gasoline was ~$0.18/gallon, a 1st-class stamp cost $0.04, beer cost ~$0.25/quart, bread was ~$0.25/loaf, eggs were ~$0.20/dozen, TV was free, and the news was still fairly realistic. Then, the Treasury ala The Fed started fudging (cooking) The Books so the numbers "looked" better. After the CIA wiped out the Savings & Loan banks, even Pres. Bush 1 could call it "Voodoo Economics" yet the Clintonian regime opened the flood gates for the devolutionary rise of financialization of everything. So, now, we're clearly in the Endgame scenario and, in reality, there's not a single fiat currency in the world-game (or the FOREX casino) worth a single farthing.*

So, that's how I define the problem and its context. Does that help clear the air of "economic" smog?

*Yes, since 1971, thanks to Nixon and the Fed Cartel & its kleptocratic puppets, "floating values" of the national currencies & crypto-coins are only relative to all the other valueless currencies, and "monetary value" is a bogus notion.

Michael Lucas Monterey

A few technical issues with reasoning you presented:

a) Going to colonial times seems a bit excessive, as all people from that time are long dead. The more realistic time frame is going to post-WW2 boom, as people remembering that particular period are still alive and have annoying feeling that economic situation is not specially improving.

b) You are pointing out towards Nixon, CIA and FED. The problem with this explanation is that in Western Europe there is very similar situation (except lack of Big Tech companies which may skew upward average official productivity stats) with those culprits being hard to blame.

c) Experiencing crazy inflation on the way does not seem like necessary doom (issue is rather prices vs. earnings), my country roughly counting 3 times experience hyperinflation in XXth century and situation in last 3 decades seems relatively fine, except embarrassing need to cut 4 digits from Polish Złoty.

d) Have you tried to calculate deflator based on those goods? My problem is that in meantime some new products arose (electronics, new drugs, goods completely reshaped by new technologies like cars) so the comparison starts being assumption heavy.