My take that some people would not like the answer but it is what it is - capitalism. Capitalism thrives on low-paid labour, exploitation, profiteering aimed at wealth accumulation of individuals who own the means of production.

30 years ago we didn’t have these many billionaires either. The income inequality has increased. Cost of living has gone up, real estate prices have gone up, basic consumption goods are more expensive, services are more expensive. People who own these companies have become richer, but people who work for them have not.

That’s why we cannot survive on single income the way we could earlier. 30 years ago was the beginning of capitalism. We are in a more advanced stage now… it’s just how things would have naturally evolved. Corrupt politicians etc are all a part of it too - Crony Capitalism is a thing.

>>510756656 (OP)
what kind of irredeemable retard does it take to ask a fucking question like that? if you have to ask that fucking question, ITS YOU. YOU RETARD! YOU ARE WENT WRONG YOU INSUFFERABLE DUMB FUCK

>>510756656 (OP)
ITT OP asks 4chan an obvious question that was answered many many times over. Let's make every day at 4chan the same seems to be the motto of the shills. Let's just ask the same question, phrase it a little differently, use a different pathetic twitter screencap. Good fucking job OP. You suck.

>what happened
Jews

>>510756656 (OP)
The left is correct about the late stage capitalism stuff they just fail to tie it all together but they're starting to with becoming anti Israel. The populist left and right need to unite and expel every Jew from America

>>510756656 (OP)
30 years ago? not really. in 1995 two incomes was in full swing. granted, you could live a pretty good middle class life on those two incomes (assuming dad wasn't a cook and mom a waitress).
the single-income family died out in the early 80s. some say late 70s. women "officially" entered the workforce in the 60s. it went into full swing by 73 (the same year we see in all the graphs where productivity increases come uncoupled from worker compensation), but when i was a kid in the 80s (dae le???), my mom worked, and so did all my friends' moms. nurses, secretaries, cashiers, factories/plastics plants, etc., etc. only the rich kids from the 'good side' of town had stay-at-home moms, and even those were few and far between.
but the bottom line is this:
you're a fucking retard asking a shitty, stupid question 40 years too late. maybe 60.

>>510756656 (OP)
the late stages of any system are always rife with corruption. There hasn't been a system that has worked yet, they all inevitably collapse from some combination of greed and nepotism. We're running out of things to try in earnest. Personally, I wouldn't even mind if we tried a system based on AI decision making, because at least that would remove human bias from the equation.

>>510757762

You’re not wrong about late-stage systems, whether capitalism, socialism, or anything else, often get bogged down by corruption, greed, and favoritism. the Roman Empire crumbled under bloated bureaucracy and elite self-interest; feudalism gave way to uprisings over unchecked lordly power; and modern capitalism’s cronyism fuels inequality (the top 1% in the U.S. owned 32% of wealth). No system’s been immune because humans, well, human.

AI-driven governance sounds intriguing, and it could theoretically cut out emotional bias but decisions based on data, not backroom deals. But it’s only as good as the humans programming it, and biases can creep in. Plus, who controls the AI? That’s a power dynamic ripe for its own corruption. We’re not out of options, though. Hybrid systems such as blending human oversight with tech-driven transparency might be worth a shot. Think blockchain for public spending accountability or AI to flag policy inefficiencies.

>>510756656 (OP)
30 years ago was 1990. No you couldn't.