[weatherlite]

> In fact, if you look at the data, people today move for work less than our ancestors had. Our past was indeed glorious, but it was not a past of wealth and stability.

Indeed it depends how far you go back. I mostly talk about the baby boomer generation (who are "our" parents in many cases as many people here are 25-50 years old). In general they experienced more financial and occupational stability than us since they had much stronger unions and globalization was only starting.

[xyzzyz]

There was a brief period in American history where workers were quite well off, but it had more to do with the rest of the industrialized world being bombed to pieces than with unions.

When boomers started entering job market en masse in 1970s, they entered the economy of prolonged stagnation and high inflation, saw rationing of fuel, and by no means enjoyed significant stability. When they were buying houses, the nominal price was low, but mortgage rates were 8% at best times, 16% at the worst, making the mortgage payments scarcely more affordable than they are today. When they were entering job markets, the unions were already declining for two decades, and only something like a quarter of people were in a union in 1970.

Really, the boomers only made a killing in last decade or two, resulting from the low interest rates pumping values of assets. They certainly did not have it easy or stable in their youths, when they were forming families. I think your understanding of economic history needs more research.

[weatherlite]

Our economic position is just as bad and probably worse than the 70s - on top of inflation we have the biggest debt since WW2, much worse demography, weaker unions and AI is just beginning to wreck havoc. Really not great to be middle class now in my eyes. I do agree though, these comparisons to the past need to be done carefully, there is a lot of nuance.