Americans Lose Faith That Hard Work Leads to Economic Gains, Wsj-Norc Poll Finds

As corruption becomes more and more profitable, culture also switches to become more tolerant of it, or even to expect it.

I think a major difference between East Europe and West Europe (can't talk generally about East/West) is that people in East Europe were trained/educated/forced/convinced that they can't change anything after 1950 (up to recently). This lead to most not take any responsibility, and to some profiting hugely (some hard working, some sociopaths). In West Europe there was always more struggle at multiple levels.

People's status improve mostly from accumulated individual actions. But someone still has to do the actions. That's why "propaganda" (convincing your own population that X is required) is so important because otherwise X will not happen.

Having a population that "accepts" things are "external" is perfect for the rulers, but no much for the others. Having a population that "struggles" and accepts it can't get everything it imagines (even if they try) seems much healthier.

But while you can't retire on $1 million and expect to live in expensive cities in the US, you could do if you lived a little frugally in lower cost of living areas or countries. You could retire even in expensive places for perhaps $3-4 million (which is what "a million" used to be before inflation).

The question on page 14 is "Do you think the American Dream--that if you work hard you'll get ahead--still holds true, never held true, or once held true but does not anymore?

And the results are (from 2023 to 2025):

Still holds true: 36, 34, 31 (downward trend)

Never held true: 18, 17, 23 (upward trend)

Once held true but not anymore: 45, 49, 46 (mixed trend)

The difference in opinion on the economy was more significant. But it went the other direction (positive) so I guess they couldn't use that.

Hard work in America consistently only ever nets you further hardship, and has for decades. What we need is more of the essentials, and for said essentials to be affordable when they can’t be effectively socialized. In America, with its naked hostility towards organized labor, this was briefly achievable with a college degree alone; now that credentials don’t guarantee basic necessities, our options are either higher wages (which Capital won’t pay so long as they’re high on AI) or an economic crash that deflates asset values in months, not decades - and which will exacerbate the underlying employment problems to the point of riots.

"Creating value" is such a subjective phrase. Societal value? Fiscal value?

Someone who drives around your city for 12 hours, rescuing and resuscitating people in life-or-death situations probably provides more societal value than a software engineer who builds CRM features for large social companies but we all know which one gets paid more and who is considered "more successful."

Maybe the problem is exactly that people are rewarded based on this other type of value, and that it is increasingly hard to define it, and be the one to provide it.

Here's a personal anecdote: my grandfather was born in Arkansas in the Jim Crow era. He never went to school, and in fact was illiterate throughout his life. He moved to the Central Valley of California in the 1950s as part of the Second Great Migration of African Americans, where millions left the South to destinations either in the North or west to California. He worked on the same farm for 30 years before he retired on Social Security. He worked very hard; he regularly woke up around 3:30am and left his home before sunrise.

Despite being illiterate, having a low income working on a farm, and facing discrimination, he was able to provide for his wife and four children, and he was able to purchase a house in Bakersfield that he was able to pass on to one of his sons.

I had other family members who moved from Texas to California in the 1950s and were able to purchase homes in places like Oakland and even farmland in San Luis Obispo County.

Today a farm worker in the Central Valley would have a much harder time being able to afford a home.

I work as a CS professor in Silicon Valley making six figures, and all I can afford to purchase is a one-bedroom condo unless I wanted to live in a high-crime neighborhood of the type that I grew up in or unless I wanted a soul-crushing commute from the Central Valley. Yes, I know I signed up for that reality when I took my role.

But forget about me and consider the big picture: high housing costs are brutal for young people who weren't around to purchase when prices were more affordable.

You'll have to explain to me what a person at work is doing, then? I mean, if they're not creating excess value by working at a job, whose value is then sold at a surplus over what they get paid, why does that job exist? Why did they get hired?

What exactly do you think people at 'normal jobs' are doing at work all day?

It's really more helpful to look at "middle class or better." Because yes, the middle class has shrunk. But more of that share went to the UPPER income tiers.

The middle class went from 61% in 1971 to 51% in 2023. But the lower income brackets saw a +3% change while upper saw +8%.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/economy/the-incredible...

>The ones on top getting a lot of the resources while the rest have to fight for whatever is left.

There simply is not a static pool of resources.

But no reason 37% of people randomly asked, who are not currently working, would necessarily fit those criteria

I think the confusion here is the definition of various BLS metrics on unemployment. If I have a STEM degree, for example, but was working as a cashier -- I wouldnt officially be considered unemployed. In practical terms, many of these individuals would label themselves as unemployed, as they may be seeking work aligned to their aspirations/degrees/years-of-training. Same for gig work, Uber driving, Door Dashing, Amazon deliveries, etc.

Also, once you are unemployed/underemployed for long enough, it gets treated as "structural unemployment" and doesn't get counted, hence the 4-5% figure you are citing.

I have friends' parents who were used to making 50k, 60k, or more. They dont have the same opportunities and now might be faced with making much less, often without benefits. In one case, I knew someone who was offered 35k p/t without benefits (thus, they would then just sink 20k of that into healthcare.) They did the math and the 35k was a net negative considering having to pay for healthcare, transportation to work, etc. Instead they just stayed unemployed. That isnt counted as unemployment, hence the 4-5% figure you are citing.

4-5% unemployment rate captures something different from "do you have a job right now, yes/no?". There are also different "unemployment rates" that mean different things.

FWIW, adults might live in homes owned by their spouse or child. It doesn't necessarily point to children living their parent's home.

I wanted to do a snarky "fixed that" comment where I crossed out everything before "the inequality will continue," but actually I'm curious now: capitalism fans (which includes liberals), do you genuinely believe you can have capitalism in a way where the inequality doesn't continue to favor the capitalist class? So long as power can be purchased with capital, how could this ever not be the case?

Is indeed an issue, as it corresponds with the malaise you describe.

> wage stagnation

is in part due to the government increasing the costs of hiring people. That indirectly results in correspondingly lower wages. The so-called "employers' contribution" is a misrepresentation.

I thought the same thing as I left the church, but it's so ingrained in many people in ways they don't even realize.

Another commenter mentions the "just world fallacy," which I agree drives this sentiment directly: if you work hard, you get good things. If you got bad things, it's because you didn't work hard (enough).

There's lots of feedback loops that perpetuate this: survivorship bias, historic wealth (ye olde boomer-bought-a-house-on-a-single-factory-salary), startup CEOs. I find the description of the American poor who don't see themselves as poor but as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" to be incredibly true.

Additionally, in many cases the people who're the most affected have the least resources to make themselves heard, the classic "rich people don't have the same 24 hours a day as the rest of us."

So, yeah, to a degree it should be obvious to anyone who goes looking, but there's so many sociological effects layered on top of each other that make it counterintuitive to someone for whom the system is working well.

This isn't based on economic theory or anything, it's just a political choice we have made as a country. We've chosen to reward those who move money around and trade capital more than we reward those who labor. And this at a time when, supposedly, the country is trying to increase its ability to build things.

I thought this specific fact worth mentioning.