Saw a post about this at !history@hexbear.net and was a bit confused by exactly how badly the people there were going at each others throats in the comments. Nobody seemed able to agree on what precisely happened in 1971. Suggested explanations included:

  • Neoliberalism being declared the state religion by Grand Moff Richard Nixon
  • The gold standard being abolished
  • The oil crisis
  • The Republican and Democrat parties becoming increasingly divided
  • Declining birthrates
  • Institutional Racism

If any of you could give some explanations with, like, sources that aren’t just 10 pages of graphs with arrows pointing at 1971, that would be pretty great.

  • thezeesystem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 day ago

    I know people always choose Hitler if they could go back in time and kill. Someone, but tbh I would choose Nixon, if I remember correctly, most of our problems we have in the US are directly related to him and his fucking over America for corporate greed.

    • JackAttack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I know I could probably just google it but for the sake of contributing to this discussion and my curiousity, what exactly is neoliberalism?

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        You’re better off googling it, they’ll do a better job explaining it than me.

        It’s an economic ideology, and tldr the problematic positions are supporting laissez-faire capitalism, and privatization and commodification of everything.

  • PNB2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    3 days ago

    The short answer is that corporate lobbying exploded starting in the early 70’s.

    This is a deep and complex topic but the TL;DR is: money talks and this was the moment in US history where the people with the money were allowed direct access to the lawmaking process in congress. For the first time in history lobbyists were allowed to sit in congressional committee meetings and not just wait in the hallway outside. From that point on, corporate America has had more ‘representatives’ in congress than US citizens do.

    And businesses only care about profits, and the single biggest expense most businesses have is labor. Decreased labor cost = more profits. So one of the first things that happened is wages stopped growing.

    There is so much to talk about here including how and why it happened, who caused it (spoiler: Nixon is a recurring character), and what other impacts it had (too many to list).

    This website does a great job of laying out the argument and providing citations: congressionalresearch.org. There are also some very helpful charts that really drive home the impact the increase in lobbying has had.

    If you’re interested in this sort of thing I also recommend reading about The Powell Memorandum, 1971 which is basically the blueprint for modern capitalism and advocates specifically for increased corporate lobbying. Fun fact: It is also considered by some to be a forerunner to Project 2025.

    There are a lot of other good points being brought up like decreased union membership but I would argue that increased lobbying is the root cause and all other explanations are symptoms.

  • Acamon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    3 days ago

    There’s a fair amount of evidence linking wage stagnation over the last 50 years to erosion of collective bargaining and union membership. Unless there are very strong incentives companies are not going to pay employees more than they need to. Employees as a group have a lot of bargaining power, but as individuals, very little. Unless you happen to worn in a highly skilled, and high demand occupation, which are exactly the jobs that have seen wages remain comparatively high.

  • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The gold standard was the only thing ensuring the dollar didn’t lose all its value. Poor people hold dollars while rich people knew about this. This is how we got here with that much inequality

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Categorically false.

      The problem with a gold standard is that your monetary supply can’t increase with your population, unless you can also increase your gold reserves at the same rate. If your monetary supply can’t keep pace with the population, then your money increases in value. That’s a bad thing; it makes it more expensive to buy anything, or to use any kind of credit.

      A way to explain it is that if you have 100 people, and $1000, then you have an average of $10/person. But if your population increases to 110, and you still have the same amount of money, then you have an average of $9.09/person. But that $9.09 has the same purchasing power as $10 had previously. The result is that people hold on to money, since it’s going to be far more valuable in a few years than it is now. This is a form of deflation, and it’s a good way to crash an economy.

      Going off the gold standard allows the federal reserve to more readily manipulate the monetary supply–they don’t have to hold reserves of gold or silver–to keep an economy growing along with a population.

      • Mubelotix@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        Deflation is only bad for the rich. You are spitting bad justifications for the end of the gold standard. There is only one reason it was ended : the USA defaulted as their gold reserve was empty after all major actors like France demanded their gold back

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Really? You think that deflation is good for workers? Deflation means that they get laid off, because why the fuck would I, were I an employer, continue to employ someone when their effective wage rises ever year, if I can get someone for half the real wages? Deflation means that no one is going to get a mortgage, because you’re going to be underwater on that loan before the ink is dry; that also means that you won’t be able to sell a house if you need to. With deflation, everyone puts of discretionary purchases, because the increasing value of money means that those purchases will be cheaper at a later date. With everyone stopping discretionary spending, you see a very rapid halt to the economy.

    • andsens@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      The Gold standard couldn’t be sustained. Basically, the U.S. was no longer just exporting shittons of product and making a killing, it was now also importing a lot. The shift of that balance meant that keeping the ratio of 35 dollars per troy ounce of gold was nigh impossible.

  • xylogx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    From ChatGPT:

    Ending the Bretton Woods system in 1971 had a cascading effect on corporate profits and income distribution. Wealth shifting toward shareholders and executives rather than workers:

    1. Deregulation of Money and Credit

    Once the dollar was no longer tied to gold, the U.S. government and Federal Reserve had more flexibility in managing the money supply. This led to:

    • Higher inflation, which eroded workers’ real wages.

    • Easier access to credit, fueling corporate financialization (more focus on stock buybacks, mergers, and financial engineering instead of wage growth).

    2. Rise of Shareholder Capitalism

    With the shift away from the gold standard, corporate governance changed. Instead of focusing on long-term growth and worker stability, companies prioritized maximizing shareholder value, which became a dominant ideology by the 1980s (reinforced by Milton Friedman’s theories).

    • Stock Buybacks & Dividends – Companies increasingly used profits to buy back shares, boosting stock prices and benefiting executives/shareholders.

    • Executive Compensation in Stocks – CEO pay shifted from salaries to stock options, aligning their interests with shareholders rather than employees.

    3. Decline in Labor’s Bargaining Power

    As globalization and automation accelerated, companies could move production abroad, weakening the leverage of American workers. Meanwhile:

    • Unions declined, further reducing workers’ ability to demand wage increases.

    • Deregulation in industries like finance, airlines, and trucking shifted power away from labor and toward corporate management.

    4. Explosion of Financialization

    The detachment from gold allowed an unrestricted credit boom, fueling speculative bubbles and making the financial sector more dominant. Instead of reinvesting profits into worker wages or capital expansion, firms:

    • Focused on financial activities (derivatives, leveraged buyouts, etc.), which benefited investors rather than workers.

    • Moved toward short-term profits, cutting costs via outsourcing and automation.

    End Result

    With productivity still rising but wages stagnating, the gains went disproportionately to executives and shareholders. This is why, after 1971, you see charts showing a widening gap between worker pay and corporate profits.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      If you are going to be lazy and copy paste chat GPT, please remove the artifacts (•) of I think bullet points.

      • xylogx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I could have gotten the same information from Google. Would that still be lazy?

        • Akasazh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s copy pasting the thing and not really reading what you posted, or seeing those artifacts and just not caring for them.

          If you copy pasted it from another site and had not fixed those it would be lazy aswell. It’s only that the two combined that made me a bit snappy.

          So let me rephrase and put it more politely. It’s great that you included your source! Please do take a pause and re-read what youre about to post/have posted in the future, it makes everybody more happy and gets your (or chatcpt’s) point across more clearly!

          • xylogx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I read it. It was relevant. Otherwise I would not have posted it. I did not clean it up because I was on mobile and it was legible as is.

            I asked several questions and was impressed at the result. I know people do not like LLMs, but they are tools just like a search engine. I am somehow getting Butlerian Jihad vibes.

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    3 days ago

    1970 was the last time the government collected more than 3% of GDP in taxes. After that point, there was less and less of a need to avoid taxation.

    We need a new tax bracket for the ultra wealthy. The top current bracket is 37% above ~$300,000. For most of the 20th century, the top tier tax bracket was 91%. We need a 91% tax bracket on income beyond $600,000. We need some sharp incentive for the wealthiest among us to avoid.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        First off, your link is about 80% tracking information. You can remove the “?” and everything that follows it.

        You are correct. The value of those shares should be considered income and taxed at the time of transfer. If they were, the 91% top-tier tax bracket would catch most of their excess income. Since that isn’t happening, we need additional measures.

        Capital gains tax should be higher than income tax. It is patently absurd that sitting around waiting for your money to make more money is taxed less than busting your ass for 40+ hours a week. With capital gains taxed higher than income, businesses will want to pay a larger percentage of their workers with shares rather than simple income.

        More importantly, we need a specific type of wealth tax. We don’t need to tax all wealth: We need to tax financial assets. Registered securities. The vehicles that the ultra wealthy use to exponentially transfer wealth out of the economy.

        We should tax registered securities at 1-3% per year. Natural persons holding less than $10 million in securities are exempt. That keeps 99% of taxpayers from owing this tax.

        The securities tax should be paid in shares of the security, transferred directly to the IRS. By paying directly in shares, they don’t have to find a buyer; the don’t have to liquidate them, so they won’t be dragging down prices for everyone else. The IRS will sell off these shares over time, such that IRS liquidation sales never comprise more than 1% of total traded volume.

        Securities are shares of the “means of production”. A securities tax will drive ownership of those shares toward the working class.

        • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          My accounting team told me they would open more Panamanian shell companies for me, and the shares would get distributed across them. I’d retain full ownership, of course.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago
            1. If they are holding shares that can be traded in US markets, the SEC knows about those shares, and ultimately controls those shares. They don’t need your Panamanian shell company to release them. You’ll wake up one morning to find that a portion of the shares formerly in your shell company’s portfolio are now in the IRS’s portfolio. The SEC just ctrl-x’d them from your portfolio, and ctrl-v’d them to the IRS.

            2. Your Panamanian shell company is not a “natural person”. Only “natural persons” are eligible for the $10 million dollar exemption. Your shell company pays the tax on its entire portfolio, not just the excess above $10 million.

            • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              So you want to tax all companies a percent of their stock ownership every year? Good luck with that.

              You’re falling intro a trollhill. The point is the ultra-wealthy pay very smart people to work out loopholes. If some internet retard can run around your ideas and keep you busy, a team of full time financial experts will have a field day. This is not an easy problem to solve. Pretending like it is leads to support for crappy subpar legislation that doesn’t work.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                12 hours ago

                Not at all.

                Companies shouldn’t be owning stock.

                Companies issue their own stock. They don’t own it. The shareholders who buy it or otherwise acquire it are the owners. And if those owners have more than $10 million worth of it, they can afford to pay 1% of everything they own beyond that first $10 million.

                I won’t prohibit companies from owning other publicly traded companies, but they don’t get special status when they do. That status is reserved for natural persons, and only $10 million of the the stock owned by such a person is exempt from taxation.

                The point is the ultra-wealthy pay very smart people to work out loopholes.

                Correct. The securities tax I’m talking about is not the actual solution. The loopholes they use to avoid that securities tax is the solution. The actual solution is for them to actually spend their wealth and enjoy their lives, rather than treating the economy like some idle clicker.

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      We need a 91% tax bracket on income beyond $600,000. We need some sharp incentive for the wealthiest among us to avoid.

      This is a fantastic idea, and it wouldn’t actually require eating any of them, necessarily.

    • misk@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Ultra wealthy got so rich you won’t undo inequality with just income tax. There needs to be a cap on existing wealth and if they opposed income tax, they won’t part with it willingly.

  • Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Anyone knows where to find data for European countries or the EU?

    It’s been a ling time that we should be able to work less and have more freedom IMO but I’d love having it backed up by raw numbers like this.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 days ago

    Don’t forget the computer revolution.

    You know how you can right click on a doc and select copy or save? That used to be two whole jobs.

  • reddwarf@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    No sources from me but speculation. It’s the decade before, the 60’s where focus was on people, freedom, honest compensation for labor and social equality.

    I know I will get push-back on this, it being perhaps to simple of a theory or me missing key elements. I will die on this hill though, it was the hippies.
    The conservatives around the world got a collective heart attack from the 60’s and what transpired therein and this is when conservatism started to plan on breaking those wild communist activist freeloaders. We can see the effects today still. Mismanagement from the ‘left’ (or better yet, the world at large tbh) to capitalize on the spirit of the 60’ and truly change society. The focus on business and the suppression of those pesky ‘hippies’ and/or ‘communists’ started to gain traction and voila, there is the divide of the two lines somewhere in the 70’s.

    For good measure, I have nothing against the 60’ and hippies, just pointing to these as a ‘shock to the system’ as an explanation for what happened in the 70’s and what we see today.

  • neidu3@sh.itjust.worksM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 days ago

    No sources from me, only uneducated guesswork.

    Two events of 1971 stand out to me, as I knew of them beforehand:

    • My brother was born. Not relevant to the question at hand (I hope), I just wanted to mention it.
    • The oil crisis.

    The latter strikes me as probably a big factor. The world was basically using oil for everything (Even more so than now), and an oil shortage (or fear thereof) is likely to send a drastic shock to the system. Manufacturing, logistics, energy, EVERYTHING becomes more expensive, resulting in having to do more with less.

    Shortly after the (percieved) shortage, there was an oil glut and overcorrection. I’m not clever enough to say what effect this would have in exact terms, but I highly doubt that an already turbulent world economy did well because of it.

    • DoYouNot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      Oil rebounded, but Reagan/Thatcher era neoliberal policy remains. I’m not saying the oil crisis wasn’t a factor, but I think this lasting wage stagnation has more to do with explicit policy that promoted oligopolies than it does to do with the supply of energy resources.

  • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    The first oil crisis was in 1973, which is roughly what the graph suggests.

    In 1971 the oil-fuelled postwar party was still in full swing.