I am not generally a fan of interviews, but this one traverses terrain that is either not covered at all, misattributed, or only marginally covered. It seems to be taken for granted that we are having “historically low unemployment.” This is a dangerous thing to take at face value. First, one key component of calculating unemployment is those actively seeking employment. That is a critical number, and a large one. As is discussed below, the actual unemployment rate is far higher than reported. Secondly, as has been typical for decades, the majority of the jobs created are at the lower edge of the pay structure, and less than full time. These trends are long, and frankly, go back to the beginning of deindustrialization in the US in the mid-1960s, and this trend has been present across the economically most advanced nations (emphasis mine):

In the 23 most advanced economies, employment in manufacturing declined from about 28 percent of the workforce in 1970 to about 18 percent in 1994. Among individual economies, deindustrialization started at different times and has progressed at varying speeds. It started earliest in the United States, with the share of manufacturing employment falling from a peak of 28 percent in 1965 to only 16 percent in 1994. (Rowthorn & Ramaswarmy. “Deindustrialization–Its Causes and Implications“. IMF. 1997)

There is important information here. The first is that deindustrilization is a huge economic restructuring. I remember when the question was being asked “Can a society that produces nothing survive?” I’m not sure that question has been answered yet. Changing economies generates massive structural changes across a society, and those changes can take a very long time to stabilize.  Further, the US went from an industrial society that had structural supports that essentially created the white middle class as we know it. The civil unrest of the 1950s-60s was significantly influenced by the disparity in prosperity following WWII. White Veterans had access to housing and education benefits (benefits that virtually created the suburbs) that were denied to non-white Veterans. Further, those same white Vets displaced the labor force that had “filled in” during the war – women of all races and Mexican immigrant labor. The purge of Mexican labor in particular bordered on brutal, and displaced many Mexican Americans – much like today’s harassment of Hispanics of all statuses.

Second, the US went from an industrial economy to a so-called “service economy” which was much lower pay. This was accentuated by the losses of NAFTA that hit white male blue collar labor very hard. Then corporations decided to restructure in the 1990s eliminating hundreds of thousands of middle management positions, displacing among the most privileged labor force of college educated white males. With the economic crash of 2000, we saw the first jobless recovery (that I know of). This meant that the financial sector and Rogue Elite “recovered”, but that was not reflected among the rest of the population. This was repeated with the 2008 crash, which also cost the life savings and housing security of millions of people.

Third, and perhaps most importantly in the invisibility of these society shaking transformations, is the DATE of the article cited. By the early 2000s, the deed was done (so to speak), and the impacts of moving from a production society to a consumption society were (and are) written off to other causes. This was most starkly revealed in the wake of the events of 9/11/2001, when Bush Jr. told the American people that the most important contribution they could make was to go shopping. Shocking, but true, as consumer activity made up roughly 70% of the national economy at the time. This transformation to the key role of consumers has transformed many things, but importantly it has transformed our view of the world and our true role as “productive members” of society.

This brings us to one of the key points, in my opinion (and to some extent iterated in the following interview) of Trump’s popularity. His clarion call is to time travel back to the glory days of industrialization when many, mostly white, blue collar workers made middle class wages – enough wages for wives to NOT be in the labor force. The other thing Trump brings is rage, and an uncanny ability to ignite and direct hate at non-white communities here and abroad. In fact, it may be his rage that draws people most, and definitely the rage of aggrieved white males. This combination of an unfulfillable promise of the white hay days of industrial economy may ease the despair (also discussed below) which is literally killing many people every year, and the rage (and right to publicly rage) that has been suppressed to some extent.

Lastly, as I have discussed many times before, this swing towards fascism and the anger being directed at “others” that is sweeping across economically advanced societies is not accidental or coincidental. They, in large part, are among those deinduatrialized nations, and have been targeted (as in the US) by forces eager to grasp the reins of power.

Welcome to the gates social chaos.