The common thread is poor people turning euros into cents, which is to say destroying something of great value to (attempt to) produce some small gain for themselves. This is a completely rational thing to do when it seems you have no better options, which is why social mobility is so important.
By definition, social mobility just lets you mix up the set of which people who are desperate, no?
Positive-sum social mobility was supposed to be the point of economic growth, but instead that growth was captured by rent-seekers, institutional investors, and others.
It's going to get worse, you know, the pushback from hollowed out rich world economies. Trump isn't the last populist, and he's not going to have been the worst. A more competent leader will learn from the fears Trump harnessed and be far more effective.
But even if you’re only talking about the US between the 80s and now, you’re still wrong. Unemployment is half of what is was in 1980, and at the lowest rate since the 60s. Household wealth has grown an enormous amount since the 80s, the poor are less poor and the poverty rate has dropped since the 80s too. The only somewhat legitimate issue you can point too is that housing in some areas is unaffordable for most people. But if your biggest complaint is that you can’t afford to buy your own house in the most expensive cities in the world, even though there’s lots of places where you could, and even though poverty and unemployment is down, and household income is up, then maybe you’re just proving my point?
Its been popular lately to claim that, because folks who used to have good-paying factory jobs have slid down the economic ladder to labor or service, its still good because its 'full employment'.