So nothing conclusive, but if we had conclusive metrics to point to that could indicate an economic bust is coming, we would be able to implement policies to prevent them.
And apparently many people here on HN want to discredit the author's conclusions because they dont agree with them personally.
I think that's a bit harsh. The author runs a successful podcast, for a number of years now. I value his opinion, he usually backs up his opinion with numbers. I do sympathize with you, in the sense that I'm also earning less than I used to.
Purchasing power has climbed, hunger has reduced, I think all of these are important metrics to consider...
I think people are much more polarized and that social media has brought out terrible polarity, but it doesnt necessarily mean the average person is not living better than 30 yrs ago.
Stating this because supposedly, the middle class is not homeless or starving
I don't know if that's even well-defined based on the evidence presented - "a massive stock market boom".
The (USA) economy is doing OK, especially when compared to other countries that have made other policy choices and are faring even worse. But "stock market go up" is not the same thing at all as "most people doing better".
"High house prices" is also not a unambiguously wonderful thing. e.g. if you need to buy a house.
Likewise Low Unemployment is not great if all the jobs are no-benefits gig work and you need three of them to pay off your massive student or medical debt.
Lack of good consumer sentiment indicates this gap.
And this oversimplifying to the point of meaninglessness is why I'm sceptical of the article's point.
Even if history repeats in cycles for some astrological reason, why would it repeat in a 100 years cycle? Why not a 67 years cycle?
see: why everything costs x.99 units