> You what could do it though? A new new deal focused not just on national roads and bridges, but public owned internet.

I think this is the profound part, and it contributes toward enraged_camel and massysett's comments as well.

If you want people to take pride in their work, give them ownership: bridges, roads, wind/solar, municipal broadband last mile, contributing towards the maintaining and expansion of national parks and reserves. "I helped build that". It provides purpose. People need purpose in what they do (on top of autonomy and mastery). [1]

This is how you create community from public works projects. "Building Tomorrow Together" would make a great New Deal umbrella project, funded by the US government.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive:_The_Surprising_Truth_Ab...

I agree, which is why I have been trying to read up on the constitutional issues surrounding the new deal programs. There is plenty of opportunity to tighten up the MIICC budget and use lots of it benefit real people in the short term and all people in the long term.

I grew up with a national forest as my back yard, so I understand the value of such projects first-hand.

> many of the issues tied to the destruction of the middle class are much larger than just job availability.

Isn't job availability the biggest issue when it comes to destruction of the middle class? Could you name a bigger issue?

In Canada anyways, a combination of 10+ years of zero interest rates, culture, and who knows what else has resulted in a housing bubble such that even if you have a fantastic job, in many cities you're not going to be able to buy a house, ever.

And now, because any policy change (normalizing interest rates for example) that might affect these precious lottery winners is a non-starter. Meanwhile, this bubble is well underway bleeding into the rental market. So it is literally government policy to create a society of have and have nots.

I think the insanely high housing prices are also largely due to the centralization of most new jobs centering around urban areas. People go where the jobs are, which drives up demand for urban housing.

That's how it is in much of the US, at least. I'm not sure if Canada is different.

Primarily it is one thing, a lack of economic mobility. Things that factor into that are stagnation of wages, increasing wealth inequality, and the fact that policy has been shown to favor the wealthy. The other commenter also touches on key points, rising rent cost as a % of wage, lack of ownership compared to past generations, lack of interest bearing accounts, etc.

Trick up is real, trickle down is the myth.