Don’t forget how Reagan told us that tax cuts would “trickle down” and busting unions would make us all more prosperous.

No doubt but that’s amateurish compared to how we got screwed by people who said they were fighting FOR US.

On the other hand he deregulated airlines and telephony which jump started the tech revolution.

I don’t see how it’s any different, let alone “amateurish”. Clinton cleared the way for the internet to create as much wealth as it has (Telecommunications Act of 1996). Every President has had positive policies and negative policies, so we could play that game all day.

Acting like deregulating airlines and busting unions are on the same level is curious. One has created some new companies (and many corporate bankruptcies) while union busting and trickle-down economics helped lay the foundation for the income stagnation the article is largely about.

Clinton's policies have lead directly to these sorts of wealth imbalances. His deregulation of the financial industry is a large reason for the 2008 recession, his work with NAFTA left behind many of the working class, his welfare and prison reforms stole livelihoods from the poor, his CEO pay reforms lead to the massive increase in CEO compensation (mainly in the forms of stocks, which Clinton reduced the tax burden of by lowering capital gains tax), etc. Clinton's policies were neoliberal and largely skewed towards the wealthy.

Some details of his failures can be seen here:

https://prospect.org/health/fabulous-failure-clinton-s-1990s...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/welfare...

Income stagnation is directly correlated to outsourcing and globalization. Union busting’s contribution to stagnation is sort of a side show. That’s to say strong unions cannot stop jobs from being sent overseas.

What good does it do you to have a union without members because all work has been sent overseas? None!

That’s Clinton and his MFN and fastracking into WTO. That’s who we have to thank as well as everyone who didn’t dare challenge that world view but rather cheerled it, including the Bushes and Obama.

You are taking theories and treating them as scientific facts.

Is it possible that weakening of unions made it easier for politicians to pass globalization policies which ultimately lead to wage stagnation?

Is it possible that trickle-down economics (lower taxes on the rich) lead to concentrated political power for the wealthy who were able to push policies that benefit them (Citizens United, Right to Work, stock buybacks, carried interest loopholes, NAFTA)?

Treating 40 years of economic history as a simple binary does nobody any favors. These things are very complex and deserve more than a brush-off.

Unions were busted by outsourcing environmentally damaging manufacturing to China.

I don't think I'd have GHW on that list - Clinton, sure, but during GHW's presidency we had pretty strict sanctions on China and investment in China was mostly curtailed.

Is that quite right? My impression is that it has been half-true, with part of the middle class doing better than ever and rising, while the other part did poorly & lost out. A bifurcation of the middle class.

Which was not unexpected, globalization always has losers. But we've failed to help them out.