We dont build housing anymore so costs go up. That has little connection to our ability to afford living well

> We have enough technological advancement in America that given strict immigration controls we can ensure the median American is able to raise a family of at least 2 kids while holding an entry level job (of which their should be plenty).

What evidence is there to support this? Kids are expensive, and entry level jobs do not produce enough value to generate an income that can support several people.

> Anything else is morally wrong

Why?

But it used to.

In the post war boom it definitely used to produce enough value to support several people.

And we're far wealthier in aggregate now than before, it's just distributed badly now.

Thats because entry level jobs provided a lot of value back then. It's just harder these days with the amount of automation and tech advancement.

I guess one way is to increase the min wage a lot. But I am guessing employers will just pivot to hiring even less.

In the post war boom, most of those entry level jobs that could support an entire family were limited to white (itself a heavily restricted term back then) men with a union membership.

Heck, unions themselves were heavily racialized back then.

On top of that, housing was segregated either overtly via race restrictions or covertly by overwhelmingly denying loans or sellers colluding to not sell to "that" family.

You'll hear plenty of these stories from older Black, Italian, Greek, Armenian, Chinese, and Hispanic Americans.

That’s true enough, but at that time whites were 90% of the US population, so there was arguably enough wealth then, definitely enough wealth these days, to extend entry-level jobs to the remaining 10%. When 40% or more of your population is descended from post-1965 immigrants, the competition for good jobs goes up a lot in most industries, unless enough economic growth makes up for it - and even with growth, housing scarcity is almost always an issue.

Wages from a single entry level job absolutely did not support a family of 4 or more in the 1950s and 1960s, let alone as comfortably as you are probably imagining.

These delusions need to stop, because it makes it impossible to have meaningful conversations about the many actual issues that do exist. I would expect people here to be better informed, but that seems to be less and less true over the last couple years.

And yes, the wealth distribution is more uneven now than it was in those days, but not to the point that you are claiming.

I completely agree with the goal, but I don't think that making it difficult to fire employees is a good way to achieve it. That's essentially funding welfare with a randomized and hidden tax on employers. It would be better if firing for performance was reasonably easy, but new jobs are plentiful and welfare programs allow a reasonable life between jobs. (And, of course, for those who can't work.)