Skip to content

USA the Statistics That Shock

Marxist Analysis · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The central thesis is that the apparent prosperity of the US economy in the mid-2000s masks a profound and worsening crisis for the majority of Americans, including the so-called "middle class." The article claims that despite five years of economic growth, record stock market levels, and soaring profit margins, the benefits have been captured entirely by a tiny elite while the median wage has stagnated or fallen in real terms. This is not presented as a temporary anomaly but as a structural feature of the current phase of capitalism: rising profitability for capital has been achieved precisely through the systematic squeezing of wages, the intensification of labour, and the erosion of social protections for the vast majority. The argument is that this growing gap between the super-rich and the rest of society is politically explosive, making social turmoil inevitable as "middle America" begins to feel the pinch.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis is grounded in Marx's theory of surplus value and the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, though the latter is deployed implicitly rather than as a formal demonstration. The article explicitly connects rising profitability since 1982 to an increase in the rate of surplus value — achieved by squeezing wages, extending working hours, and minimising investment in new equipment. This is a classic Marxist understanding of how capital restores profitability at the expense of labour. The piece also draws on the concept of fictitious capital, particularly in its references to household debt reaching 120% of disposable income and the shift from defined-benefit to defined-contribution pension plans, which transfer risk from capital to labour. The critique of the "trickle-down" myth and the exposure of social mobility as a lottery are consistent with the Marxist tradition's insistence that capitalism systematically reproduces class inequality rather than offering genuine opportunity. The article sits firmly within the tradition of Marxist political economy associated with the In Defence of Marxism school, which emphasises the centrality of profitability crises and the impossibility of permanent reform within capitalism.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was written in May 2006, just over a year before the first tremors of the global financial crisis. Its relevance to that conjuncture is striking. The piece identifies precisely the vulnerabilities that would trigger the 2007-2008 crash: household debt at 120% of disposable income, stagnant or falling real wages, rising mortgage defaults (one in sixty), and a housing market propping up consumption. The article notes that 45% of Americans have no pension plan and that employer-sponsored health insurance is declining, leaving 45 million without cover. These are not incidental details but structural weaknesses in a system where working-class consumption is sustained by borrowing rather than by rising wages. The geopolitical context is the post-9/11, post-Iraq invasion period, when US imperialism was militarily overstretched and economically fragile. The article's reference to the Enron scandal and the Wal-Mart documentary places it in a moment when the legitimacy of corporate capitalism was visibly fraying. The data on income mobility — a 1% chance of a poor child reaching the top 5% — directly refutes the ideological narrative of the "American Dream" that was still dominant in US political discourse.

Where the Argument Continues

This article is an early statement of themes that Michael Roberts and the In Defence of Marxism tradition would develop extensively in the following years. The argument about the relationship between profitability, wages, and crisis is taken up in Roberts' later book The Great Recession: A Marxist View (2009) and his ongoing blog The Next Recession. The specific analysis of US household debt and the housing bubble is continued in the article "US house price boom – a time-bomb ticking" (February 2006) and "The Property Time Bomb" (June 2005), both by Roberts and both on marxist.com. The broader theoretical framework — that the post-1982 recovery of profitability was built on a squeeze on labour that would eventually exhaust itself — is developed in Roberts' The Long Depression (2016). The article's critique of social mobility under capitalism is revisited in later pieces on inequality and the "Great Gatsby Curve." For listeners of Against the Stream, episodes on the 2008 crash and its aftermath directly extend this analysis.

Connections

This article should be read alongside:

  • Michael Roberts, The Great Recession (2009) — for the full theoretical and empirical treatment of the crisis that followed.
  • Michael Roberts, The Long Depression (2016) — for the argument that the post-1982 period was not a genuine long boom but a prolonged depression punctuated by bubbles.
  • Andrew Kliman, The Failure of Capitalist Production (2012) — for a rigorous defence of the law of the tendency of the rate of profit as the explanation for the crisis.
  • David Harvey, The Enigma of Capital (2010) — for a complementary analysis of the role of fictitious capital and the housing bubble.
  • The In Defence of Marxism archive on the 2008 crisis — for the immediate political conclusions drawn from the economic analysis.

Key Quotes

  1. "The median wage, that earned by middle fifth of Americans, has fallen by 3.8% and in fact, since 1973 has stagnated."

  2. "Since 1973 annual income growth for the top 1% of Americans was 3.4% and for the top 0.1% it was 5.2% each year. But for the 90% below them, it grew just 0.3% a year since 1973!"

  3. "Children from low-income families in America have only a 1% chance of reaching the top 5% of income earners while children of the rich have a 22% chance."

  4. "Since 1982, the profitability of US capitalism has risen significantly. That was partly achieved by squeezing the wages and employment of the mass of American workers, while making them work even harder."

  5. "Household debt is now 120% of family disposable income. Not only do Americans save less, they receive less support from their employers to do so."

  6. "The bottom 50% of the population own only 1% of all financial wealth compared with 6% when Labour came in! So the poor have got even poorer!"