In recent times, I have been deeply engaged in researching several interconnected topics related to the social and economic conditions of people today. What initially motivated me to begin this research was my sharp and critical perspective on what is happening in the world economically. I personally recall stories told to me by my grandfather about living conditions during his youth—stories that left me with many unanswered questions for years, questions I have only recently begun to understand.
For example, I was told that in the period between the 1950s and the 1980s, it was relatively easy for any hardworking young man to see tangible financial results from his labor. My grandfather, for instance, was able to buy a house and commercial properties, after only a few years of diligent work. This is the same level of effort we put in today, yet all we seem to earn in return is enough to survive day by day.
Since hearing those stories, I have constantly wondered: what was different about the economy back then? Why do we today,even in Western countries, work endlessly just to pay bills, only to end each month with almost nothing left?
The answer I found was both shocking and logical, supported by strong evidence, evidence that leaves little room for doubt, and it's what I wanna share here.
I began my research by focusing on the United States, as it is the driving force of the global economy and the center of global capital. Another reason for focusing on the U.S. was technical cuz its institutional and statistical systems are highly credible, especially when data comes from non-governmental or non-profit organizations, which often provide accurate and even critical insights into the government itself.
So, during my research, I found a strong connection between suicide rates among young men and the economic situation in the United States. In the 1930s, suicide rates reached their highest levels in history: approximately 23 out of every 100,000 men took their own lives, largely due to economic hardship. This was driven by several factors, most notably the Great Depression, which wiped out opportunities for an entire generation. Many were unable to provide a decent life for themselves or their families, and young unmarried men in particular lost all sense of hope.
Even more alarming was the level of wealth concentration at the time. The richest 1% of Americans controlled around 40% of the country’s wealth, alongside numerous unjust policies that worsened conditions for the rest of society.
What is deeply concerning today is how closely current conditions resemble that era. Suicide rates among men in the U.S. have again reached approximately 23 per 100,000, matching the peak of the 1930s. At the same time, wealth inequality mirrors that period: today, the top 1% owns roughly 35% of the nation’s wealth, and this gap continues to widen year after year.
This raises an important question: why were conditions significantly better for working people from the end of World War II through the 1980s?
The answer, again, lies in wealth distribution. During that period, the U.S. implemented numerous policies: strong taxation on the wealthy, large-scale infrastructure and housing programs, and economic reforms that ensured a more equitable share of wealth. At that time, even an average worker could achieve what was known as the “American Dream.”
One notable example was tax policy under the Internal Revenue Code, which effectively encouraged companies to reinvest profits into workers, through higher wages, better working conditions, reduced hours, and profit-sharing, instead of hoarding excessive profits. Labor unions were also strengthened and legally protected, giving workers real bargaining power across industries. As a result, wealth concentration decreased significantly, with the top 1% holding around 22% of total wealth.
This leads to further questions: why did the United States adopt such policies in the first place? And why did it later abandon them?
The answer lies in the Cold War. The rise of the Soviet Union posed a serious ideological and existential threat to capitalist systems. There was a real risk that internal unrest and social inequality could lead to revolutions within Western countries themselves. To prevent this, governments (including the US) were compelled to redistribute wealth more fairly and improve living standards, reducing the appeal of socialist alternatives.
Geopolitics also played a role. A concept sometimes referred to as “proximity politics” suggests that the closer a country was to the Soviet sphere of influence, the more likely it was to adopt stronger social and economic protections. This explains why European countries implemented even more robust welfare systems than the United States, driven by strong labor movements and leftist political pressure.
However, as the Soviet Union weakened and eventually collapsed, this pressure disappeared. Capital no longer felt threatened. This led to a shift in policy, most notably during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose tax cuts and economic reforms marked a return to policies favoring wealth accumulation at the top.
Today, we are seeing a return to patterns similar to those of the 1930s. Rising inequality, economic pressure, and social despair are once again shaping people’s lives. The increasing suicide rates among men in the U.S. are a stark indicator of this reality. These trends suggest that history may not repeat itself exactly, but it certainly rhymes.
This raises a final and critical question: what force today can challenge global capital and compel figures like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk to share wealth more fairly?
In my view, no such force currently exists. Even China, despite its economic power, remains constrained geopolitically and has yet to present a true systemic alternative capable of reshaping global capitalism. Meanwhile, globalization has tied economies together in ways that often lead to the exploitation of billions of workers worldwide.
We can clearly see this, where achieving the standard of living our grandparents once had now feels nearly impossible. Without a major shift, repeating their success seems out of reach.
So what lies ahead? Will people succumb to this system and become mere tools within it? Will a new global force emerge? Or will the American people, and others around the world, eventually say “enough” and push back against inequality and corporate dominance?
These are the questions we must continue to observe, discuss, and raise awareness about.