> Now: none of the above, and families often consist of two breadwinners (& no children) with a hearty amount of debt, nothing owned, and few savings.
All of this is by choice on the part of the families. People choose to seek employment. People choose to go into debt. People choose to spend rather than save.
> The family unit itself may even be weaker because of less shared ownership.
"The death of the family is the life of the state."[1] When the welfare state grows larger, the family itself becomes less important. If you want to restore the family to its former place, then you must reduce the welfare state.
> Wages haven’t tracked productivity for decades, so wages haven’t risen since the previous story was normal.
How about total benefits, including those mandated by the State? Your wages haven't increased but your employer is spending more than ever on your benefits.
> We’ve lost all of that ground: not just some of it, all of it, and more. We’re back to the 1920s– wage slaves with few rights and no political ability to change things.
We've lost a lot of ground in the quest for liberty, that's for sure. But each June, the Supreme Court creates more "rights" out of thin air. What about those? We have more "rights" than ever, when you look at the burgeoning list of goodies the government doles out.
Income inequality is the result of a free society. Imagine perfectly egalitarian society, in terms of wealth. One day, a musical artist gives a concert, and people voluntarily choose to pay money to see it. Now you have inequality, and it was all voluntary. Should the State jump in and steal the excess capital from the artist and give it back to the patrons to restore equality?
[1] https://mises.org/library/welfare-states-attack-family