Did anyone else notice this? The difference between the 90s and now?

in the 90s… Clinton’s tax rate was higher…

and I don’t work in tech business… and I’m fairly low/mid level…. (I’m at a higher position now than when I started)

but in the 90s, there were huge bonuses, big pay increases even for those that didn’t do the best jobs, jobs everywhere if you didn’t like the one you’re in….

then the tech bubble burst, and things slowed down a little… but still seemed to be mostly the same… maybe the bonuses weren’t as large….

then the Bush tax cuts came… that were going to give the wealthy a lot of money that would trickle down to everyone….

BUT then things got worse…. layoffs (thank goodness I’ve got my job, but many were cut), tiny bonuses if any at all, smaller pay increases for everyone, even for the best in the office, and fewer jobs….

and sales were increasing the entire time, in fact, our sales increased faster after 2000 than they did in the 90s?

I’ve talked to friends at several other companies and the ones near my level say the same…. we’ve gotten less compensation for more work seemingly since the tax cuts…

but I have a few rich friends that say things were 100 times better in since the tax cuts?

where’s the “trickle down”?

it almost feels like the wealthy, around 2000, all sat down and said to themselves “why should be keep paying bonuses and big raises, when we don’t have to?”

then inflation of course continued and the gov. raised fed interest rates… and people couldn’t afford their homes anymore…

you can sit there and say “according to this economics book, things should be 10 times better than they were in the 90s”… but it seems like what’s on paper didn’t work in real life….

but yet we need more tax cuts geared mainly to the wealthy? I don’t know if I but it…

is it just me… or anyone else?
should be “buy” instead of but…my bad