First thought: it IS the New York Times - I could have just written off the whole thing as anti-American garbage based on that. However, I read it, and you're right, it is interesting.
Who was the second "worst" on the list? Germany. Who is reputed to be the most prosperous nation in Europe? right, Germany. Do you suppose the reason we and some others didn't increase as much is because we were already so high up?
Secondly, where do you draw the line between "wealthy" and "middle class"? The article acknowledges that the "wealthy" in America are still way more whatever than those other countries. Some people - one (former?) poster in here calls everybody owning a small business and most of the people in American church pews "wealthy", and spews hate on them for being that hahahaha.
Third, what happened right before and right after 2000? Just before: the dotcom boom - extreme increases in income levels in America. Right after: 9/11 and the huge hit our economy took from that, not to even mention the housing market crash and subsequent economic hits.
Fourth, and most significant, IMO, what do your own eyes tell you? Who is better off? Us or Them - whoever "them" might be? I've only been to three of the countries on that list since 2000, but I have been to 6 or 8 other lesser countries, and things have improved greatly in those. Who gets the credit for that? I would suggest the one remaining superpower that basically took Communism out of the picture and that prevents the newest threat, radical Islam from ruining things.
So yes, it's an interesting article, as much for what was not said as for what was.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.