You’re not wrong about the conditions that historically lead to unrest, material desperation, fear, and breakdown of basic stability tend to be the tipping points. The U.S. government isn’t there for most citizens, and that’s not accidental.
But what’s worth pointing out is that this “just stable enough” environment didn’t emerge naturally, it’s been actively managed over decades. And a strong case can be made that this is less about general governance and more about a long-term political strategy, particularly on the Republican side.
You’ve had a pattern where social safety nets are publicly criticized, underfunded, or slowly eroded but rarely eliminated outright. Why? Because removing them completely would create exactly the kind of instability you’re describing. Instead, they’re kept barely functional. Enough to prevent collapse, not enough to meaningfully improve mobility or reduce inequality.
At the same time, there’s been consistent resistance to policies that would shift people from “barely stable” to genuinely secure, things like stronger labor protections, universal healthcare, or aggressive wage growth. That keeps a large portion of the population economically stressed, but not desperate enough to unify or revolt. It fragments people using base animal instincts, keeps them focused on short-term survival, and limits collective action.
Add in cultural and political polarization, and it further diffuses pressure. People incorrectly channel frustration horizontally, at each other, instead of vertically at faceless institutions.
So yes, you’re right about the threshold for unrest. The uncomfortable part is recognizing that a lot of political strategy has been about keeping the country just below that threshold, stable enough to barely function, and strained enough to control.
My advice, is go to an hair removal place. Pay extra to take care of yourself, because avoiding those cuts early is worth it.
Unless you have a friend who doesn’t mind getting up close and personal with your boys.