Stop and ponder this for a second. America’s workers are working harder and smarter than ever before, and we’ve got the productivity numbers to prove it. But we’re growing more pessimistic about our kids’ future.

Something is awfully wrong with this picture, and I believe the YOYOs are at the root of it.

YOYO is the acronym for “you’re on your own,” the philosophy that drives much of today’s politics and policy. It’s the idea that the best way to solve the economic challenges we face, from Social Security to healthcare to globalization and inequality, is a tax cut, a private account and a pat—if not a shove—on the back as individuals are pushed to fend for themselves in the private market, supposedly tapping the power of competitive forces to deal with these daunting forces.

What’s lost amid all this rampant, hyper-individualism is the sense of WITT (“we’re in this together”), the notion that there are problems—like those just cited—that are too large for individuals to face down on their own. Each of these challenges is much more effectively addressed by pooling risk, not shifting it to individuals.

Conservatives have been pummeling progressives on these issues for decades, arguing with tremendous conviction—but without convincing evidence—that any steps toward the WITT agenda will kill the golden goose of growth. Whether it’s universal healthcare, a higher minimum wage, greater union power, or a pause in trade agreements while we build the policy structure to offset the downsides of globalization, the YOYOs have only one message: “Sounds nice, but sorry … can’t go there.”

This fall, their arguments ring especially hollow. The gap between productivity and working-family incomes is too large to ignore, and politicians do so at their peril.

Which leaves us with the critical question: What, precisely, will those who want our support propose to do to close the gap? You’ll recognize the YOYOs easily enough: They bemoan the problem, and their solutions will be a) patience, b) privatization, c) tax cuts for investors, and d) more education (the opportunities are there; you’re just not smart enough to take advantage of them).

The WITTs will support the education agenda, because it’s critical for equalizing opportunity. But they won’t stop there. They’ll recognize that the time has come to construct the architecture needed to start actively shaping economic outcomes, not passively accepting them. They will speak of universal healthcare (listen for “Medicare for All”) and replacing the labor demand sapped by globalization by actively creating more quality job opportunities through full employment initiatives and investment in public infrastructure, including energy independence. They will support a rational fiscal policy that stresses a measured role for government, not one based on starving the public sector of the revenues it needs to do its job.

There lies the continuum on which we should judge those who seek our support. At one end lies YOYOism. Been there, done that, and the pendulum has already begun its swing. The question is how far toward the other end—toward the WITT agenda—will it swing. That, ultimately, is up to us.