Ask a Rochester native of a certain age about Bonus Day and they’ll describe a day akin to Christmas.

Each year in March for the bulk of the 20th century, Kodak’s management would dole out significant bonus checks to its 50,000 or so workers in Rochester. The checks would be coupled with businesses enticing customers Bonus Day deals and the Democrat and Chronicle would be as thick as a dictionary with Bonus Day ads.

Bonus Day would inject more than $100 million into the local economy of a company town. As Kodak’s fortunes faded, the local quasi-holiday went the way of picking up a packet of photos at CVS.

And the reasons for Kodak’s decline in Rochester are specific: An inability to adapt to the digital age, outsourcing to Mexico and later to China and so on.

The question, though, remains: What happens when wealth is no longer distributed in a local economy? Where, exactly, did all that money go?

The story of this decade is one of colliding social and economic fortunes, fast-moving change in technology, communication, how we interaction with one another on a fundamental level that politicians have simultaneously sought to embrace and block.

New York’s state government, representing a state known for its liberal values, can be notorious when it comes to embracing fundamental changes in how it functions as a system.

On the surface, New York’s economy is booming with the rest of the country. Unemployment has declined since the end of the recession, Bonus Day still exists on Wall Street. Home values in the New York City suburbs remain sky high.

For those in the bright glow of Manhattan, New York remains a luxury item. Elsewhere, and not just outside of New York City, living in the state is an extravagance, where the cost of living — property taxes, rent, transportation, a public college education, health care among them — remain generally higher than the rest of the country.

Like the demise of Rochester’s Bonus Day, there are a lot of reasons for New York being an expensive, costly state that in one region has myriad opportunities and, in another, a shrinking population.

Add this to the personal economic uncertainty, stretched out over decades: A parade of corruption trials toppling the primary legislative leaders in New York who were responsible for determining how more than $100 billion in taxpayer money is spent, a polarized national climate battered by a devastating terrorist attack, an economic recession and the social upheaval created by the ability of most people to have a powerful computing device carried with you in your pocket.

This is the world of 2018 for candidates running in the era of President Donald Trump, a push and pull between not Republicans and Democrats, but establishment figures who have lined up traditional structures who are in conflict with candidates who increasingly refer to themselves as democratic socialists.

It’s easy to draw a similar distinction with 2010, when candidates like Carl Paladino aligned with the tea party upended the norm and defeated establishment figures like Rep. Rick Lazio.

But New York is not a Republican state, and the tea party revolution here was ultimately a minor one. The fallout of the 2018 elections for New York will have a far more wide-ranging impact, forcing a fast-track evolution-on-steroids of its politics, policies and, perhaps, its political culture.

Consider Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has been described as everything from a conservative Democrat by his liberal foes to a centrist Democrat by his liberal foes to a liberal Democrat by his supporters and conservative opponents.

A lot has been made of the so-called “Cynthia effect” — the idea that Cuomo has been shoved further to the left — due to his primary challenge by Cynthia Nixon.

But Cuomo has not been responding to Nixon per se, but a decade of socioeconomic upheaval and disruption that’s marked the 2010s and and increasingly leftward tilt of the Democratic Party.

Cuomo’s not a democratic socialist. But he’s also done a $15 minimum wage (in New York City and the surrounding area) that was considered a Green Party pipe dream in the last election cycle. He’s developing a plan for the commercial sale of marijuana that could also include an expunging of the records of those convicted of low-level marijuana crimes. And he’s cracked open the window to single-payer health care, not ruling the idea out after last month saying he wants to codify the Affordable Care Act.

Nixon’s supporters have viewed much of this as counterfeit claims and promises that should have gotten done before were not for a Republican-led Senate Cuomo tacitly nurtured.

But with past as prologue, a Democratic-controlled Albany in 2019 could see a flurry of long-sought bills approved that would make it easier to vote, a strengthening of abortion laws and potentially the first time a woman legislative leader is included in the budget talks.

Still, it’s worth wondering if Albany’s political culture of opacity and mendacity survives, and how that culture will clash with the debate over single-payer. Will Cuomo in his potential third term find new moderate Democrats in the state Senate to ease the financial burdens of the bill? Will we see provisions in the New York Health Act traded away on the eve of the new fiscal year as if it were haggling over a new off-track betting parlor?

All of these questions still await the outcome of the November election, how the state Senate organizes itself and what personalities will rise next year. That is eons away in terms of the political calendar.

But is it fair to say, after years of economic and social upheaval that have only become more apparent with the hyperbolic forces of social media, that the democratic socialists have already won in New York? It’s entirely possible.

I spoke with Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie earlier this summer, who chaffed at the idea of being called a democratic socialist.

“We passed bills on single-payer. We want to see college tuition be more affordable. We’d like it to be free,” Heastie said during a stop in Washington County as part of his upstate summer tour on Tuesday. “I don’t think you need to be a socialist to believe in those.”