What IF I Told you America is Greater than Ever Before?

[chardog]

In the past, one working spouse was sufficient.

Then we needed two working spouses.

We lost several million manufacturering jobs.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...bs-manufacturing-employment-down-37-1979-peak

Service based economies do not work as well as manufacturering based economies.

The true unemployment rate is closer to 15-18%.

Soon to be 21 trillion in debt.

SS, Medicare, and Medicaid will account for nearly 80% of the budget (used to be 66% and keeps climbing).

So you tell me...

-T

+1

big elephant in the room was that there was actually a time when 1 working income would get you by, in fact I'de say that the article is way off basis and really a case by case scenario. It's funny because labor force participation can be a bad thing if it trends downwards, as its been doing for years. We can dip back into the 60's if trends continue for the next decade, where half the abled bodied wont work, except, what does that mean for cost of living and such?

 

[Livermore]

Ask yourself this. Who is functionally more wealthy.

A person that can on their salary alone, have a family that includes 4 children, can feed and clothe them well. Pay for their college, a car, and a large high quality home in the suburbs and leave a substantial inheritance to each of their 4 children.

Or

A person, who along with their spouses salary can afford 1 or 2 children, a modest home in the suburbs, struggle nightly to put them through school, barely afford to pay for their own post retirement existence through a reverse mortgage.

Its great to talk about longer life spans, cheaper consumer electronics etc... but the reality is far more complex then that and people today are clearly less wealthy when the basic necessities of life are paid for. Unlike most of you I was alive in 1960, and there is no doubt in my mind that people were functionally wealthier then.

When you present those two options than its obvious what every sane person would prefer. The picture you paint isn't really accurate though which is surprising for someone who supposedly lived through the 60's. You seem to forget that during the 60's colleges and universities were few and far between populated mostly by white dudes who came from relatively wealthy families. You also seem to forget that during the 60's most homes owned just one car (which btw were less efficient and less safe) so not only peoples kids not going to college but they were also not buying their children cars. Speaking of households, you seem to forget that homes back in the 60's were smaller and came with the most basic of appliances. Most homes back then didn't have tv's, central air, internet connection, cable, etc like we take for granted today. In fact, we call people who live in small homes with basic appliances and 1 car poor. That's how far we've progressed in terms of living standards.

The US isn't a utopia but lets be real here. The 60's weren't that great.

 

[T-Bone]

When you present those two options than its obvious what every sane person would prefer. The picture you paint isn't really accurate though which is surprising for someone who supposedly lived through the 60's. You seem to forget that during the 60's colleges and universities were few and far between populated mostly by white dudes who came from relatively wealthy families. You also seem to forget that during the 60's most homes owned just one car (which btw were less efficient and less safe) so not only peoples kids not going to college but they were also not buying their children cars. Speaking of households, you seem to forget that homes back in the 60's were smaller and came with the most basic of appliances. Most homes back then didn't have tv's, central air, internet connection, cable, etc like we take for granted today. In fact, we call people who live in small homes with basic appliances and 1 car poor. That's how far we've progressed in terms of living standards.

The US isn't a utopia but lets be real here. The 60's weren't that great.

Just a few comments. I know you were addressing the other guy.

The sixties were not that great. True. But generally speaking, you could raise multiple kids using one income. And don't forget that the United States had a lot of manufacturing jobs back then. We built stuff. So you could do that at a labor job building stuff. And support your family. Manufacturing jobs almost always pay more than service jobs.

While it's true not everyone went to college, and they may have been mostly white people going to college, the country were still overall feeling good. Even in the fifties when most of the people who went to college were still white dudes. The Common Thread here is manufacturing.

-T

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

In fact, we call people who live in small homes with basic appliances and 1 car poor. That's how far we've progressed in terms of living standards.

Good to know that one extra vehicle is the difference between the wife and I being poor or not. The small home and basic appliances had me worried.

 

[Awesomesauce]

One point imo is the trend. People back then knew things were getting better and better and that their kids likely would have it better than themselves.

I think this is a big part of it to. I think post WW2 euphoria created this general social delusion about the state of the world and the country and of the future that couldn't possibly have panned out.

What? Seriously? This is the benchmark for "Make America Great".

I don't really care what some moron says about 1960 in some caricature version of history. 1960, the year was not a good time for America by the numbers. The demographics and social pressures of the time were really quite dramatic.

I think this is actually a pretty good point to bring up, Particularly when talking about these kinds of largely divorced statistics. For example, unemployment in 1960 was extremely low, the baby boomers hadn't begun entering the work force in any numbers and the WW2 generation of males had been devastated thus demand for labor was at an all time high (notice the coming economic peak driven by this reality). There was a powerful social struggle for women who didn't want to go back to being a housewife after having had a job to support the war machine, the civil rights movement was warming up again. There was a great upheaval on many levels.

Most of the idyllic notions of 1960 come from post WW2 euphoria. There was a sense of general optimism in the greater community at the time driven by the amount of positive change. Being a feminist meant supporting equality not playing power politics, supporting racial equality/desegregation was about the dream of a colorblind America not a dream of statistically based equal outcomes. The humanist, moral secular dream was about an America based on compassion and logic, not becoming the new religion and attacking the old for no other reason then it exists.

Most groups looked at the world as a place that was getting better but 1960 was a war zone in a lot of ways.

And it's crazy that people are so hung about shit that happens on college campuses. As if it's worse that professors today give kids a warning before talking about sexual assault or something because they might have gone through it than fucking segregation or the Hays Code or Ulysses getting banned. Free speech is another thing that is probably at an all-time high today.

Nobody should ever be using trigger warnings. If someone has unresolved issues, then they should resolve them and not expect the world to accommodate their weak character. Your taking 20 something year old people and telling them its ok to be tramatized by an event for the rest of their lives. Its not ok. By constantly infantilizing these individuals we have driven much of an entire generation into this absurd perpetual childhood.

The number of professors receiving tenure is dropping rapidly, not exactly a sigh of increasing free speech. How many professors have to come out and say directly that they have felt an unable to discuss subjects they thought were worthy of discussion or been cowed into not expressing unpopular opinions? Freedom of speech is reasonably, the ability to express opinions free from overt material punishment. For some reason it has become this constitutional notion that freedom of speech is the freedom from government punishment. The reason for that is pretty obvious I think, nobody could conceive of a time when a persons life could be utterly destroyed by social media. This chilling effect on public discourse has been as severe as anything the government could dream up.

 

[Awesomesauce]

When you present those two options than its obvious what every sane person would prefer. The picture you paint isn't really accurate though which is surprising for someone who supposedly lived through the 60's. You seem to forget that during the 60's colleges and universities were few and far between populated mostly by white dudes who came from relatively wealthy families. You also seem to forget that during the 60's most homes owned just one car (which btw were less efficient and less safe) so not only peoples kids not going to college but they were also not buying their children cars. Speaking of households, you seem to forget that homes back in the 60's were smaller and came with the most basic of appliances. Most homes back then didn't have tv's, central air, internet connection, cable, etc like we take for granted today. In fact, we call people who live in small homes with basic appliances and 1 car poor. That's how far we've progressed in terms of living standards.

The US isn't a utopia but lets be real here. The 60's weren't that great.

You don't know what your talking about. Yes there were far fewer universities when you could walk into a mill as an 18 year old and earn enough to support a family by spending 40 hours a week sweeping the floors. That's not only not surprising, but implicitly obvious. That doesn't make 2016 better. Yes technology has made education a matter of personal drive and that is an AMAZING thing. The internet allows public discourse on a level undreamed of in 1960, that is an AMAZING thing. But these amazing things are now considered a pretty basic part of functioning in the 21st century. Try finding a job without the internet, try staying in touch at all without a cell phone (I can't even remember the last time I saw a pay phone).

And just for the record, most homes in 1960 did have TV's thanks. 2 car homes were hardly uncommon and despite their inefficiency they were FAR safer then cars today. Seat belts make modern cars safer, but if you crash a 68' Impala into a 2016 Camry at any speed its not the Impala driver getting creamed. Also homes built in the 60's may of been smaller but they were also generally far higher quality despite the level of technology - this was largely driven by much higher availability of better grades of wood.

All of these great things though are technology that improves our lives, they are in no way significant when discussing the the economic well being of the average individual who works longer hours, require FAR more expensive education, is more productive, for worse pay then 40 years ago.

My argument isn't and 1960 was better then today, it was that the article was simplistic, misleading and not really worth reading.

 

[Livermore]

Just a few comments. I know you were addressing the other guy.

The sixties were not that great. True. But generally speaking, you could raise multiple kids using one income. And don't forget that the United States had a lot of manufacturing jobs back then. We built stuff. So you could do that at a labor job building stuff. And support your family. Manufacturing jobs almost always pay more than service jobs.

While it's true not everyone went to college, and they may have been mostly white people going to college, the country were still overall feeling good. Even in the fifties when most of the people who went to college were still white dudes. The Common Thread here is manufacturing.

-T

I can't disagree that the overall level of optimism was higher back in the 60's than it is today. That being said I think people need to keep in mind that even in the 60s, most of the world was still recovering from WW2 while the US was left relatively unscathed. The world had no choice but to buy American and that really boosted our manufacturing base. It's also important to note that family dynamics are different now than back then. Most families now-a-days don't want to have more kids they want less.

 

[spin]

Id say I didn't need you to tell me

 

[Livermore]

Good to know that one extra vehicle is the difference between the wife and I being poor or not. The small home and basic appliances had me worried.

The point is that incomes are such today that you and your lovely wife could afford a 2nd or 3rd car. The point was also to show that awsomesauce's idea of a "quality" home in the 60's would be considered a shit hole today.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The point is that incomes are such today that you and your lovely wife could afford a 2nd or 3rd car. The point was also to show that awsomesauce's idea of a "quality" home in the 60's would be considered a shit hole today.

Wait, so now it seems you're mostly talking shit on small homes.

 

[Livermore]

You don't know what your talking about. Yes there were far fewer universities when you could walk into a mill as an 18 year old and earn enough to support a family by spending 40 hours a week sweeping the floors. That's not only not surprising, but implicitly obvious. That doesn't make 2016 better. Yes technology has made education a matter of personal drive and that is an AMAZING thing. The internet allows public discourse on a level undreamed of in 1960, that is an AMAZING thing. But these amazing things are now considered a pretty basic part of functioning in the 21st century. Try finding a job without the internet, try staying in touch at all without a cell phone (I can't even remember the last time I saw a pay phone).

And just for the record, most homes in 1960 did have TV's thanks. 2 car homes were hardly uncommon and despite their inefficiency they were FAR safer then cars today. Seat belts make modern cars safer, but if you crash a 68' Impala into a 2016 Camry at any speed its not the Impala driver getting creamed. Also homes built in the 60's may of been smaller but they were also generally far higher quality despite the level of technology - this was largely driven by much higher availability of better grades of wood.

All of these great things though are technology that improves our lives, they are in no way significant when discussing the the economic well being of the average individual who works longer hours, require FAR more expensive education, is more productive, for worse pay then 40 years ago.

My argument isn't and 1960 was better then today, it was that the article was simplistic, misleading and not really worth reading.

If the article is simple and misleading than what do you call what you did when you presented those two scenarios?

It's also a joke to call cars from the 60's safer than cars from today. Were seat belts even standard back then lol?

 

[Awesomesauce]

I can't disagree that the overall level of optimism was higher back in the 60's than it is today. That being said I think people need to keep in mind that even in the 60s, most of the world was still recovering from WW2 while the US was left relatively unscathed. The world had no choice but to buy American and that really boosted our manufacturing base. It's also important to note that family dynamics are different now than back then. Most families now-a-days don't want to have more kids they want less.

Where did this stupid notion that the world needed to buy American after WW2 come from? US foreign trade has risen extremely steadily since WW2. This strange idea that the US exported significantly more in the near aftermath of WW2 isn't born out by statistics. There was a bump in the late 60's that matched domestic production/consumption increases. But that was driven by the largest worker demographic increase in US history.

As for what most families want as to children, you have no idea what you're talking about. Its utterly impossible to say what people might want in the way of children in an utterly different economic reality. What is definitively known is that as incomes rise so do the number of children.

 

[Livermore]

Wait, so now it seems you're mostly talking shit on small homes.

Small homes are great if that's what floats your boat. But don't tell me that times were better in the 60's because you could buy a small ass house with a fridge and a stove only.

 

[Awesomesauce]

If the article is simple and misleading than what do you call what you did when you presented those two scenarios?

It's also a joke to call cars from the 60's safer than cars from today. Were seat belts even standard back then lol?

That's my point. Include a seat belt in an 68' Impala and its safer then any car today. Attributing an improvement in quality of life to the introduction of personal safety regulations is moronic at best.

 

[Awesomesauce]

Small homes are great if that's what floats your boat. But don't tell me that times were better in the 60's because you could buy a small ass house with a fridge and a stove only.

You should really stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about.

 

[RockstarChris]

anyone who has to say "I am the King" is no king

 

[Livermore]

Where did this stupid notion that the world needed to buy American after WW2 come from?

Maybe it came from the fact that the rest of the world was in shambles still rebuilding from the aftermath of WW2.

As for what most families want as to children, you have no idea what you're talking about. Its utterly impossible to say what people might want in the way of children in an utterly different economic reality. What is definitively known is that as incomes rise so do the number of children.

Incomes have risen and people are having so clearly your assertion can't correct.

 

[RockstarChris]

Maybe it came from the fact that the rest of the world was in shambles still rebuilding from the aftermath of WW2.



Incomes have risen and people are having so clearly your assertion can't correct.

WW2, really lol

 

[Livermore]

That's my point. Include a seat belt in an 68' Impala and its safer then any car today.

Just because the Impala was basically made of iron and the body didn't dent easily doesn't mean cars from the 60's were safer than today's cars. That you are even arguing this just goes to show how biased you are and uninformed you are. Just doing a quick google search gives you a myriad of articles that directly contradicts your claim. Here's a link to such info. It even comes with a video for your viewing pleasure.

http://motorreview.com/old-car-new-car-safer/

Here's more:

But looks can be deceiving. Most of those gas-guzzling, tail-finned land yachts and muscle cars of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s were literal death traps compared to today’s vehicles, as evidenced by the dramatic drop in highway fatalities over the past half century (as a function of miles driven). In other words, today’s cars are not only far more efficient, you’re far less likely to die driving one.

http://news.wyotech.edu/post/2009/11/today-s-cars-are-safer-by-a-mile/#.VzjslxWDGko

This is you:

In high school my friend crashed his '68 Rambler, which I remember well because I was in the passenger seat. We hit the other car twice. I'll put the full story down at the bottom so we can get right to the point of this entry: That crash left me with the distinct impression that older cars were better-suited to handle impacts because they were built more solidly.....

This is reality. [From the same article]:

.....But that simply isn't true. My friend and I had just gotten lucky.

The technology, analytical capabilities and manufacturing techniques that automakers have today completely trumps the construction methods of old; overbuillding by using thicker, heavier parts would prove no match for modern-day crumple zones and airbags

http://www.core77.com/posts/23660/Old-Cars-Crashing-Into-New-Cars-Which-is-Safer

Attributing an improvement in quality of life to the introduction of personal safety regulations is moronic at best.

I'm not sure I even get this point. Are you suggesting that safer cars leading to less fatalities doesn't lead to an improvement in quality of life? That seems odd.


EDIT: looks like you replied before my changes were made.

 

[Livermore]

WW2, really lol

Do people really not think US manufacturing benefited massively from the aftermath of WW2?