When America Was 'Great,' Taxes Were High, Unions Were Strong, and Government Was Big

[ksen]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ns-were-strong-and-government-was-big/407284/

In 1950, America led the world in GDP per capita. Even by 1973, it had only sunk to number two. Jobs were so plentiful that male employment peaked at over 84 percent. Unemployment, when it did strike, didn’t last long. Housing was cheap. Gas was cheap. Movies were cheap. If America was ever “great,” it was great in 1950, and one can sympathize with a desire to recreate those economic conditions, if not the social ones.

Most of Trump’s supporters (but not all) deserve some benefit of the doubt that when they look wistfully at the past, they aren’t yearning for Jim Crow laws, Communist witch hunts, or an age before women could own credit cards.

Still, Trump’s supporters might not appreciate what an economic return to the ’50s—even a ’50s lacking overt discrimination against women and political, racial, and sexual minorities—would entail. The ’50 were, as Stiglitz puts it, “a time of war-induced solidarity when the government kept the playing field level.” In other words, they were a time of Big Government. And Big Labor: As Alternet reports, “By 1953, more than one out of three American workers were members of private sector unions. That means there was a union member in nearly every family.”

Then there’s the matter of taxes. Though a conservative writer at Bloomberg View scoffs at the oft-cited statistic that the top marginal tax rate in the ‘50s was an astounding 91 percent, even she admits that “the Internal Revenue Service reckoned that the effective rate of tax in 1954 for top earners was actually 70 percent”—vastly higher than it is today. Indeed, for most of the past 100 years, tax rates have been much higher than they are now, including during some boom times.

So the republicans want to back to the good times of the 50s by doing the opposite of what we were doing back in the 50s.

 

[barbos]

In 1950, America led the world in GDP per capita.

I stopped right there, cause 1950 is 5 years after the end of WW2 which took place in Europe/Asia and did not take place in US.

 

[dismal]

Us govt spending in 1950 was $42.6 billion. Adjusted for inflation at CPI that's $421 billion today. Adjusted for population growth that's (322 million/151 million = 2.13X) roughly $897 billion.

Actual us government spending today = $3.76 trillion.

Government seems to be about 4X bigger today than it was in 1950.

Is this another leftists suck at math post?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_United_States_Census
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

 

[Trausti]

Us govt spending in 1950 was $42.6 billion. Adjusted for inflation at CPI that's $421 billion today. Adjusted for population growth that's (322 million/151 million = 2.13X) roughly $897 billion.

Actual us government spending today = $3.76 trillion.

Government seems to be about 4X bigger today than it was in 1950.

Is this another leftists suck at math post?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_United_States_Census
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

Yeah, government spending and regulations were a lot less when America was "great" in the 1950s. Maybe there's something to learn from that?

 

[coloradoatheist]

and just to add, a woman's place in the 50s was the home and blacks were still drinking from separate water fountains. Are we ready to go back on those things?

 

[Ford]

and just to add, a woman's place in the 50s was the home and blacks were still drinking from separate water fountains. Are we ready to go back on those things?

And we still had polio. Why does the left want to bring back polio?

 

[coloradoatheist]

and just to add, a woman's place in the 50s was the home and blacks were still drinking from separate water fountains. Are we ready to go back on those things?

And we still had polio. Why does the left want to bring back polio?

There was a whole lot of major issues that were different in the 50s that we can't go back to. Should we destroy Europe again and make China a second rate country again?

 

[Ford]

And we still had polio. Why does the left want to bring back polio?

There was a whole lot of major issues that were different in the 50s that we can't go back to. Should we destroy Europe again and make China a second rate country again?

Just FYI, I was mocking you.

The idea that in order to rebuild the middle class in this country, we need also bring back segregation, polio, or any other unpleasant aspects of the 50s is frankly idiotic.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There was a whole lot of major issues that were different in the 50s that we can't go back to. Should we destroy Europe again and make China a second rate country again?

Just FYI, I was mocking you.

The idea that in order to rebuild the middle class in this country, we need also bring back segregation, polio, or any other unpleasant aspects of the 50s is frankly idiotic.

I know, but those policies made a huge difference on where we are today. A woman's role and her choices have made a huge impact on the both the top end and lower ends that we see today. If you want to help reduce poverty you tighten divorce laws to make them much stricker.

 

[ksen]

Most of Trump’s supporters (but not all) deserve some benefit of the doubt that when they look wistfully at the past, they aren’t yearning for Jim Crow laws, Communist witch hunts, or an age before women could own credit cards.

Or maybe they don't.

 

[Ford]

If you want to help reduce poverty you tighten divorce laws to make them much stricker.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If you want to reduce poverty, practice an economy based on common wealth.

 

[lpetrich]

and just to add, a woman's place in the 50s was the home and blacks were still drinking from separate water fountains. Are we ready to go back on those things?

Right-wingers back then defended *both* those things. So the right wing would *love* the social features of the 1950's, even if not the era's economics.

Peter Turchin: US-History Cycles Biologist and historian Peter Turchin takes a longer view. He has found correlations of several social indicators over the US's history. The sign indicates whether increase is "good" (+) or "bad" (-).

• Labor oversupply (Proportion of population born outside the USA) -
• Price of labor (Wage in relation to GDP per capita) +
• Biological well-being/Health (Average stature and life expectancy) +
• Social optimism (Age at first marriage (both sexes)) -
• Wealth inequality (Largest fortune in relation to the median wage) -
• Intra-elite competition/conflict (Political polarization in the Congress) -
• Sociopolitical instability (Fatalities per 5 years per 1 million population) -

Here are the numbers from the combined curve:

• 1800: 0.4
• 1824: 0.8 - Era of Good Feelings
• 1904: -1.4 - Gilded Age bottoming out
• 1960: 1.3 - Eisenhower/Kennedy era
• 2000: -0.3

So we are in Gilded Age II. The 1950's, however, were at the previous peak.

PT has also found a shorter, two-generation cycle, that he calls the father-and-son one. One generation revolts against real or perceived injustice, then the next one is unwilling to revolt, because of its bad memories of the previous revolt. The next one in turn is more willing to revolt, because the previous revolt is a more distant memory. The US fits that pattern fairly well. Though it had no revolt around 1820, it did have revolts around 1870, 1970, and 1970. This suggests that the US is due for another one in 2020.

Back in the 1950's and 1960's, however, US political elites were remarkably unified, with Democrats and Republicans often getting along very well. Much like in the Era of Good Feelings in the 1820's. PT speculates that it was fear of revolution that made US elites decide to tolerate labor unions and to buy off their underlings with good pay and good job security. But more recently, as Communism has faded, the elites have decided to keep more for themselves and give less to their underlings, often making up the difference with expanded consumer credit.

So the US will be having a rough ride in the coming years.

 

[lpetrich]

A woman's role and her choices have made a huge impact on the both the top end and lower ends that we see today.

Evidence: {}

If you want to help reduce poverty you tighten divorce laws to make them much stricker.

Evidence: {}

It often seems as if the right-wingers' ideal marriage is where the participants hate each other but stay married out of duty.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Evidence: {}

If you want to help reduce poverty you tighten divorce laws to make them much stricker.

Evidence: {}

It often seems as if the right-wingers' ideal marriage is where the participants hate each other but stay married out of duty.

No, but that freedom of being able to get out of a marriage is easier means an increase in poverty.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to reduce poverty, practice an economy based on common wealth.

Since poverty is defined now as not having a certain percentage of income compared to everyone else, then we can solve that by having a country that has no income. No income, no poverty.

 

[ksen]

Evidence: {}

Evidence: {}

It often seems as if the right-wingers' ideal marriage is where the participants hate each other but stay married out of duty.

No, but that freedom of being able to get out of a marriage is easier means an increase in poverty.

Evidence: {}

If you want to reduce poverty, practice an economy based on common wealth.

Since poverty is defined now as not having a certain percentage of income compared to everyone else, then we can solve that by having a country that has no income. No income, no poverty.

Uh, that's not how poverty is calculated at all.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm

The U.S. Census Bureau determines poverty status by comparing pre-tax cash income against a threshold that is set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, and adjusted for family size, composition, and age of householder.

http://www.census.gov/library/infographics/poverty_measure-how.html

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Evidence: {}

Evidence: {}

It often seems as if the right-wingers' ideal marriage is where the participants hate each other but stay married out of duty.

No, but that freedom of being able to get out of a marriage is easier means an increase in poverty.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want to reduce poverty, practice an economy based on common wealth.

Since poverty is defined now as not having a certain percentage of income compared to everyone else, then we can solve that by having a country that has no income. No income, no poverty.

Wrong


Incomplete

Misleading



FAIL.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, but that freedom of being able to get out of a marriage is easier means an increase in poverty.

Evidence: {}

If you want to reduce poverty, practice an economy based on common wealth.

Since poverty is defined now as not having a certain percentage of income compared to everyone else, then we can solve that by having a country that has no income. No income, no poverty.

Uh, that's not how poverty is calculated at all.

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm

The U.S. Census Bureau determines poverty status by comparing pre-tax cash income against a threshold that is set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, and adjusted for family size, composition, and age of householder.

http://www.census.gov/library/infographics/poverty_measure-how.html

The article that was started in the other thread calculated poverty as being below half the median household income. So there are different definitions.

http://www.nwlc.org/our-issues/poverty-%2526-income-support/data-on-poverty-%2526-income

That's just one of many.

 

[Ford]

No, but that freedom of being able to get out of a marriage is easier means an increase in poverty.

Nope. Still not making any sense.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, but that freedom of being able to get out of a marriage is easier means an increase in poverty.

Nope. Still not making any sense.

Huh? If you allow easy divorce which creates many more single family woman households which are poor, then you are going to increase poverty. It's the tradeoff for having unhappy marriages.