Discussion»Questions»Outside the Mug» Do you wish a world with the technology of the 1950s so that most can go back to having a job at the local factory from high school to re
I enjoyed the 1950s. Left school, got my first job, met my wife, had a good time, and there were not yet any drugs in Australia.
You're right that jobs were plentiful, the economy (of the affluent nations, at least) was bountiful, good manners still existed, and it was safe for a woman to walk the streets at night.
Would I want to go back there and live in a kind of Luddite Brigadoon? Not a chance. We have come too far ever to return to the horse and buggy, no matter how much we like horses.
A very smart guy named Paddy Pallin (no, he wasn't Irish, he was Australian) once said, "The best place to be is here; the best time to be here is now." I don't got no argument with that. :)
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at December 2, 2016 7:37 PM MST
They are neglecting how much more horrible it was for people outside North America, where the lasting devastation of WWII produced decades of hardship.
They are neglecting how women and ethnic minorites, having briefly tasted greater respect and freedom because of the necessities of war, were told to go back to being second-class citizens.
They are neglecting the horrific air, water, and ground pollution which were allowed to go on relatively unregulated.
They are neglecting how paranoia about Teh Ebil Commies led to all sorts of oppression both domestically (e.g. the McCarthy hearings, the Hollywood blacklist, etc.) and abroad (the numerous wars, coups, and alliances with right-wing dictators).
Etc., etc., etc.
Moreover, Americans have this weird notion that the 1950s were somehow a more "conservative" decade than contemporary times. On social issues, they are correct. Abortion was taboo. Gays were in the closet. Guns were almost a non-issue politically. Etc., etc., etc.
But in terms of fundamental economics, the US was ***MUCH*** more "liberal." Marginal income tax rates were VERY high. Corporate taxes were a huge portion of federal revenues. The government invested massively in Military Keynesiasm and basic research. Public universities were extremely cheap. The government provided HUGE subsidies for housing, education, occupational training, and so forth (especially for war veterans). The private workforce was 35%-40% unionized (as opposed to 7% today). The government aggressively pushed against monopolies and even threatened to break up General Motors for having too much market share. Trade barriers were common and considered perfectly normal. Etc., etc., etc.
So if people claim they want to "go back to the Fifties", their political behavior for the past several decades (voting for politicians who have imposed the "I've upped mine...now UP YOURS!" Neoliberal Consensus) says they are lying.
Now, I didn't say the culture of the 50s for the reasons you mention, but the technology. The question is in regards to the impact of technology and innovation on the job market. Would you give up your gadgets and go back to simple ways of doing things so more people can have work?
No. But don't forget that in the 1950s there was basically a breadwinner and a home maker. Women didn't have much of a life. These days the majority of married women go out to work which means there are almost twice as many people competing for the available jobs. It's not merely technology that has caused an increase in unemployment.
Now, I didn't say the culture of the 50s for the reasons you mention, but the technology. The question is in regards to the impact of technology and innovation on the job market. Would you give up your gadgets and go back to simple ways of doing things so more people can have work?
@O-uknow -- What you are suggesting is just an instance of one of the three possible solutions to the worldwide problem of the worthlessness of human labor. Those solutions are:
1) Let lots of people die until labor supply matches labor demand 2) Introduce artificial ineffiency to increase labor demand 3) Teh Ebil Socialism
Your proposal is an instance of Solution Class 2). But why pick the 1950s? Why not go back to the 1850s so half of us can work on farms to make our livings?
If the point is simply to employ as many people as possible, let's go back to a point of minimal labor productivity. Let's get back to manual plowing of fields using pack animals, transportation using horses and sail-powered ships, no telecommunications technologies, and so forth.
There was nothing magic about the 1950s. It was a segment on a continuum and there's really no basis for saying it was the optimum segment.
The point is that those factory jobs were there for those who chose to stay close to home and work in them. College was not (and still isn't) for everyone but factory and foundry jobs provided good standards of living for people who took that route. I grew up in a steel and iron pipe foundry neighborhood. Almost everyone's dad worked at "the shop." I would not trade where and when I spent my early years. If I slipped through a crack and ended up back in the fifties I would be fine. I would still be visiting with my neighbors on front porches after dinner rather than staying in the house...................the technology of air conditioning was responsible for that.
Benedict Arnold 