this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
518 points (97.1% liked)

News

23014 readers
5 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2013/02/was-rise-of-car-ownership-responsible.html

home ownership and car ownership is up since the 1950s

how come more people have those things that are hard to afford than before?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In part because black people can own those things more easily now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but people pining for the lifestyle of the 50s forget they are looking at the top 10% of incomes. Life in the 50s wasn't that good compared to now for the AVERAGE person

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except they had things like the G.I. bill which gave them money to go to college or buy a house and improve their lives. Every man who was in the military in WWII had that as an option. Maybe some didn't utilize it, but that was by choice. If you include their spouses and children, that's way more than 10% of the population.

Wages were comparatively higher too.

But I don't know anyone on the left pining for the lifestyle of the 1950s, that's something conservatives want. I wouldn't mind the wages of the 1950s (adjusted for inflation) and I wouldn't mind taxing the rich at 90%, but I sure would mind the racism and the sexism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t mind the wages of the 1950s (adjusted for inflation)

Adjusted for inflation, much lower than today

I wouldn’t mind taxing the rich at 90%

There were loopholes that allowed most people to pay much less, so that's why they closed those loopholes later

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Adjusted for inflation, much lower than today

Evidence please.

There were loopholes that allowed most people to pay much less, so that’s why they closed those loopholes later

Remind me how much rich people pay in taxes now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We don't have good WAGE data before 1964

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_real_wages_%28red,_in_constant_2017_dollars%29.png

but we also have household income data for earlier years

https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/famincome.html

but it doesn't match 100% because what a household is differs (households used to be bigger in the 1950s)

but you can see that 1950-1964 the household incomes grew quickly, so the 1950s were a period of growth, you were a lot better off by 1970

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You made a claim about 1950s income you now can't back up? Interesting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, because women generally didn't work. That's a terrible metric.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

But that's the argument people are making, that you could live better on one income in the 50s. But actually, not really. You would have less money, even if you include inflation. People these days have higher rates of home ownership, car ownership, TV ownership than people in the 50s.

Look at ANY metric of "having money or stuff" and people today are better off