4 ms·

No, usually the opposite. Greatest period of equality: 1950s Greatest period of growth: 1950s Greatest periods of inequality: 2010s/1930s Guess what?

jbandela1 10y ago
It is massively unfair to make comparisons to the 1950's. Basically, the USA was the only developed country with infrastructure that had not been bombed to rubble in WWII. In addition, China and India were undeveloped and just recovering from foreign occupation / colonialism. There was basically no competition for American manufacturing. Also, if you look at inequality, you have to differentiate domestic vs global inequality. The domestic inequality is higher now, but global inequality was much higher in the 1950s.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  The idea that inequality goes up with growth and growth goes down with equality was cited without a shred of supporting evidence. I presented two examples that indicated (although did not prove) that the opposite could happen. How is that massively unfair exactly? There might have been no competition for American manufacturing but that didn't automatically mean that the American middle class had to come into existence and be imbued with since unsurpassed spending power. If there were no Marshall Plan it's not like there would have been demand for American products and services either in spite of them being the sole manufacturing superpower - since other countries couldn't afford them. The decisions that imbued the middle class with spending power and gave money to Europe/Japan that enabled them to buy American products were deliberate political decisions that led not only to greater levels of equality, but greater levels of growth through higher demand.
- coredog64 10y ago
  Don't forget that in the 1950s the US was legally (or quasi-legally) excluding huge portions of the population from the workforce. Women were only allowed to work in the "pink ghetto" (nurse, teacher, secretary) and African-Americans were locked out of high-paying union positions on the East Coast.
hoorayimhelping 10y ago
>Guess what? Correlation doesn't imply causation?
ptero 10y ago
The 1950s growth may have nothing to do with equality. A big boost from the end of WW2 likely helped: by setting a lower base during WW2; by pent up demand; by Europe rebuilding needs, etc.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  Funny, then, how economists at the end of World War II thought they were headed for a very deep recession as the war machine spun down and rebuilding began.
  - mason240 10y ago
    So? They were clearly wrong, as they didn't have the opportunity to see the future.
- creshal 10y ago
  And there was much more government intervention in the 1950s than now: GI bill in the US, similar programs in Europe, much stricter stock market regulations, heavy government subsidies to all economies (e.g. Marshall plan), financed by much higher taxes …
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  The larger consumer demand was largely due to higher levels of disposable income which was in turn largely due to higher levels of income equality. By most measures we are much richer in aggregate these days but since the wealth trickled up and the working/middle classes struggle to fund the basics (housing, education, food, etc.), discretionary spending is much lower. Yet still the neoclassical myth that there's a trade off between inequality and wealth creation persists.

jbandela1 10y ago

It is massively unfair to make comparisons to the 1950's. Basically, the USA was the only developed country with infrastructure that had not been bombed to rubble in WWII. In addition, China and India were undeveloped and just recovering from foreign occupation / colonialism. There was basically no competition for American manufacturing. Also, if you look at inequality, you have to differentiate domestic vs global inequality. The domestic inequality is higher now, but global inequality was much higher in the 1950s.

crdoconnor 10y ago
The idea that inequality goes up with growth and growth goes down with equality was cited without a shred of supporting evidence. I presented two examples that indicated (although did not prove) that the opposite could happen. How is that massively unfair exactly? There might have been no competition for American manufacturing but that didn't automatically mean that the American middle class had to come into existence and be imbued with since unsurpassed spending power. If there were no Marshall Plan it's not like there would have been demand for American products and services either in spite of them being the sole manufacturing superpower - since other countries couldn't afford them. The decisions that imbued the middle class with spending power and gave money to Europe/Japan that enabled them to buy American products were deliberate political decisions that led not only to greater levels of equality, but greater levels of growth through higher demand.
coredog64 10y ago
Don't forget that in the 1950s the US was legally (or quasi-legally) excluding huge portions of the population from the workforce. Women were only allowed to work in the "pink ghetto" (nurse, teacher, secretary) and African-Americans were locked out of high-paying union positions on the East Coast.

hoorayimhelping 10y ago

>Guess what? Correlation doesn't imply causation?

ptero 10y ago

The 1950s growth may have nothing to do with equality. A big boost from the end of WW2 likely helped: by setting a lower base during WW2; by pent up demand; by Europe rebuilding needs, etc.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Funny, then, how economists at the end of World War II thought they were headed for a very deep recession as the war machine spun down and rebuilding began.
- mason240 10y ago
  So? They were clearly wrong, as they didn't have the opportunity to see the future.
creshal 10y ago
And there was much more government intervention in the 1950s than now: GI bill in the US, similar programs in Europe, much stricter stock market regulations, heavy government subsidies to all economies (e.g. Marshall plan), financed by much higher taxes …
crdoconnor 10y ago
The larger consumer demand was largely due to higher levels of disposable income which was in turn largely due to higher levels of income equality. By most measures we are much richer in aggregate these days but since the wealth trickled up and the working/middle classes struggle to fund the basics (housing, education, food, etc.), discretionary spending is much lower. Yet still the neoclassical myth that there's a trade off between inequality and wealth creation persists.