3 ms·

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 rubb

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.

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.