7 ms·

This is basically "the decline of America, in charts" and it's pretty depressing to read. A lot of the information here confirms that things started broadly g

This is basically "the decline of America, in charts" and it's pretty depressing to read. A lot of the information here confirms that things started broadly going south at the end of the 1970s and never really recovered. Also interesting is looking at the longer-range charts and seeing how much World War II really unified America on many different fronts.

bilbo0s 6y ago
Is it too simplistic to ask if the difference in cooperation is the inevitable result of the Greatests being raised in squalor, contrasted against Boomers who were raised in the midst of plenty? Serious question, wondering if that sort of extreme poverty in formative years followed by cannon fodder type war leads to the kind of people who are better able to team up?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times. —G. Michael Hopf, Those Who Remain I can say for sure that growing up in the Depression really shaped my grandparents’ viewpoints, tendency to use it up/wear it out/make it do/do without, and save their pennies to ensure their kids wouldn’t experience what they did.
  - watwut 6y ago
    That phrase is however not true looking at history. Hard times creat hard men, but those very often proceed to inflict hard times on other people - creating hard times for themselves too. The historical atrocities and many cruel laws were acts of men who fancied themselves strong. And they were strong and able to acquire power. And they themselves were result of hard times.
bleepblorp 6y ago
I think of what happened to much of the anglosphere (including the US) after 1970s as a reversion to the historical mean. The economic and social investment that went into the WWII war-effort and the postwar period created a bubble of prosperity that produced real improvements for pretty much everyone from 1945 to the 1970s. Unfortunately, this level of investment has not been sustained. Now the investment bubble is over, we're reverting to the kind of nasty, brutish, and uncertain life that has been the normal state of affairs for much of history. The rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s (under Reagan in the US; Thatcher in the UK; Mulroney in Canada; etc) and the disinvestment that followed made the stagnation in living standards--and increasing socioeconomic insecurity--for the median person inevitable. I don't see a way to turn things around, as the social disinvestment of the 1980s has eroded social ties to the point that no one is willing to pay for the kind of collective projects (infrastructure, education, a public commons) that would improve conditions for the median person. Far too many people find it comforting to blame the other for a declining society rather than understand that societal-level problems require societal-level solutions.
- jariel 6y ago
  "The rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s (under Reagan in the US; Thatcher in the UK; Mulroney in Canada; etc) and the disinvestment that followed made the stagnation in living standards--and increasing socioeconomic insecurity--for the median person inevitable." If you meant to say the total opposite of that, then maybe! Inequality may be up, but material standards of living for everyone but the poorest are way, way up, and it's a little ridiculous because it's obvious and palpable for anyone who was alive at the time. By almost conceivable material measure: the amount of travel, safety, life choices, entertainment, access to healthcare (we used to go in when we were sick, now we go in due to age related issues) - 'Heart Surgery' used to be a very scary thing, now it's literally 'outpatient' basis (my aunt got a 'heart stunt' home same day - this is like Science Fiction). Cars are faster, better safer, we have access to all the world's information (to know what 'Russia' was in the 1980's you had to go down to a library and check out a book to read about it). Tthe notion you can go in this magical thing called a 'mobile phone' and have any number of super cheap gadgets delivered to you from literally all the way around the world - China - for just a few dollars, was unthinkable. Walmart is the most benevolent thing imaginable for poor people: they can buy every material need under the sun for very little, something impossible before. I have family members with 'regular government jobs' - not part of the elite, they live in a giant new home, new cars, every toy under the sun for their kids. When I was young got fruit and candy in my stocking at Christmas, everyone I knew wore 'hand-me-downs', nobody took foreign vacations (we drive to Florida and stayed in motels), people did not have fancy sporting gear, 'long distance' calls on the telephone were very expensive. Material prosperity has exploded, and it really strains credibility for people trying to argue otherwise. Ownership and capital has not been spread evenly - the financial surpluses of globalisation has gone into the pockets of the 1%, but the productive surpluses have mostly gone into the pockets of the 85%. The 'losers' of the economy of those who lost their jobs due to globalisation and can't afford to participate in the game.
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
    The other way of looking at things is that, prior to neoliberalism, one full-time middle class income could pay for a house and support a family of four. After neoliberalism, getting a house and two kids takes two working adults, and often jobs that involve much more than 40 hours a week. The situation for millennials and younger is even worse, as most of them have been frozen out of the housing market in regions where there are good jobs. We all have cell phones now, but are we really better off if we (collectively) have so little time outside of work that we (collectively) don't get to see our kids grow up anymore, or if we can't afford houses anymore? The other, other, thing to look at is that household wages have stagnated since the 1980s in comparison to GDP (see eg: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=bOfK https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=bOfK) while unavoidable costs (e.g. housing, education, healthcare, communications) have exploded. There are lots more fancy toys available now than in the 1980s, but the median person has a smaller percentage of discretionary income to spend on them. I'm not convinced that taking away choice is a net positive.
ativzzz 6y ago
Based on historical trends, and according to the article, this isn't necessarily a decline but just a downward cycle. "Social cooperation waxes and wanes in most complex societies, following a long cycle. This is a generic pattern in not only our own society but also in ancient and medieval empires" Whether it is a decline or not depends on whether there are enough strong external enemies to destroy the US during the downturn.
- suifbwish 6y ago
  Actually our civilization has not been around long enough to say that there are cycles. Sure there are events of similar nature that occur but to view it as a cycle is sort of reaching
nathanvanfleet 6y ago
I am pretty sure you could get a similar graft if you took a big bucket of yeast and dumped a bunch of sugar in. Right at the beginning you'd have massive expansion and productivity. Everyone is happy and getting along. Then as the sugar slowly disappears and everyone is fighting for resources, it seems like somehow no one is cooperating. That's kind of the plot from 1945 to today as America has completely calcified itself, run down the unions and shut down its factories.
onecommentman 6y ago
The charts in question are income disparities (1% v other), membership rates in volunteer organizations, trust in US government, a “polarization index” two guys in Political Science came up with, filibustering since 1960, judicial confirmation rates and an Ngram on two terms. All basically Cold War era time series. These charts have lead the commenter to declare “the decline of America”. This data basically defines for the commenter “the decline of America”. That seems to me an overly-expansive extrapolation from the data... Thank you for sharing that.

bilbo0s 6y ago

Is it too simplistic to ask if the difference in cooperation is the inevitable result of the Greatests being raised in squalor, contrasted against Boomers who were raised in the midst of plenty? Serious question, wondering if that sort of extreme poverty in formative years followed by cannon fodder type war leads to the kind of people who are better able to team up?

sokoloff 6y ago
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times. —G. Michael Hopf, Those Who Remain I can say for sure that growing up in the Depression really shaped my grandparents’ viewpoints, tendency to use it up/wear it out/make it do/do without, and save their pennies to ensure their kids wouldn’t experience what they did.
- watwut 6y ago
  That phrase is however not true looking at history. Hard times creat hard men, but those very often proceed to inflict hard times on other people - creating hard times for themselves too. The historical atrocities and many cruel laws were acts of men who fancied themselves strong. And they were strong and able to acquire power. And they themselves were result of hard times.

bleepblorp 6y ago

I think of what happened to much of the anglosphere (including the US) after 1970s as a reversion to the historical mean. The economic and social investment that went into the WWII war-effort and the postwar period created a bubble of prosperity that produced real improvements for pretty much everyone from 1945 to the 1970s. Unfortunately, this level of investment has not been sustained. Now the investment bubble is over, we're reverting to the kind of nasty, brutish, and uncertain life that has been the normal state of affairs for much of history. The rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s (under Reagan in the US; Thatcher in the UK; Mulroney in Canada; etc) and the disinvestment that followed made the stagnation in living standards--and increasing socioeconomic insecurity--for the median person inevitable. I don't see a way to turn things around, as the social disinvestment of the 1980s has eroded social ties to the point that no one is willing to pay for the kind of collective projects (infrastructure, education, a public commons) that would improve conditions for the median person. Far too many people find it comforting to blame the other for a declining society rather than understand that societal-level problems require societal-level solutions.

jariel 6y ago
"The rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s (under Reagan in the US; Thatcher in the UK; Mulroney in Canada; etc) and the disinvestment that followed made the stagnation in living standards--and increasing socioeconomic insecurity--for the median person inevitable." If you meant to say the total opposite of that, then maybe! Inequality may be up, but material standards of living for everyone but the poorest are way, way up, and it's a little ridiculous because it's obvious and palpable for anyone who was alive at the time. By almost conceivable material measure: the amount of travel, safety, life choices, entertainment, access to healthcare (we used to go in when we were sick, now we go in due to age related issues) - 'Heart Surgery' used to be a very scary thing, now it's literally 'outpatient' basis (my aunt got a 'heart stunt' home same day - this is like Science Fiction). Cars are faster, better safer, we have access to all the world's information (to know what 'Russia' was in the 1980's you had to go down to a library and check out a book to read about it). Tthe notion you can go in this magical thing called a 'mobile phone' and have any number of super cheap gadgets delivered to you from literally all the way around the world - China - for just a few dollars, was unthinkable. Walmart is the most benevolent thing imaginable for poor people: they can buy every material need under the sun for very little, something impossible before. I have family members with 'regular government jobs' - not part of the elite, they live in a giant new home, new cars, every toy under the sun for their kids. When I was young got fruit and candy in my stocking at Christmas, everyone I knew wore 'hand-me-downs', nobody took foreign vacations (we drive to Florida and stayed in motels), people did not have fancy sporting gear, 'long distance' calls on the telephone were very expensive. Material prosperity has exploded, and it really strains credibility for people trying to argue otherwise. Ownership and capital has not been spread evenly - the financial surpluses of globalisation has gone into the pockets of the 1%, but the productive surpluses have mostly gone into the pockets of the 85%. The 'losers' of the economy of those who lost their jobs due to globalisation and can't afford to participate in the game.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  The other way of looking at things is that, prior to neoliberalism, one full-time middle class income could pay for a house and support a family of four. After neoliberalism, getting a house and two kids takes two working adults, and often jobs that involve much more than 40 hours a week. The situation for millennials and younger is even worse, as most of them have been frozen out of the housing market in regions where there are good jobs. We all have cell phones now, but are we really better off if we (collectively) have so little time outside of work that we (collectively) don't get to see our kids grow up anymore, or if we can't afford houses anymore? The other, other, thing to look at is that household wages have stagnated since the 1980s in comparison to GDP (see eg: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=bOfK https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=bOfK) while unavoidable costs (e.g. housing, education, healthcare, communications) have exploded. There are lots more fancy toys available now than in the 1980s, but the median person has a smaller percentage of discretionary income to spend on them. I'm not convinced that taking away choice is a net positive.

ativzzz 6y ago

Based on historical trends, and according to the article, this isn't necessarily a decline but just a downward cycle. "Social cooperation waxes and wanes in most complex societies, following a long cycle. This is a generic pattern in not only our own society but also in ancient and medieval empires" Whether it is a decline or not depends on whether there are enough strong external enemies to destroy the US during the downturn.

suifbwish 6y ago
Actually our civilization has not been around long enough to say that there are cycles. Sure there are events of similar nature that occur but to view it as a cycle is sort of reaching

nathanvanfleet 6y ago

I am pretty sure you could get a similar graft if you took a big bucket of yeast and dumped a bunch of sugar in. Right at the beginning you'd have massive expansion and productivity. Everyone is happy and getting along. Then as the sugar slowly disappears and everyone is fighting for resources, it seems like somehow no one is cooperating. That's kind of the plot from 1945 to today as America has completely calcified itself, run down the unions and shut down its factories.

onecommentman 6y ago

The charts in question are income disparities (1% v other), membership rates in volunteer organizations, trust in US government, a “polarization index” two guys in Political Science came up with, filibustering since 1960, judicial confirmation rates and an Ngram on two terms. All basically Cold War era time series. These charts have lead the commenter to declare “the decline of America”. This data basically defines for the commenter “the decline of America”. That seems to me an overly-expansive extrapolation from the data... Thank you for sharing that.