4 ms·

> So while in the 50's, the advantages to being more high status seemed almost cosmetic Is this the same Fifties with white and colored water fountains, and wh

> So while in the 50's, the advantages to being more high status seemed almost cosmetic Is this the same Fifties with white and colored water fountains, and where women had to leave office jobs when they married?

atleastoptimal 4y ago
This is an interesting, fallacious take. Basically: one thing about some time in the past was bad, thus everything about it was bad. Higher wealth disparity, based on its impact on social stability, measured independently, is bad. Racism/sexism are bad. The impact of things must be measured separately, so our ideas regarding how to improve society are higher resolution and more accurate.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  Is this the 50s where you couldn't get any credit or open a brokerage account even with your good enough single salary if you weren’t white and male, heterosexual? Trying to spark introspection about how all of these things are interrelated, but clearly only to some of us.
  - atleastoptimal 4y ago
    Are you implying that the much higher home cost/average income ratio, CEO/worker pay ratio and necessity for households to be dual income to raise families nowadays vs the 50s are due to a lack of racism, sexism, and homophobia from lenders and brokers? The point of the original post was the general lower severe economic disparity in the United States in the 50s vs today. Since the 1980s the Gini coefficient in the United States has raised rapidly across all racial groups. Just because things are better for all deprivileged groups doesn't mean the American people, as a whole, aren't getting screwed over more via the increase in income inequality. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rising-most-rapidly-among-asians/psdt-07-12_economic_inequality-00-11/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-...
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      No, I'm not implying that.
  - shakow 4y ago
    Are you implying it is contradictory to wish for both the wealth redistribution levels of the 50's and the human tolerance of now?
    - DangerousPie 4y ago
      Is that the wealth distribution among white males or the wealth distribution among the population as a whole?
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      It probably is contradictory if 1950s level was artificially depressed by disqualifying 2/3rds of the population and ramming highways through the neighborhoods they had to live in
- jgil 4y ago
  The widespread racism and sexism of the 50’s was not “one thing” and it’s not just in the past. There is such a thing as missing the forest for the trees. Socioeconomic status is intersectional.
  - atleastoptimal 4y ago
    The point of the original comment that certain common positive aspects of 50s American life, namely single family home ownership, one-income households, and lower CEO/worker pay ratios are less common now. To bring up the point of racism and sexism seems to imply that those amenities were only possible due to racist and sexist structures. Is that what you believe, that the lack of home ownership, massive CEO/worker pay gap and necessity for most households to be 2 income to support a family are a necessary consequence of achieving gender equality and civil rights?
    - jgil 4y ago
      > seems to imply It doesn't. It's crucial to understand how the socioeconomic landscape was shaped in context. Policies and historical movements are relevant to the analysis. Social factors such as racism/sexism are considered in "socioeconomic" analysis. > Is that what you believe No, I don't follow your reasoning. From an analysis perspective, you claimed that society would benefit from ignoring racism/sexism (social factors) in evaluating "amenities" associated with socioeconomic status. I think this provides lower resolution into issues plaguing society, not higher resolution.
- robotresearcher 4y ago
  I made no claim at all like you suggest. My single point is that status being cosmetic for Americans in the 1950s only makes any sense if you exclude many Americans from consideration.

atleastoptimal 4y ago

This is an interesting, fallacious take. Basically: one thing about some time in the past was bad, thus everything about it was bad. Higher wealth disparity, based on its impact on social stability, measured independently, is bad. Racism/sexism are bad. The impact of things must be measured separately, so our ideas regarding how to improve society are higher resolution and more accurate.

yieldcrv 4y ago
Is this the 50s where you couldn't get any credit or open a brokerage account even with your good enough single salary if you weren’t white and male, heterosexual? Trying to spark introspection about how all of these things are interrelated, but clearly only to some of us.
- atleastoptimal 4y ago
  Are you implying that the much higher home cost/average income ratio, CEO/worker pay ratio and necessity for households to be dual income to raise families nowadays vs the 50s are due to a lack of racism, sexism, and homophobia from lenders and brokers? The point of the original post was the general lower severe economic disparity in the United States in the 50s vs today. Since the 1980s the Gini coefficient in the United States has raised rapidly across all racial groups. Just because things are better for all deprivileged groups doesn't mean the American people, as a whole, aren't getting screwed over more via the increase in income inequality. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rising-most-rapidly-among-asians/psdt-07-12_economic_inequality-00-11/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-...
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    No, I'm not implying that.
- shakow 4y ago
  Are you implying it is contradictory to wish for both the wealth redistribution levels of the 50's and the human tolerance of now?
  - DangerousPie 4y ago
    Is that the wealth distribution among white males or the wealth distribution among the population as a whole?
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    It probably is contradictory if 1950s level was artificially depressed by disqualifying 2/3rds of the population and ramming highways through the neighborhoods they had to live in
jgil 4y ago
The widespread racism and sexism of the 50’s was not “one thing” and it’s not just in the past. There is such a thing as missing the forest for the trees. Socioeconomic status is intersectional.
- atleastoptimal 4y ago
  The point of the original comment that certain common positive aspects of 50s American life, namely single family home ownership, one-income households, and lower CEO/worker pay ratios are less common now. To bring up the point of racism and sexism seems to imply that those amenities were only possible due to racist and sexist structures. Is that what you believe, that the lack of home ownership, massive CEO/worker pay gap and necessity for most households to be 2 income to support a family are a necessary consequence of achieving gender equality and civil rights?
  - jgil 4y ago
    > seems to imply It doesn't. It's crucial to understand how the socioeconomic landscape was shaped in context. Policies and historical movements are relevant to the analysis. Social factors such as racism/sexism are considered in "socioeconomic" analysis. > Is that what you believe No, I don't follow your reasoning. From an analysis perspective, you claimed that society would benefit from ignoring racism/sexism (social factors) in evaluating "amenities" associated with socioeconomic status. I think this provides lower resolution into issues plaguing society, not higher resolution.
robotresearcher 4y ago
I made no claim at all like you suggest. My single point is that status being cosmetic for Americans in the 1950s only makes any sense if you exclude many Americans from consideration.