3 ms·

> And when we look back at our history, we see that in the 1950s and 1960s — the glorious postwar years of rapid and equitable growth and plentiful jobs — we sp

> And when we look back at our history, we see that in the 1950s and 1960s — the glorious postwar years of rapid and equitable growth and plentiful jobs — we spent far more on our military than we do now. Yeah, but two important words in this sentence are no longer true today: equitable growth. We taxed the ultra wealthy at a much, much higher rate than we do today and individual purchasing power was much higher. The household median income in the U.S. in 1950 was $2,990 — roughly 40% of the median home value of $7,354 at the time, according to census data. This is no longer true as a median income doesn’t even qualify for 80% of purchasable homes today[0] 0: https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/eighty-percent-homes-market-arent-affordable-households-earning-median-incomes-or-less https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/eighty-percent-homes-market...

howmayiannoyyou 3y ago
| equitable growth. | We taxed the ultra wealthy at a much, much higher rate than we do today and | individual purchasing power was much higher. This is so tangential to the article that is borderline off topic. You don't solve the US defense problem by attempting to tackle something as politically challenging as major changes to US tax policy.
- LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
  It’s not tangential at all. A key argument of the article is that we should spend more on the military like we did in the 50s. It’s important to point out how much the income structure of the government has changed since then.
  - foogazi 3y ago
    What does that matter for defense purposes? the tax base is much bigger now. We have an integrated economy. Whole sectors like tech were not even around before
    - peteradio 3y ago
      Tech is two parts wealth extraction for every part generation.
jasonlotito 3y ago
> We taxed the ultra wealthy at a much, much higher rate than we do today and individual purchasing power was much higher. And colleges were free, too. People seem to forget this. But then somebody came along and undid all that, and by the 80s, things were going downhill fast.
- theironhammer 3y ago
  Yup, Reaganomics. Aka neoliberalism. Neoliberalism has weakened the West, turning it into a Feudalist society.
Mountain_Skies 3y ago
We also heavily restricted immigration until the impact of the Immigration Act of 1965 started to accumulate in the 70s, 80s, and beyond. There are lots of correlations one can come up with to explain the change in balance between capital and labor and it is doubtful that any single variable is responsible for the majority of the change.

howmayiannoyyou 3y ago

| equitable growth. | We taxed the ultra wealthy at a much, much higher rate than we do today and | individual purchasing power was much higher. This is so tangential to the article that is borderline off topic. You don't solve the US defense problem by attempting to tackle something as politically challenging as major changes to US tax policy.

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
It’s not tangential at all. A key argument of the article is that we should spend more on the military like we did in the 50s. It’s important to point out how much the income structure of the government has changed since then.
- foogazi 3y ago
  What does that matter for defense purposes? the tax base is much bigger now. We have an integrated economy. Whole sectors like tech were not even around before
  - peteradio 3y ago
    Tech is two parts wealth extraction for every part generation.

jasonlotito 3y ago

> We taxed the ultra wealthy at a much, much higher rate than we do today and individual purchasing power was much higher. And colleges were free, too. People seem to forget this. But then somebody came along and undid all that, and by the 80s, things were going downhill fast.

theironhammer 3y ago
Yup, Reaganomics. Aka neoliberalism. Neoliberalism has weakened the West, turning it into a Feudalist society.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

We also heavily restricted immigration until the impact of the Immigration Act of 1965 started to accumulate in the 70s, 80s, and beyond. There are lots of correlations one can come up with to explain the change in balance between capital and labor and it is doubtful that any single variable is responsible for the majority of the change.