3 ms·

It wasn’t just the US. The energy crisis seems to have had extraordinary long tail effects. Everything was stagnating in the 70s and then we end up with Reagan,

by pram 3y ago

It wasn’t just the US. The energy crisis seems to have had extraordinary long tail effects. Everything was stagnating in the 70s and then we end up with Reagan, Thatcher, Gorbachev, etc. It might just be that the structure and productivity of the post war economies, a lot of them heavily focused on manufacturing, had just become increasingly unprofitable?

bsder 3y ago
> It might just be that the structure and productivity of the post war economies, a lot of them heavily focused on manufacturing, had just become increasingly unprofitable? It was. You can see it in the demographics of places like Johnstown or Scranton starting about 1950. They had a continual decline in population of about 10% per decade every decade. It didn't just start in 1980--it was well underway by 1980. And people like to sing paeans to Reagan like everybody loved him, but roughly 40 million of us saw right through him both times and voted against that sack of shit. While those areas were going to decline no matter what, Reagan's policies absolutely strangled the old manufacturing economies while doing absolutely not one damn thing for the people being hurt. I always want to slap people when they say "Things were better in the past(tm)". "Oy, I lived through Reagan. I remember 22.7% unemployment. It sucked to be poor; it sucked to be a minority; it sucked to be a laborer. In what fucking way was your poor, ignorant ass better off back then as opposed to now?" Finally, over time, automation didn't help. The Natrona Heights, PA steel plant was brought back online recently. A plant that used to employ 10,000 men now employs a couple hundred engineers.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Yeah, then do you remember 14% inflation under Carter? That wasn't a picnic, either. Part of the pain under Reagan was because he was letting Volcker deal with inflation.
  - bsder 3y ago
    I do remember. However, there is a world of difference between "Things are getting a bit expensive" and "You have no job starting tomorrow and no hope of getting another one for the foreseeable future."
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      It sounds like you're blaming Reagan for things that were going to happen anyway. What did you expect/wish him to do, exactly?
      - bsder 3y ago
        Not allowing the pension funds to be raided by the big steel and mining companies before bankruptcy? Job retraining and education programs? Relocation assistance? Healthcare and assistance for children so families didn't break up? You can help cushion some the results of a disaster even if you can't stop the disaster. I can go on and on. None of it ever materialized. Reagan and Co. were definitely in the "We've done not a damn thing, and it didn't work." camp.
        refurb 3y ago
        Can't you blame every single president since then for the same thing? Why single out Reagan? Keep in mind the Democrats controlled Congress during much of Reagans tenure. The President can't create laws, only support them. Clinton ('93 to '95), Obama ('9 to '11) all had periods where the Democrats held every single office - the House, Senate and Presidency and could have passed whatever they wanted along party lines. Yet they didn't.
        bsder 3y ago
        Because they weren't in charge during the problem? Because by the time Clinton got elected we had been through 12 years of Voodoo Economics? By the time Clinton got elected, the damage was done. The pension funds had been looted. The companies had declared bankruptcy and were gone. Families were divorced and torn apart due to men working 200 miles away for 10+ years. etc. And I DO have beef about Clinton--NAFTA in particular. But nothing that Clinton or Obama did is even remotely on the level of the devastation during Reagan/Bush.
  - refurb 3y ago
    Exactly. The 80's were a revival for the US. The 70's were stagflation, the president talking about the "great malaise", a humiliating defeat in Vietnam, and a general view that it was "the end of America". Then comes along Reagan, defeats inflation (sure Carter started it, but Reagan didn't falter when the recession hit), then ushers in the biggest uninterrupted economic boom since the 60's and said "you should be proud to be American". He was elected with 51% of the vote in 1980 and remarkable 59% in 1984 (carried every state except MN). Of course along with that came things the left finds abhorrent - belief in capitalism, minimal government, pride in being American (basically hate speech to the left), so Reagan became a punching bag for the left and despite 30+ years having passed, they still love to blame him for things that happen today. But put into perspective, it shouldn't be surprising he was so popular at the time.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  Pennsylvania feels like a husk of its former self. Keystone State no more. The Lehigh valley is growing but the jobs are not. It seems like most new jobs are spillovers from ny finance looking for cheaper areas, logistics and warehousing, and remenants of Telco giants. It's unfortunate. The main line would be awesome for transit. Really wish they'd build rail back up to Scranton from Philly too. PA has so much potential but the older generation needs to die off first and they gotta get the corruption out of the state legislature. Pennsyltucky isn't helping the situation.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- musicale 3y ago
  > plant that used to employ 10,000 men now employs a couple hundred engineers This is the template for automation of all jobs in all fields. Automating all work seems like a great idea, at least in an economy where humans can survive without working.
  - bsder 3y ago
    Don't get me wrong. I don't want to bring those jobs back. At my age, my grandfather was five years from death, still laying on his back, out in the elements, welding facing up with slag dripping on him while boxcars rolled over his head. And it's not like he was making phenomenal money. It is good that job is gone. However, we never figured out what to do with all the people those jobs would employ.
    - musicale 3y ago
      > However, we never figured out what to do with all the people those jobs would employ That's exactly the problem it seems.

by pram 3y ago

bsder 3y ago

> It might just be that the structure and productivity of the post war economies, a lot of them heavily focused on manufacturing, had just become increasingly unprofitable? It was. You can see it in the demographics of places like Johnstown or Scranton starting about 1950. They had a continual decline in population of about 10% per decade every decade. It didn't just start in 1980--it was well underway by 1980. And people like to sing paeans to Reagan like everybody loved him, but roughly 40 million of us saw right through him both times and voted against that sack of shit. While those areas were going to decline no matter what, Reagan's policies absolutely strangled the old manufacturing economies while doing absolutely not one damn thing for the people being hurt. I always want to slap people when they say "Things were better in the past(tm)". "Oy, I lived through Reagan. I remember 22.7% unemployment. It sucked to be poor; it sucked to be a minority; it sucked to be a laborer. In what fucking way was your poor, ignorant ass better off back then as opposed to now?" Finally, over time, automation didn't help. The Natrona Heights, PA steel plant was brought back online recently. A plant that used to employ 10,000 men now employs a couple hundred engineers.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Yeah, then do you remember 14% inflation under Carter? That wasn't a picnic, either. Part of the pain under Reagan was because he was letting Volcker deal with inflation.
- bsder 3y ago
  I do remember. However, there is a world of difference between "Things are getting a bit expensive" and "You have no job starting tomorrow and no hope of getting another one for the foreseeable future."
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    It sounds like you're blaming Reagan for things that were going to happen anyway. What did you expect/wish him to do, exactly?
    - bsder 3y ago
      Not allowing the pension funds to be raided by the big steel and mining companies before bankruptcy? Job retraining and education programs? Relocation assistance? Healthcare and assistance for children so families didn't break up? You can help cushion some the results of a disaster even if you can't stop the disaster. I can go on and on. None of it ever materialized. Reagan and Co. were definitely in the "We've done not a damn thing, and it didn't work." camp.
      - refurb 3y ago
        Can't you blame every single president since then for the same thing? Why single out Reagan? Keep in mind the Democrats controlled Congress during much of Reagans tenure. The President can't create laws, only support them. Clinton ('93 to '95), Obama ('9 to '11) all had periods where the Democrats held every single office - the House, Senate and Presidency and could have passed whatever they wanted along party lines. Yet they didn't.
        bsder 3y ago
        Because they weren't in charge during the problem? Because by the time Clinton got elected we had been through 12 years of Voodoo Economics? By the time Clinton got elected, the damage was done. The pension funds had been looted. The companies had declared bankruptcy and were gone. Families were divorced and torn apart due to men working 200 miles away for 10+ years. etc. And I DO have beef about Clinton--NAFTA in particular. But nothing that Clinton or Obama did is even remotely on the level of the devastation during Reagan/Bush.
- refurb 3y ago
  Exactly. The 80's were a revival for the US. The 70's were stagflation, the president talking about the "great malaise", a humiliating defeat in Vietnam, and a general view that it was "the end of America". Then comes along Reagan, defeats inflation (sure Carter started it, but Reagan didn't falter when the recession hit), then ushers in the biggest uninterrupted economic boom since the 60's and said "you should be proud to be American". He was elected with 51% of the vote in 1980 and remarkable 59% in 1984 (carried every state except MN). Of course along with that came things the left finds abhorrent - belief in capitalism, minimal government, pride in being American (basically hate speech to the left), so Reagan became a punching bag for the left and despite 30+ years having passed, they still love to blame him for things that happen today. But put into perspective, it shouldn't be surprising he was so popular at the time.
hughesjj 3y ago
Pennsylvania feels like a husk of its former self. Keystone State no more. The Lehigh valley is growing but the jobs are not. It seems like most new jobs are spillovers from ny finance looking for cheaper areas, logistics and warehousing, and remenants of Telco giants. It's unfortunate. The main line would be awesome for transit. Really wish they'd build rail back up to Scranton from Philly too. PA has so much potential but the older generation needs to die off first and they gotta get the corruption out of the state legislature. Pennsyltucky isn't helping the situation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
musicale 3y ago
> plant that used to employ 10,000 men now employs a couple hundred engineers This is the template for automation of all jobs in all fields. Automating all work seems like a great idea, at least in an economy where humans can survive without working.
- bsder 3y ago
  Don't get me wrong. I don't want to bring those jobs back. At my age, my grandfather was five years from death, still laying on his back, out in the elements, welding facing up with slag dripping on him while boxcars rolled over his head. And it's not like he was making phenomenal money. It is good that job is gone. However, we never figured out what to do with all the people those jobs would employ.
  - musicale 3y ago
    > However, we never figured out what to do with all the people those jobs would employ That's exactly the problem it seems.