4 ms·

Decline of the U.S. in the 1970's-1990's? What a bizarre claim. By every measurable standard, the U.S. was a far, far better, richer place in 2000 than in 1970

Decline of the U.S. in the 1970's-1990's? What a bizarre claim. By every measurable standard, the U.S. was a far, far better, richer place in 2000 than in 1970, and occupied a more significant and more secure position in the world. I sometimes worry that the demographic of places like HN is shifting young enough that statements like yours can actually seem authoritative. Even someone merely old enough to have been paying attention from 1990 to 2000 would realize that "general decline" is an absurd description.

rdl 14y ago
Technology has undoubtedly improved, but most other elements of society have gotten worse. I'm 34, and first hand there was a decline (other than technology) from 1990 to today, and from statistics (inequality coefficients, relative competitiveness, political system, etc) those trends accelerated rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  Let's put aside the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history for a second. What about living in the U.S. in 2000 was worse than in 1990? Health care was better. Houses were bigger. Cars were both more luxurious and safer. Incomes were higher. Unemployment was absurdly low. The Federal budget was, through bipartisan efforts and a terrific economy, balanced for the first time in decades. The Cold War was over. Europe was uniting and Asia was exploding. More kids (and more significantly, more women) were going to college. Cities like New York that had been nearly given up to crime and decay had become vibrant and thriving again. And frankly, 1990 had a lot going for it over 1980, too.
  - rdl 14y ago
    There are lots of overlapping trends, some positive and some negative. The War on (some) Drugs (aka war on blacks/mexicans/chinese) really stepped up in the 1960-1990 period, so crime stats and general urban hell was at a peak during that period, and improved 1990-2010. It's unclear how much blame for that is on baby boomers. The continuation of the War on Drugs is undeniably a boomer thing, though. That alone is more than enough reason to be angry. "White Flight" to the suburbs was mostly the parents of Boomers, so they were only indirectly involved, although they did also continue it through the 70s/80s/90s. Gen X and Gen Y are the dominant forces behind re-urbanization. There are lots of awesome new technologies (I mean, even a 2013 car vs. a 2006 car is an improvement), but that's technological progress and relatively global, vs. US-specific. Yes, points for not actually causing global thermonuclear war or a collapse of the global economy. Microcomputers, cellphones, the Internet, medical advances, etc., all amazing. The (re) emergence of China from ~1990, the end of the Cold War, and the rescue of India from socialism in the 1990s+ were undeniably great, but had little or nothing to do with US domestic policy. Reagan probably did accelerate things by up to a decade, but the 1990s were a case of mismanagement of the "peace dividend" and a bunch of emerging threats. (1990 itself and 2000 are probably unfair years to pick, due to the bubble of 2000 -- 1991 vs. 2000 is a lot different from 1989 vs. 2001. I don't remember the exact details of the early-1990s recession or the early 1980s and which time periods were bad, but I do remember 1998-2001 and 2001-2003) Women and racial/ethnic minorities did probably do better in the US fairly steadily year on year for the past 100 years. That's one big point. On college -- look at the costs of MIT or UC-Berkeley in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, especially vs. a feasible income for an 18-22 year old. The big thing is the rise of inequality -- essentially everyone in hn is one of the winners or is credibly likely to become one, but for the bottom...50%? of the US, the odds of having a better life are lower now than they were in the past.
  - Joeri 14y ago
    Incomes have risen, but inflation-adjusted income for the bottom half of earners has essentially been flat for 40 years. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-household-incomes-a-42-year-perspective-2011-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/us-household-incomes-a-42-yea...
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      What does that prove? You really think a 60th percentile-level household in 1970 was better off than a 40th percentile-level household today? I'd spot you a whole quintile. And even without accounting for the difficulty in comparing like-to-like over 40 years of CPI indexing, or the change in the demographics of U.S. households, that median line still looks pretty good when you realize you're looking at a linear scale.
incongruity 14y ago
That's because, largely, they benefited from the work done prior to their gaining power (nation-wide new infrastructure, etc) and failed to reinvest in the same. Instead, we've seen an epidemic of deferred maintenance and a lack of capital projects. Of course everything is falling apart now! This is not unlike managers who come in, strip R&D budgets, point to big profits and split before the inevitable crash. All they did was milk the cash-cow. It really is a well established phenomenon.
- aswanson 14y ago
  Right. "Management" people who adhere to that philosophy are glorified by the media, press, etc because they lack vision beyond quarterly results. The worship of short-sighted idiots like Jack Welch, Mark Hurd, Carly Fiorina and MBA-style methodology is destroying American competitiveness. Even Harvard Business School, of all places, says so: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/03/10/the-surprising-reasons-why-america-lost-its-ability-to-compete/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/03/10/the-surp...

rdl 14y ago

Technology has undoubtedly improved, but most other elements of society have gotten worse. I'm 34, and first hand there was a decline (other than technology) from 1990 to today, and from statistics (inequality coefficients, relative competitiveness, political system, etc) those trends accelerated rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s.

twoodfin 14y ago
Let's put aside the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history for a second. What about living in the U.S. in 2000 was worse than in 1990? Health care was better. Houses were bigger. Cars were both more luxurious and safer. Incomes were higher. Unemployment was absurdly low. The Federal budget was, through bipartisan efforts and a terrific economy, balanced for the first time in decades. The Cold War was over. Europe was uniting and Asia was exploding. More kids (and more significantly, more women) were going to college. Cities like New York that had been nearly given up to crime and decay had become vibrant and thriving again. And frankly, 1990 had a lot going for it over 1980, too.
- rdl 14y ago
  There are lots of overlapping trends, some positive and some negative. The War on (some) Drugs (aka war on blacks/mexicans/chinese) really stepped up in the 1960-1990 period, so crime stats and general urban hell was at a peak during that period, and improved 1990-2010. It's unclear how much blame for that is on baby boomers. The continuation of the War on Drugs is undeniably a boomer thing, though. That alone is more than enough reason to be angry. "White Flight" to the suburbs was mostly the parents of Boomers, so they were only indirectly involved, although they did also continue it through the 70s/80s/90s. Gen X and Gen Y are the dominant forces behind re-urbanization. There are lots of awesome new technologies (I mean, even a 2013 car vs. a 2006 car is an improvement), but that's technological progress and relatively global, vs. US-specific. Yes, points for not actually causing global thermonuclear war or a collapse of the global economy. Microcomputers, cellphones, the Internet, medical advances, etc., all amazing. The (re) emergence of China from ~1990, the end of the Cold War, and the rescue of India from socialism in the 1990s+ were undeniably great, but had little or nothing to do with US domestic policy. Reagan probably did accelerate things by up to a decade, but the 1990s were a case of mismanagement of the "peace dividend" and a bunch of emerging threats. (1990 itself and 2000 are probably unfair years to pick, due to the bubble of 2000 -- 1991 vs. 2000 is a lot different from 1989 vs. 2001. I don't remember the exact details of the early-1990s recession or the early 1980s and which time periods were bad, but I do remember 1998-2001 and 2001-2003) Women and racial/ethnic minorities did probably do better in the US fairly steadily year on year for the past 100 years. That's one big point. On college -- look at the costs of MIT or UC-Berkeley in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, especially vs. a feasible income for an 18-22 year old. The big thing is the rise of inequality -- essentially everyone in hn is one of the winners or is credibly likely to become one, but for the bottom...50%? of the US, the odds of having a better life are lower now than they were in the past.
- Joeri 14y ago
  Incomes have risen, but inflation-adjusted income for the bottom half of earners has essentially been flat for 40 years. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-household-incomes-a-42-year-perspective-2011-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/us-household-incomes-a-42-yea...
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    What does that prove? You really think a 60th percentile-level household in 1970 was better off than a 40th percentile-level household today? I'd spot you a whole quintile. And even without accounting for the difficulty in comparing like-to-like over 40 years of CPI indexing, or the change in the demographics of U.S. households, that median line still looks pretty good when you realize you're looking at a linear scale.

incongruity 14y ago

That's because, largely, they benefited from the work done prior to their gaining power (nation-wide new infrastructure, etc) and failed to reinvest in the same. Instead, we've seen an epidemic of deferred maintenance and a lack of capital projects. Of course everything is falling apart now! This is not unlike managers who come in, strip R&D budgets, point to big profits and split before the inevitable crash. All they did was milk the cash-cow. It really is a well established phenomenon.

aswanson 14y ago
Right. "Management" people who adhere to that philosophy are glorified by the media, press, etc because they lack vision beyond quarterly results. The worship of short-sighted idiots like Jack Welch, Mark Hurd, Carly Fiorina and MBA-style methodology is destroying American competitiveness. Even Harvard Business School, of all places, says so: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/03/10/the-surprising-reasons-why-america-lost-its-ability-to-compete/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/03/10/the-surp...