America peaked in the 50's

[Sinew]

Yes, the 50s were much better than today, unless you were anything but a white man. And if you disregard the leaps and bounds we've made in technology and medicine since then.

[Draco-Onis]

any proof outside head canon ?

Because in the current real life of real facts it's actually true. Quality of life never stoped improving in western countries.

I listed those facts upward mobility, wage gap, job opportunities and the status of the family unit. Technology is not the sole determinant of quality of life, for example in the 50s one parent could work and you still could have a house and live the american dream not the case today. Most families in the US now are dual income and that is just one measurement among many feel free to google the rest.

[ArmoredDragoon]

The notion that there's no middle class is an ignorant statement no doubt. The notion that there's no inequality is being deliberately obtuse, however - so I hope that's not what you're implying. The middle class exists, yes. However, it is in-fact diminishing (albeit rather slowly).

A true but misleading statement; it's diminishing because the middle class is getting richer:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#508a5cd321c8

Also, yet another area the US dominates:

http://hospitals.webometrics.info/en/world

[Osmeric]

There weren't nearly so many people living in poverty as compared to nowadays.

That's because the US population has doubled since 1950. The percentage living in poverty is lower now.

[Taso]

Of course it peaked in the 1950s, the New Deal was still in effect, Eisenhower raised the marginal tax rate to over 90%, the rebuilding of Europe was feeding the US an absolute shitton of money...

Now, the US is quickly going the way of the British Empire.

And who gets the blame for that? It's certainly not the political parties. It's the people who vote.

[nomorepriest]

Sad thing is the mods allow it. Disgusting!

Mods here are the worst.

[rhorle]

Notice that I never called the "90%" idiots. I said 90% of society are useless fucks who use the internet for recreation only. I should've qualified my statement. 90% of society are useless (which is okay), and those that go around saying that the internet is ultimately a bad thing are the fucks (which is not okay). I'm entirely sure they're inside the "useless" subset, which makes them useless fucks. I fused that whole thing into one sentence that was too general.

Qualifying and changing entirely are different things. Saying 90% are useless fucks is the same thing as saying 90% are idiots. One just doesn't use profane words to accomplish the same thing. The fact that when pressed you now are saying you have two groups within the 90% is silly. That isn't qualifying that is back pedaling because you were shown to be an idiot just spouting off.

90% are not useless fucks if only a portion of what you call useless people are useless fucks. Which again goes back to my comment about people making up statistics to emphasis there point. Something you took offense to yet admit to doing right here. Why would you now admit that you used a sentence that was two general after taking umbrage at me saying you used statistics to emphasis your to general statement? Are you one of those useless fucks that can't actually understand what you type? One who pretends to be intelligent yet is actually ignorant enough to lump people into broad categories that don't fit because you don't have the willpower to actually act intelligently?

Actually percentages do matter. How can you say they don't? If I take 90% of your pay and you only get 10% wouldn't that be worse then me taking 5% and you keeping 95%? Again you generalize. Everyone else isn't prone to thinking the internet is a bad thing. You are saying 90% of internet users think the internet is a bad thing. Again you don't seem to be able to grasp that you are dead wrong and that percentages matter.

We clearly know what category on the internet you fit in with your continued BS. It isn't people pulling "us" forward and people thinking the internet is bad. The irony is that you are saying that you, and most of the people here in this forum, should be ignored because they are not pulling us forward as a race. Labeling people as useless fucks or pulling us forward and saying groups should be outright ignored is not an advancement. That is discrimination and racism in disquise. To actually pull us forward we need to stamp out stuff like that.

So kindly delete your MMO-Champion account, cancel your ISP, and destroy all connections to the internet. You have proven you are not pulling us forward so need to be ignored and shouldn't be on the internet. We are waiting but I doubt you'll follow your own opinions. Because why would someone actually practice what they preach? Right?

[stomination]

Consider that you would have a higher standard of living back in the 50's in America than what you have today.

What else did we have in the 50s that we don't have now?

[Tierbook]

What else did we have in the 50s that we don't have now?

The occasional lynching?

[rhorle]

I listed those facts upward mobility, wage gap, job opportunities and the status of the family unit. Technology is not the sole determinant of quality of life, for example in the 50s one parent could work and you still could have a house and live the american dream not the case today. Most families in the US now are dual income and that is just one measurement among many feel free to google the rest.

Single income earners can still provide for their family and live comfortably. You might not be able to buy many luxury items but you can still be far from struggling. At some point the dream changed to having the newest and latest things. I know someone that is always struggling yet claims he spends 4k+ a month just on stuff for his family. Always has to have the latest Iphone, always buys expensive clothes when cheaper brands are almost exactly the same (jeans, fleeces, hoodies, jackets etc).

50-60k a year is easy to support a family of 3. There are other issues that contribute to making it harder but there were also issues in the 1950's that made it difficult for single income families.

[Deletedaccount1]

Technological advances are not the same thing as income mobility, standard of living etc. If you are going by technological advances then the future will always be better than the past in all situations and that is definitely not the case.

Technological advances are definitely correlated with standard of living. No sane person alive today would rather live in the US 50 years ago just so they might make a little bit more money compared to what they would today (which isn't even true generally).

The example I gave was a long life expectancy today from medicine alone but food is also better today, we don't spray DDT on everything now, polio isn't a problem anymore, education is better, there are more career fields, there are more things to entertain yourself with, the internet exists etc.

[Nadiru]

Single-income households work considerably better if there's a person doing the whole homemaker thing. Daycare plus cleaning plus shopping plus cooking is a lot of money saved, more than is generally appreciated. If you're a single-income household and there isn't someone slotted in that role, you may as well go double-income.

[Osmeric]

What else did we have in the 50s that we don't have now?

Leaded air?

[Jeezy911]

America had a great economy in the 50s because the rest of the world had just spent 6 years blowing itself to pieces for the second time in about 30 years.

The conditions that allowed for those times are hopefully never coming back.

In our defense, we blew ourselves to pieces as well but were then able to turn those tank and bomb factories into refrigerator factories.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow look an American bashing thread. This is new and exciting

Well most of the bashers are from:
A)Canada, which would basically be Mexico 2.0 if not for the American economic carry.

2) Euroganistan- I would be mad too.

[Sky High]

in terms of economic prosperity yeah, not gonna argue against that. everything else though we're a lot better off now then we were back then, for obvious reasons.

[Amalaric]

Source? And does it matter what another country rates your credit at when other financial institutions rate it at AA+? The financial institutions that a lot of the world relies on for such information. China itself has had a change in credit rating from one of the 3 CRA (credit rating agencies). http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40024503

You seem to keep trying to apply anything you think, hear, or see to put the USA in a negative light. Even when it doesn't match up. First you say it is your personal opinion that they are an A, and now when confronted about it you bring out the information that China rates it even lower as a way to justify your unfounded rating. Why didn't you lead with China's rating for the USA in your original post if it is so low?

You have shown you don't know much about 1950's USA. You have shown that you don't know what quality of life is and think a Cell phone is a lower quality of life then a rotary corded phone. You are using a credit rating to judge a country as a whole (since you've ranged from living in the past not looking to the future, to quality of life, to demographics, to financial health).

You don't know what you are talking about and felt the need to try and be some USA expert. Why kind of financial training do you have to even give a country a credit rating? That you know better then professional CRA that do it for a living?

I posted a link you just have to scroll way down to Dagong.

[Draco-Onis]

Single income earners can still provide for their family and live comfortably. You might not be able to buy many luxury items but you can still be far from struggling. At some point the dream changed to having the newest and latest things. I know someone that is always struggling yet claims he spends 4k+ a month just on stuff for his family. Always has to have the latest Iphone, always buys expensive clothes when cheaper brands are almost exactly the same (jeans, fleeces, hoodies, jackets etc).

50-60k a year is easy to support a family of 3. There are other issues that contribute to making it harder but there were also issues in the 1950's that made it difficult for single income families.

57- 63% of Americans from a dual income family cannot handle a surprise $500 debt, household debt is much higher than that your theory does not lend itself to the reality. Also those single households in the 50s were not cutting off luxuries of their time to be able to live on a single income. A 50 - 60K a year income in some parts of the country is not going to get you far unless you are single.

- - - Updated - - -

Technological advances are definitely correlated with standard of living.

Technology always moves forward it is not a variable you put into that equation. Basically you want to ask if technology and its benefits stay the same are people living better lives now or in the past and the data says no. Think about it you are basically saying nothing can ever be wrong with society compared to the past since technology will always get better.

[rhorle]

I posted a link you just have to scroll way down to Dagong.

Ok. You scroll way past a bunch of AAA ratings. That rating doesnt mean much or really support anything you are trying to say.

- - - Updated - - -

.Also those single households in the 50s were not cutting off luxuries of their time to be able to live on a single income. A 50 - 60K a year income in some parts of the country is not going to get you far unless you are single.
.

Why are you under the impression that everyone in the 50s could afford unlimited amounts of luxeries? I also never said households now were cutting off all luxeries but many people now have to many which is why they cant afford even a $500 debt.

You dont need the newest Iphone every year or a designer brand fleece. You would be surprised at what people buy compared to their income/savings/money situation. That is why anything now that doesnt take those into consideration aa variables is a flawed poll and measurement.

[Spectral]

That's because the US population has doubled since 1950. The percentage living in poverty is lower now.

It's also because "poverty" is a relative stat, defined as a percentage of median income and ignores government transfers (usually). It's a moving target. After accounting for government transfers, almost no one is below the 1950s poverty-line income level.

- - - Updated - - -

What else did we have in the 50s that we don't have now?

Anti-miscegenation laws!

Loving v Virginia didn't happen till 1967.

[Amalaric]

Ok. You scroll way past a bunch of AAA ratings. That rating doesnt mean much or really support anything you are trying to say.

- - - Updated - - -



Why are you under the impression that everyone in the 50s could afford unlimited amounts of luxeries? I also never said households now were cutting off all luxeries but many people now have to many which is why they cant afford even a $500 debt.

You dont need the newest Iphone every year or a designer brand fleece. You would be surprised at what people buy compared to their income/savings/money situation. That is why anything now that doesnt take those into consideration aa variables is a flawed poll and measurement.

If the A- rating doesn't mean anything then the AAA rating doesn't mean anything either.