What Socialists think the 1950's were like
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (66)
sorted by:
Isn't a big part of this also that women were not as significant a part of the workplace, so pricing was geared towards an assumption of single-income homes?
Very much so.
Price follows supply and demand, but "price" isn't "money", it's "exchange of value". And the value of "money" halved when they doubled the number of people earning the same amount of "money". It didn't show right away, the invisible hand moves slowly, but it did adapt to that new market.
All that stated, per the OP, I could own a house, a car, and have a kid start saving for a local post-secondary-education, on one income. It isn't hard to do. Just don't buy a fucking mansion, don't live in or near a city like a Lefty lunatic, use your appliances carefully and until they truly break down, don't ever do any drugs like alcohol or tobacco or the harder ones, and buy a car with super-long-term lifespan in mind.
Not only that, but men weren't competing with women for jobs -- a class of people who can afford to work for less because they're not expected to provide for a family.
Back then, the US used to make things in factories. Women would rather stay home than break her fingers assembling a car.
Learning that the US isn't capable of making any significant amount of basic medicine during the pandemic was crazy.
It's why I have no faith in AI and the hysterical claims it's going to usher in a "Second Industrial Revolution."
The US had a good run, staving off inflation by sending our manufacturing base to third-worlders and selling Treasury bonds to them instead of trading anything of real value. But those chickens are now coming home to roost.