100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: The Good Old Days | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 01/27/17 01:27 PM
|
|
read more at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-06/the-good-old-days-were-fine-these-days-are-better
A recent poll asked Americans which decade of the 20th century they would most like to go back to; the most popular answer was the 1950s. That’s linked to a human tendency to judge things on a relative basis. For those who lived through them, the 1950s were a happy time of growth in both income and opportunity, while the past decade has witnessed stagnation and rising inequality. Yet by almost every other objective measure, life is simply much better now than it was in the ’50s for just about everyone—and that should give us considerable confidence that progress will continue in the future. IN the 50s: the median family income was $28,000, compared with $64,000 in 2013. Life expectancy at birth was 68 years, vs. 79 today, tuberculosis, syphilis, whooping cough, and measles were still considerable killers—with prevalence between 10 and more than a hundred times today’s levels. About a third of houses still lacked decent indoor plumbing (compared with fewer than 2 percent today), and air conditioning was a rare luxury. The homicide rate did climb in the 1960s and ’70s, but it has dropped since, and the 1950s level was higher than today’s. The year 1950 was also when the Korean War broke out—1.5 million American men were drafted to fight, and more than 36,000 died (five times the U.S. death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq). Women were excluded from the draft, but largely also from executive positions in industry and government. there was just one woman U.S. senator in 1950. A decade before Selma and the victories of the civil rights movement, blacks across much of the country were disenfranchised, segregated, and discriminated against at every turn. As late as 1960, polls suggested an almost universal view among whites that interracial marriage was a bad idea. the average American today transported back to the 1950s would be made miserable by the change—permanently so for minority groups. The good old days are good only for those who were young and lucky at the time and can’t remember them terribly well now. .....Stop pining for the good old days: This is as good as it gets … until it gets better. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
lu_rosemary
on
Fri 01/27/17 01:51 PM
|
|
- we all need to remember the good and the bad times and learn from it.
- the new and the ol' years that passes by has/had/have a huge impact to each and everyone of us and for sure will continue to be that way for a very long time. i certainly hope so. history was/is written everyday. yes, history is beautiful and we the people have the power to change the world and make it a better place to live in. . . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you can compare income, since everything else has gone up as well...but - as I said in another thread similar to this; there are good and bad times throughout history.
To go back to a better time, you would most certainly need to take some of the things we have achieved up to date with you! To make things better now, in terms of what they used to be like - we need to address the shrinking middle class. Since we can't go back - unless you have a Delorian...*wink* I say we work on making things better - not the way they used to be. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets talk about the American Indians for a change, they got a raw deal too.. just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
read more at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-06/the-good-old-days-were-fine-these-days-are-better A recent poll asked Americans which decade of the 20th century they would most like to go back to; the most popular answer was the 1950s. That’s linked to a human tendency to judge things on a relative basis. For those who lived through them, the 1950s were a happy time of growth in both income and opportunity, while the past decade has witnessed stagnation and rising inequality. Yet by almost every other objective measure, life is simply much better now than it was in the ’50s for just about everyone—and that should give us considerable confidence that progress will continue in the future. IN the 50s: the median family income was $28,000, compared with $64,000 in 2013. Life expectancy at birth was 68 years, vs. 79 today, tuberculosis, syphilis, whooping cough, and measles were still considerable killers—with prevalence between 10 and more than a hundred times today’s levels. About a third of houses still lacked decent indoor plumbing (compared with fewer than 2 percent today), and air conditioning was a rare luxury. The homicide rate did climb in the 1960s and ’70s, but it has dropped since, and the 1950s level was higher than today’s. The year 1950 was also when the Korean War broke out—1.5 million American men were drafted to fight, and more than 36,000 died (five times the U.S. death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq). Women were excluded from the draft, but largely also from executive positions in industry and government. there was just one woman U.S. senator in 1950. A decade before Selma and the victories of the civil rights movement, blacks across much of the country were disenfranchised, segregated, and discriminated against at every turn. As late as 1960, polls suggested an almost universal view among whites that interracial marriage was a bad idea. the average American today transported back to the 1950s would be made miserable by the change—permanently so for minority groups. The good old days are good only for those who were young and lucky at the time and can’t remember them terribly well now. .....Stop pining for the good old days: This is as good as it gets … until it gets better. Don't forget the great Dwight D. Eisenhower was President as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All visions of "good old days," are based on individual perceptions and points of view, and, more than anything else, on your degree of "blissful ignorance" at the time.
Being one of the few Historians around here, I know more than most, how tricky it is to discuss "good old days." Not JUST because of all the different points of view, but because I studied directly, how each eras mythos was actually built, usually consciously. Or at least semi-consciously. I've mentioned elsewhere, that there are a number of reasons why lots of Americans think of the fifties as the best of times. Part of it is simply that those Americans were young children then, and hence were only aware of the child stuff going on. The explosion of new entertainments, peacetime and plenty of food, and their subconscious awareness that their parents were in an extended state of relief, that World War 2 was over, and that they were citizens of the single most powerful nation on the planet. But as others have said, that wasn't true for everyone, not even in America. But the mythos or mythology of that time was building, and with the rise of communications technology (the first "internet-like" revolution), people who could make money from encouraging the myths, were doing so hand over fist. All of that is not to decry or belittle any of the real accomplishments of anyone then, or before. Warning: here's another of my own "weirdisms:" I have had a repeating experience, where any time I come in to an unexpected financial windfall, within a month, something negative will occur that uses all of the windfall plus ten percent. It's like some sort of magical fate or something. I spent years bemoaning that, alternatively making rueful jokes about it, and getting angry when I did catch a break, because I knew something was going to take it away again. But then one day, I decided to change my point of view about the phenomenon. I decide that okay, when I get lucky, that means something bad is coming. But if something bad DOES come, because of the lucky part, it only cost me that extra ten percent. The change in attitude, point of view, allowed me to enjoy all of it. The lucky break, AND the fact that I was able to weather the following bad times. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets talk about the American Indians for a change, they got a raw deal too.. just saying. feel free |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets talk about the American Indians for a change, they got a raw deal too.. just saying. They sure did, and it was by the founder of the modern Democrats Party, President Jackson who was also one of the most ruthless slave owners. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the median family income was $28,000, compared with $64,000 in 2013. That doesn't compare purchasing price parity. What could $28,000 buy in 1950 vs what $64,000 can buy today. That also doesn't address mobility. If the median family income was $28,000 the first year, what was their income after 1 year, 5 years, 10 years? What was advancement opportunity? Is it better if $28,000 grows 10% a year or $64,000 to grow 3% every 2 years with a greater tendency to decrease as technology changes kill jobs, jobs get shipped overseas? Life expectancy at birth was 68 years, vs. 79 today, That doesn't address quality of life. Not to mention, what is the cost of those 10 years? If the median income is $28,000 with $0 spend on healthcare, dying at 68, is that "better" than earning $64,0000, with $20,000-$30,000 spent annually in insurance and healthcare to live to 79? tuberculosis, syphilis, whooping cough, and measles were still considerable killers—with prevalence between 10 and more than a hundred times today’s levels. That's not saying anything meaningful. If "today's levels" are 10 people die from those diseases, then 100-1,000 people died in the 50's. That's not statistically significant. Not to mention, are there no new "considerable killers?" Are things like diabetes, heart disease, cancer, AIDS, Ebola, relatively higher? Are things "better" that fewer people are dying from "tuberculosis, syphilis, whooping cough, and measles," but more people are dying from a bunch of other diseases? The homicide rate did climb in the 1960s and ’70s, but it has dropped since, and the 1950s level was higher than today’s. How much of that is due to statistics? I mean if town size in general were 100 people, and there was 1 homicide every year, so it's 1:100 people, and then people migrate to larger cities with size growing to 10,000 people with 90 homicides every year, is it really "better?" The "homicide rate" is higher in the smaller town. How exactly are the comparing homicide rates? A lot of people compare divorce rates but they don't account for the decrease in marriage so it looks more horrible than it really is. Not to mention, the article says this: "by almost every other objective measure, life is simply much better now than it was in the ’50s " But then uses this: "Women were excluded from the draft, but largely also from executive positions in industry and government. there was just one woman U.S. senator in 1950. " How has women being put in executive positions in industry and government and women senators made things "better?" More money? Individual lives buy the things they need/want, better. Lower homicide rate? Things can be seen as safer. Less disease? Increased life span? For the individual, better. Women having certain jobs? ....? Nothing in the article related to why this is "better." As late as 1960, polls suggested an almost universal view among whites that interracial marriage was a bad idea. Where in the article is that idea shown to be false and interracial marriages make things "better?" Stop pining for the good old days: This is as good as it gets … until it gets better. People look back at the "good ol' days" and want to pick and choose which positive consequences they want. That's no different than what happens with people trying to make things "better." e.g. The ACA. "Lower rates! Keep your doctor! 42 million without insurance and this will cover everyone! Budget neutral! Will cost less than $1 trillion dollars!" No difference between people "pining" for the "good ol' days" than people thinking they can make things "better." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back in the "good old days" when they invented fire, the wheel, indoor plumbing, the telephone, electricity, computers, the internet. Things evolve over time, many people work more hours than ever, but that's not necessary saying they work harder, in someways life is more stressful, in other ways less. We socialize more because of technology,but it becomes less personal. Unless you choose to get lost in the woods you have to deal with what's around you, there is no going back. Even the Amish have evolved somewhat. Are mothers in the work place better or worse off then being at home with the children? Why do black people think they are so important to white people? Honestly about the only thing that would change in my life is my taxes would drop a little bit. I believe people are more selfish than ever, but our parents and prior to that our grand parents probably thought that too. I believe people used to have more pride and patriotism in the old days, but I also think they were more gullible and easily brain washed. We can't change the past, all we can do is try to change the future, so let's try to continue on until we destroy our selves thru global warming or war unless a natural disaster takes us out in the mean time. Whatever it brings we are only here for a short time so make the most of what you got!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why does anyone feel more important than others? and why shouldnt people feel as if they are AS important as others?
I definitely belief the broadbrush approach to 'family values' being made up only of 'love' as a priority are more harmful than helpful I agree that we should take the best parts of today and yesterday, learn from the worst parts, and use it to move FORWARD (not 'go back') |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the median family income was $28,000, compared with $64,000 in 2013. That doesn't compare purchasing price parity. What could $28,000 buy in 1950 vs what $64,000 can buy today. That also doesn't address mobility. If the median family income was $28,000 the first year, what was their income after 1 year, 5 years, 10 years? What was advancement opportunity? Is it better if $28,000 grows 10% a year or $64,000 to grow 3% every 2 years with a greater tendency to decrease as technology changes kill jobs, jobs get shipped overseas? Life expectancy at birth was 68 years, vs. 79 today, That doesn't address quality of life. Not to mention, what is the cost of those 10 years? If the median income is $28,000 with $0 spend on healthcare, dying at 68, is that "better" than earning $64,0000, with $20,000-$30,000 spent annually in insurance and healthcare to live to 79? tuberculosis, syphilis, whooping cough, and measles were still considerable killers—with prevalence between 10 and more than a hundred times today’s levels. That's not saying anything meaningful. If "today's levels" are 10 people die from those diseases, then 100-1,000 people died in the 50's. That's not statistically significant. Not to mention, are there no new "considerable killers?" Are things like diabetes, heart disease, cancer, AIDS, Ebola, relatively higher? Are things "better" that fewer people are dying from "tuberculosis, syphilis, whooping cough, and measles," but more people are dying from a bunch of other diseases? The homicide rate did climb in the 1960s and ’70s, but it has dropped since, and the 1950s level was higher than today’s. How much of that is due to statistics? I mean if town size in general were 100 people, and there was 1 homicide every year, so it's 1:100 people, and then people migrate to larger cities with size growing to 10,000 people with 90 homicides every year, is it really "better?" The "homicide rate" is higher in the smaller town. How exactly are the comparing homicide rates? A lot of people compare divorce rates but they don't account for the decrease in marriage so it looks more horrible than it really is. Not to mention, the article says this: "by almost every other objective measure, life is simply much better now than it was in the ’50s " But then uses this: "Women were excluded from the draft, but largely also from executive positions in industry and government. there was just one woman U.S. senator in 1950. " How has women being put in executive positions in industry and government and women senators made things "better?" More money? Individual lives buy the things they need/want, better. Lower homicide rate? Things can be seen as safer. Less disease? Increased life span? For the individual, better. Women having certain jobs? ....? Nothing in the article related to why this is "better." As late as 1960, polls suggested an almost universal view among whites that interracial marriage was a bad idea. Where in the article is that idea shown to be false and interracial marriages make things "better?" Stop pining for the good old days: This is as good as it gets … until it gets better. People look back at the "good ol' days" and want to pick and choose which positive consequences they want. That's no different than what happens with people trying to make things "better." e.g. The ACA. "Lower rates! Keep your doctor! 42 million without insurance and this will cover everyone! Budget neutral! Will cost less than $1 trillion dollars!" No difference between people "pining" for the "good ol' days" than people thinking they can make things "better." Well pick me off the floor, a logical thinker. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i ve been told that there is no such thing as the good old days!
 
|
|
|
|
|
