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.

Lets talk about the American Indians for a change, they got a raw deal too.. just saying.

Lets talk about the American Indians for a change, they got a raw deal too.. just saying.

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.

The homicide rate did climb in the 1960s and ’70s, but it has dropped since, and the 1950s level was higher than today’s.

As late as 1960, polls suggested an almost universal view among whites that interracial marriage was a bad idea.

Stop pining for the good old days: This is as good as it gets … until it gets better.

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?


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?


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?


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."


Where in the article is that idea shown to be false and interracial marriages make things "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."