Every time someone gets nostalgic for yee olde golden times, remind them that in 1924, 102 years ago, the President's 16-year-old son died from an infection caused by playing tennis without socks. The 1950s were just 30 years later, one generation.
Hence the expression 'sock it to me," Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in.
The medical advances and technology are low-hanging fruit. It is all the cultural stuff that has changed dramatically and hardly has progressed a bit and probably backtracked in any number of ways. Yes yes with improvements for Civil rights and Women's rights. My wife points to Covid and how we dealt with a 'pandemic. ' The Same way we did 100 years ago.
We had potentially better medicine and did not use it.
We were still controlled by kings and princes, but they were called bureaucrats. They wanted to develop a vaccine, so drugs were banned.
For the past twenty-five years we have had a GDP growth rate well below the historic average from 1790 to 2000. If we had just maintained the historic average -- not even being better than the historic average -- we would have a GDP around $40 trillion this year. That would mean an additional $1.7 trillion in revenue to the federal government, and an additional $800 billion for the states revenue. That would mean additional economic activity, more jobs, more consumer spending, more business activity.
That's the difference between rates of growth. And the 1950s is not the best period; it was the 1960s, even on a per capita GDP. John, go back to the Economic Report of 1962 -- Maximum Growth, Maximum Employment, Maximum Purchasing Power. If our economy is not performing to its full capacity it affects our society AND it affects how we conduct our national security strategy.
Two points: 1. Big things grow slower than small things, as a general rule and 2. The big thing called US GDP would be growing faster, were it not for the income tax and federal, state, and even local regulations that foul the works.
Does not account for the decade of the 1960s, or the high growth rate era of 1947 to 1973 -- these periods were a lot, lot bigger than previous economies of the 19th Century or the 1920s. Income tax rates were much higher in the 1960s. It takes leadership skills to navigate the regulations -- some states have it, and some states don't.
If big things grow slower, how do you account for the growth rate of Nvidia -- a $4.5 trillion valuation; a cash cow with around $100 billion in cash in 2025 projecting $160 billion this year.
Excellent article with very thought provoking ideas. Dr. Russ Roberts from Econtalk has commented on his podcast how people today romanticize the past without recognizing the advancements we currently have. He points out, very appropriately, that the internet and free information has revolutionized knowledge. People use to pay thousands of dollars for books that contained information that is now literally free. Additionally, there are free apps (think the Google Suite) that used to be software that costs hundreds of dollars for a license.
Additionally, major retailers like WalMart and Amazon have brought enumerable affordable consumer goods to people who otherwise wouldn't have them. We are living in the best of times and complaining like we are in the dark ages.
"We are living in the best of times and complaining like we are in the dark ages."
Well, economically speaking anyway. The fact that we have masked government agents killing people and kidnapping children out of schools, with no accountability whatsoever, is some dark ages shit.
(Notice how everyone who responded to me resorted to a personal attack. I didn't want that, and I only replied in kind.)
Not sure what point you're even trying to make. Perhaps you should look at someone like Rand Paul who actually has small government principles instead of pissing them away because the people being victimized by tyranny happen to be people you personally dislike.
I am not a leftist. I am small government. Your needle dicked desire for strongman politics betrays your insecurities. Perhaps you should man up yourself instead of asking Big Brother to save you from your own incompetence in the modern world.
Hmmm..., having seen pictures of my great grandfather who mined coal with a pick and shovel, have to have a spoon tied to his hand because his arthritis was so bad he couldn't hold by himself, I'll take the modern conveniences along with netflix and a side of Mac n Cheese for the win.
Yes, for example the life expectancy for someone born in 1920 was around 55 years. Today it is approximately 80 years. The worker death rate in 1920 was approximately 35 deaths per 100,000 and today it is approximately 3.5 deaths per 100,000.
Maybe the trade off is easier and longer life comes with an obesity challenge vs. the short life and leaving a trim corpse.
This piece was an example of cognitive bias. I'm going to have to delete receiving your posts despite enjoying many of the more econometric pieces. There is a difference between intellect and good judgment. Intellect is easy to hire; there are remarkably talented people available that can help solve problems in every field of endeavor. Good judgment is much harder to find. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you but this came across as something much worse then simply cherry picking your facts. You were either being internationally provocative or your just remarkably biased. No, I'm not a registered Democrat.
the central point (I think) is that the nostalgia about a mythical golden age is biased and therefore unnecessarily negative about the present. I am not sure who entertains that nostalgia, but maybe someone does
so are you saying there was a golden age and we've left it behind?
or are you saying the present is worse than people think?
or both?
or something else entirely?
something clearly got under your skin; what was it?
John has gone off the rails on a lot of issues in the last 6 years or so. This isn't one of them. It is patently silly to suggest that living standards have declined unless your utility function consists entirely of owning a home at a young age.
I have always wondered about the impact of indexing and how to vet the value of things that did not used to exist. The progress in medicine is a clear winner, the difference in nostalgia for white people Vs people of color is also notable. But I'm 75 and I do remember, well, not so much the 1950s but the later 1950s, 1960s early and later. And there was something different and better (yes I am WHITE). I do remember elementary school - late 1950s. Most of us were the same. I grew up in suburban Detroit ( Royal Oak). The rich people lived in Grosse Pointe, Birmingham, and Bloomfied Hills. The later two were more distant North Woodward suburbs than Royal Oak. We did not hate or resent wealthier people. Cars were not as good. There were no Japanese cars in America (yet). Our stereos were pathetic, but we loved them, and the music was bonkers good. There was a burst of creativity. Detroit had Motown (successful Black people!!). Race riots came in 1968 or '69. I worked on the assembly line and could pay for my college with my summer's work (trumps 2024 and 2025!!). In terms of the material things, 2024 and 2025 are winners I get it. But the '50s-'60s were simpler times. and culturally superior except for the gender and Whtie things... Oh yes, Happy Days did exist. We were more of ONE NATION and less fragmented, fighting over everything. I do not know what I can see and believe... or read and believe.
What is the value (or loss of value) from that?? I think women and people of color have the strongest reasons to rebel on this theme. I took wood shop and metal shop and I know how to use tools and fix things. 'Girls' got home economics and learned about food and cooking. OK DISCRIMINATORY SEXIST!! but good skills that people are no longer taught. We were sociialized differntly. Not taught to question our sex and mutilate our genitals or adopt grammatically crazed pronouns... See what I mean? What are the negative values in all that?? Oh some people LIKE IT...well choice...Choice can bring confusion. Here's a choice: ABC, NBC, CBS or read a book. 1950. Stay up past midnight and watch the test patterns on your TV. Call a friend if your 'party line' is not busy.
"Pollution in the 1950s was atrocious, especially in those industrial areas so beloved by nostalgic left-wing professors. (I grew up on the south side of Chicago. I remember coal dust that accumulated on anything outside.)" Yes. I grew up in Gary and worked at US Steel Gary works during the summer while I was in college. Office workers dressed in shirt and tie, often brought a second shirt into which they change in the late afternoon. The collar of the first shirt was dirty with steel and coal dust.
I second the comments by Iodine head. I add that it does not help your arguments to take cheap shots, assigning blame or motivations to those you do not know. The logical fallacy of attacking a straw man comes to mind. I’m interested in what you have to say but will not waste my time sorting through snakiness.
I'm no economist, so I'm not here to agree or disagree. I did expect some pushback in the comments, which did not disappoint.
I'm accustomed to people going on about how great the 1970's were which I'm old enough to have experienced as an adult. I find myself explaining to youngsters that with inflation and mortgage interest rates in double digits at the same time and gas lines, it didn't seem that great at the time. I mention that only as an acknowledgment of how influential nostalgia can be.
I do know that I live a much more economically comfortable life than my parents did in the 1950's. This somehow happened despite the fact that I didn't go to college, work in a government or union job or win the lottery. I was fortunate to grasp the concept of frugality and the magic of compounding at a young age. I'm retired now.
The cars in the fifties were injury and death traps. The mortality rate for auto accidents in 1950 was approximately 22 per 100k. in 2024 it was about 13.5 per 100k. Ceteris paribus. Todays cars, trucks and other vehicles are equipped with complete restraints, multiple airbags, GPS and navigation, state of the science tires and wheels, shatter resistant glass and more. The improved technology probably explains the 61% decline in car crash fatalities. BTW. Sam Peltzman , AKA "Seatbelt Sam," hypothesized; when safety measures are implemented, people tend to increase their risky behaviors.
But the nostalgia isn’t really about GDP levels. It’s about legibility.
In the postwar period, institutions reliably mapped effort to outcome. Careers were durable, credentials meant something, and technological change was slow enough for social adaptation.
Today we are materially richer but structurally less predictable. Institutions still gatekeep, but no longer stabilize expectations. That mismatch, not poverty is what people are reacting to.
This essay focuses on things, the technological and material advancements that have occurred, of which there is no doubt. However, I am reminded of the bumpersticker: "The best things in life are not things." When one compares the intangibles—the freedom, the trust, the comity—of Americans in the 1950s compared to the present, there is much to be said for that decade. Those lovely intangibles have been whittled away and continue to decline inexorably. The useful is useful, but the beautiful is as useful as the useful. Perhaps more so.
The economic data does not explain how those of us who lived it remember the 50’s. Our RI town was integrated in neighborhoods, schools, and churches. By every economic measure, I grew up “poor.” But we felt secure and weren’t exposed to all the alarming stuff that is on today’s TV news. Radio was our entertainment, and it did not spew unpleasant stuff. So, for those of us who grew up then, it was a golden era. People “pulled together” to make things work. Not many of us are old enough to remember, but no amount of statistics can change that memory.
It's indeed worthwhile for John Cochrane to point out that "we"--the "we" being most of us, I suspect--are better off today. Born in 1949, in the 1950's my family of four lived in a 2-bedroom 1-bath small house (for "The Wire" fans, in the Woodmoor subdivision in Baltimore where Stringer Bell had a stash house that looked much like ours). Cars required constant work, my family had the only TV on the street--a 13 inch screen! (mostly because my Dad was an electronics technician). My tobacco-farming relatives only got a party-line telephone around 1960, and could only afford to add indoor plumbing around 1953.
That said, in the North, you could have a pretty good life with only a high school degree. In 1967 I worked on the Oldsmobile assembly line in Lansing Michigan for $3.51 per hour--more than double what I earned working construction back in Baltimore. My $3.53/hour would be about $35/hour in today's dollars. My fellow UAW workers could afford, after a few years, a small home and frequently a cottage "up north" with a snowmobile and boat. I'm told by my current Nissan friends here in Tennessee that the NOMINAL wage for new-hire car assembly workers has stayed at about $18-22/hour over the last thirty years. Not progress for a new 18-year-old who sees the difference between his grandfather's lifestyle based on this type of work compared to what he or she can get today. Whatever has happened to inequality on average over the years, there is surely this subset of people, especially those with only a high-school degree, who have not gained in real wages.
I am also struck by how so many of the important positive changes to well-being identified by John reflect state intervention: Environmental progress, auto safety (the auto industry fought mandatory seatbelts with vigor), advances in basic science that led to better medicine, and civil rights advances.
I'm also struck how John's piece makes clear that the recurrent and current belief of some Republicans that the economy boomed because of deregulation in the Reagan era is not true (see for example the January 26, 2026 WAPO opinion piece by Suzanne P. Clark, president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: "50 years ago, America made a choice. The economy boomed. Once again, the nation should move toward prosperity and away from government intervention.") The facts bely this. My friends in business also consistently believe the economy does better with Republicans in control--despite the clear evidence this is not true (see "Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration" by Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson, American Economic Review 2016, 106(4): 1015--1045.) That increase in jobs to which John refers arrived almost entirely under Democratic presidents.
Yes, "we" are better off, but I think in significant part because of things the government has done. We breathe cleaner air, the Cleveland River doesn't burn, and Michiganders can now swim in Lake Erie.
Amen. It is particularly galling for people who were not alive during the ‘50s to wax eloquently about what a great time it was. Admittedly as a grade schooler, I had limited involvement but I do remember having to hide under desks for nuclear bomb exercises and wondering how to get home after bomb hits - sort of a precursor to today’s shelter in place shooting drills. Life was good, but it is so much better today.
Every time someone gets nostalgic for yee olde golden times, remind them that in 1924, 102 years ago, the President's 16-year-old son died from an infection caused by playing tennis without socks. The 1950s were just 30 years later, one generation.
Hence the expression 'sock it to me," Rowan and Martin's Laugh-in.
The medical advances and technology are low-hanging fruit. It is all the cultural stuff that has changed dramatically and hardly has progressed a bit and probably backtracked in any number of ways. Yes yes with improvements for Civil rights and Women's rights. My wife points to Covid and how we dealt with a 'pandemic. ' The Same way we did 100 years ago.
We had potentially better medicine and did not use it.
We were still controlled by kings and princes, but they were called bureaucrats. They wanted to develop a vaccine, so drugs were banned.
Nice piece of anecdata there.
Not even close, John.
For the past twenty-five years we have had a GDP growth rate well below the historic average from 1790 to 2000. If we had just maintained the historic average -- not even being better than the historic average -- we would have a GDP around $40 trillion this year. That would mean an additional $1.7 trillion in revenue to the federal government, and an additional $800 billion for the states revenue. That would mean additional economic activity, more jobs, more consumer spending, more business activity.
That's the difference between rates of growth. And the 1950s is not the best period; it was the 1960s, even on a per capita GDP. John, go back to the Economic Report of 1962 -- Maximum Growth, Maximum Employment, Maximum Purchasing Power. If our economy is not performing to its full capacity it affects our society AND it affects how we conduct our national security strategy.
Two points: 1. Big things grow slower than small things, as a general rule and 2. The big thing called US GDP would be growing faster, were it not for the income tax and federal, state, and even local regulations that foul the works.
Does not account for the decade of the 1960s, or the high growth rate era of 1947 to 1973 -- these periods were a lot, lot bigger than previous economies of the 19th Century or the 1920s. Income tax rates were much higher in the 1960s. It takes leadership skills to navigate the regulations -- some states have it, and some states don't.
If big things grow slower, how do you account for the growth rate of Nvidia -- a $4.5 trillion valuation; a cash cow with around $100 billion in cash in 2025 projecting $160 billion this year.
Excellent article with very thought provoking ideas. Dr. Russ Roberts from Econtalk has commented on his podcast how people today romanticize the past without recognizing the advancements we currently have. He points out, very appropriately, that the internet and free information has revolutionized knowledge. People use to pay thousands of dollars for books that contained information that is now literally free. Additionally, there are free apps (think the Google Suite) that used to be software that costs hundreds of dollars for a license.
Additionally, major retailers like WalMart and Amazon have brought enumerable affordable consumer goods to people who otherwise wouldn't have them. We are living in the best of times and complaining like we are in the dark ages.
"We are living in the best of times and complaining like we are in the dark ages."
Well, economically speaking anyway. The fact that we have masked government agents killing people and kidnapping children out of schools, with no accountability whatsoever, is some dark ages shit.
(Notice how everyone who responded to me resorted to a personal attack. I didn't want that, and I only replied in kind.)
It's the Nazis all over again. I understand the gas ovens are nearly complete. The quote aptly applies to you.
Not sure what point you're even trying to make. Perhaps you should look at someone like Rand Paul who actually has small government principles instead of pissing them away because the people being victimized by tyranny happen to be people you personally dislike.
I hope your life gets better, you don't seem very happy. Best wishes.
Odd complaint to make on a blog called "Grumpy Economist."
Stop importing illegal aliens because you Leftists have low testosterone and can't figure out from day to day what sex you are.
On top of that polls suggest that sex bores you and finally the women of both poltical persuasions don't want you because you are Soyboys.
1950 men were way better than you. Not even close. Man Up and Shut up.
I am not a leftist. I am small government. Your needle dicked desire for strongman politics betrays your insecurities. Perhaps you should man up yourself instead of asking Big Brother to save you from your own incompetence in the modern world.
And labor saving devices in the home so that we have more time to sit on our increasingly obese asses watching stultifying Netflix shows.
Hmmm..., having seen pictures of my great grandfather who mined coal with a pick and shovel, have to have a spoon tied to his hand because his arthritis was so bad he couldn't hold by himself, I'll take the modern conveniences along with netflix and a side of Mac n Cheese for the win.
Naturally you do understand the difference between an outlier and the typical.
Yes, for example the life expectancy for someone born in 1920 was around 55 years. Today it is approximately 80 years. The worker death rate in 1920 was approximately 35 deaths per 100,000 and today it is approximately 3.5 deaths per 100,000.
Maybe the trade off is easier and longer life comes with an obesity challenge vs. the short life and leaving a trim corpse.
Naturally you have heard of antibiotics.
Naturally, you came up with another non sequitur. Peace out ✌️
This piece was an example of cognitive bias. I'm going to have to delete receiving your posts despite enjoying many of the more econometric pieces. There is a difference between intellect and good judgment. Intellect is easy to hire; there are remarkably talented people available that can help solve problems in every field of endeavor. Good judgment is much harder to find. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you but this came across as something much worse then simply cherry picking your facts. You were either being internationally provocative or your just remarkably biased. No, I'm not a registered Democrat.
specifics?
the central point (I think) is that the nostalgia about a mythical golden age is biased and therefore unnecessarily negative about the present. I am not sure who entertains that nostalgia, but maybe someone does
so are you saying there was a golden age and we've left it behind?
or are you saying the present is worse than people think?
or both?
or something else entirely?
something clearly got under your skin; what was it?
You are not a registered Democrat, but on the other hand Mr. Cochrane's employer has an agenda, which Mr. Cochrane has to promote.
John has gone off the rails on a lot of issues in the last 6 years or so. This isn't one of them. It is patently silly to suggest that living standards have declined unless your utility function consists entirely of owning a home at a young age.
I have always wondered about the impact of indexing and how to vet the value of things that did not used to exist. The progress in medicine is a clear winner, the difference in nostalgia for white people Vs people of color is also notable. But I'm 75 and I do remember, well, not so much the 1950s but the later 1950s, 1960s early and later. And there was something different and better (yes I am WHITE). I do remember elementary school - late 1950s. Most of us were the same. I grew up in suburban Detroit ( Royal Oak). The rich people lived in Grosse Pointe, Birmingham, and Bloomfied Hills. The later two were more distant North Woodward suburbs than Royal Oak. We did not hate or resent wealthier people. Cars were not as good. There were no Japanese cars in America (yet). Our stereos were pathetic, but we loved them, and the music was bonkers good. There was a burst of creativity. Detroit had Motown (successful Black people!!). Race riots came in 1968 or '69. I worked on the assembly line and could pay for my college with my summer's work (trumps 2024 and 2025!!). In terms of the material things, 2024 and 2025 are winners I get it. But the '50s-'60s were simpler times. and culturally superior except for the gender and Whtie things... Oh yes, Happy Days did exist. We were more of ONE NATION and less fragmented, fighting over everything. I do not know what I can see and believe... or read and believe.
What is the value (or loss of value) from that?? I think women and people of color have the strongest reasons to rebel on this theme. I took wood shop and metal shop and I know how to use tools and fix things. 'Girls' got home economics and learned about food and cooking. OK DISCRIMINATORY SEXIST!! but good skills that people are no longer taught. We were sociialized differntly. Not taught to question our sex and mutilate our genitals or adopt grammatically crazed pronouns... See what I mean? What are the negative values in all that?? Oh some people LIKE IT...well choice...Choice can bring confusion. Here's a choice: ABC, NBC, CBS or read a book. 1950. Stay up past midnight and watch the test patterns on your TV. Call a friend if your 'party line' is not busy.
So. If going back isn't so great how on earth are we going to make America great....AGAIN?! Just what year or time frame is the target??
It's almost as if stupid political slogans have truth in neither premise nor conclusion.
"Pollution in the 1950s was atrocious, especially in those industrial areas so beloved by nostalgic left-wing professors. (I grew up on the south side of Chicago. I remember coal dust that accumulated on anything outside.)" Yes. I grew up in Gary and worked at US Steel Gary works during the summer while I was in college. Office workers dressed in shirt and tie, often brought a second shirt into which they change in the late afternoon. The collar of the first shirt was dirty with steel and coal dust.
I second the comments by Iodine head. I add that it does not help your arguments to take cheap shots, assigning blame or motivations to those you do not know. The logical fallacy of attacking a straw man comes to mind. I’m interested in what you have to say but will not waste my time sorting through snakiness.
I'm no economist, so I'm not here to agree or disagree. I did expect some pushback in the comments, which did not disappoint.
I'm accustomed to people going on about how great the 1970's were which I'm old enough to have experienced as an adult. I find myself explaining to youngsters that with inflation and mortgage interest rates in double digits at the same time and gas lines, it didn't seem that great at the time. I mention that only as an acknowledgment of how influential nostalgia can be.
I do know that I live a much more economically comfortable life than my parents did in the 1950's. This somehow happened despite the fact that I didn't go to college, work in a government or union job or win the lottery. I was fortunate to grasp the concept of frugality and the magic of compounding at a young age. I'm retired now.
The cars in the fifties were injury and death traps. The mortality rate for auto accidents in 1950 was approximately 22 per 100k. in 2024 it was about 13.5 per 100k. Ceteris paribus. Todays cars, trucks and other vehicles are equipped with complete restraints, multiple airbags, GPS and navigation, state of the science tires and wheels, shatter resistant glass and more. The improved technology probably explains the 61% decline in car crash fatalities. BTW. Sam Peltzman , AKA "Seatbelt Sam," hypothesized; when safety measures are implemented, people tend to increase their risky behaviors.
The 1950s weren’t a golden age in material terms.
But the nostalgia isn’t really about GDP levels. It’s about legibility.
In the postwar period, institutions reliably mapped effort to outcome. Careers were durable, credentials meant something, and technological change was slow enough for social adaptation.
Today we are materially richer but structurally less predictable. Institutions still gatekeep, but no longer stabilize expectations. That mismatch, not poverty is what people are reacting to.
This essay focuses on things, the technological and material advancements that have occurred, of which there is no doubt. However, I am reminded of the bumpersticker: "The best things in life are not things." When one compares the intangibles—the freedom, the trust, the comity—of Americans in the 1950s compared to the present, there is much to be said for that decade. Those lovely intangibles have been whittled away and continue to decline inexorably. The useful is useful, but the beautiful is as useful as the useful. Perhaps more so.
The economic data does not explain how those of us who lived it remember the 50’s. Our RI town was integrated in neighborhoods, schools, and churches. By every economic measure, I grew up “poor.” But we felt secure and weren’t exposed to all the alarming stuff that is on today’s TV news. Radio was our entertainment, and it did not spew unpleasant stuff. So, for those of us who grew up then, it was a golden era. People “pulled together” to make things work. Not many of us are old enough to remember, but no amount of statistics can change that memory.
It's indeed worthwhile for John Cochrane to point out that "we"--the "we" being most of us, I suspect--are better off today. Born in 1949, in the 1950's my family of four lived in a 2-bedroom 1-bath small house (for "The Wire" fans, in the Woodmoor subdivision in Baltimore where Stringer Bell had a stash house that looked much like ours). Cars required constant work, my family had the only TV on the street--a 13 inch screen! (mostly because my Dad was an electronics technician). My tobacco-farming relatives only got a party-line telephone around 1960, and could only afford to add indoor plumbing around 1953.
That said, in the North, you could have a pretty good life with only a high school degree. In 1967 I worked on the Oldsmobile assembly line in Lansing Michigan for $3.51 per hour--more than double what I earned working construction back in Baltimore. My $3.53/hour would be about $35/hour in today's dollars. My fellow UAW workers could afford, after a few years, a small home and frequently a cottage "up north" with a snowmobile and boat. I'm told by my current Nissan friends here in Tennessee that the NOMINAL wage for new-hire car assembly workers has stayed at about $18-22/hour over the last thirty years. Not progress for a new 18-year-old who sees the difference between his grandfather's lifestyle based on this type of work compared to what he or she can get today. Whatever has happened to inequality on average over the years, there is surely this subset of people, especially those with only a high-school degree, who have not gained in real wages.
I am also struck by how so many of the important positive changes to well-being identified by John reflect state intervention: Environmental progress, auto safety (the auto industry fought mandatory seatbelts with vigor), advances in basic science that led to better medicine, and civil rights advances.
I'm also struck how John's piece makes clear that the recurrent and current belief of some Republicans that the economy boomed because of deregulation in the Reagan era is not true (see for example the January 26, 2026 WAPO opinion piece by Suzanne P. Clark, president and chief executive of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: "50 years ago, America made a choice. The economy boomed. Once again, the nation should move toward prosperity and away from government intervention.") The facts bely this. My friends in business also consistently believe the economy does better with Republicans in control--despite the clear evidence this is not true (see "Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration" by Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson, American Economic Review 2016, 106(4): 1015--1045.) That increase in jobs to which John refers arrived almost entirely under Democratic presidents.
Yes, "we" are better off, but I think in significant part because of things the government has done. We breathe cleaner air, the Cleveland River doesn't burn, and Michiganders can now swim in Lake Erie.
Amen. It is particularly galling for people who were not alive during the ‘50s to wax eloquently about what a great time it was. Admittedly as a grade schooler, I had limited involvement but I do remember having to hide under desks for nuclear bomb exercises and wondering how to get home after bomb hits - sort of a precursor to today’s shelter in place shooting drills. Life was good, but it is so much better today.
Fabulous essay, JC. I will be using this in my econ classes this semester and next semester when I introduce a new course called American Capitalism.
Anyone yearning to go back to the '50s? Not me.