Sure, but people pining for the lifestyle of the 50s forget they are looking at the top 10% of incomes. Life in the 50s wasn’t that good compared to now for the AVERAGE person
Except they had things like the G.I. bill which gave them money to go to college or buy a house and improve their lives. Every man who was in the military in WWII had that as an option. Maybe some didn’t utilize it, but that was by choice. If you include their spouses and children, that’s way more than 10% of the population.
Wages were comparatively higher too.
But I don’t know anyone on the left pining for the lifestyle of the 1950s, that’s something conservatives want. I wouldn’t mind the wages of the 1950s (adjusted for inflation) and I wouldn’t mind taxing the rich at 90%, but I sure would mind the racism and the sexism.
In part because black people can own those things more easily now.
Sure, but people pining for the lifestyle of the 50s forget they are looking at the top 10% of incomes. Life in the 50s wasn’t that good compared to now for the AVERAGE person
Except they had things like the G.I. bill which gave them money to go to college or buy a house and improve their lives. Every man who was in the military in WWII had that as an option. Maybe some didn’t utilize it, but that was by choice. If you include their spouses and children, that’s way more than 10% of the population.
Wages were comparatively higher too.
But I don’t know anyone on the left pining for the lifestyle of the 1950s, that’s something conservatives want. I wouldn’t mind the wages of the 1950s (adjusted for inflation) and I wouldn’t mind taxing the rich at 90%, but I sure would mind the racism and the sexism.
Adjusted for inflation, much lower than today
There were loopholes that allowed most people to pay much less, so that’s why they closed those loopholes later
Evidence please.
Remind me how much rich people pay in taxes now.
We don’t have good WAGE data before 1964
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_real_wages_(red,_in_constant_2017_dollars).png
but we also have household income data for earlier years
https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/famincome.html
but it doesn’t match 100% because what a household is differs (households used to be bigger in the 1950s)
but you can see that 1950-1964 the household incomes grew quickly, so the 1950s were a period of growth, you were a lot better off by 1970
You made a claim about 1950s income you now can’t back up? Interesting.
https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/famincome.html
Look at it, family income was lower
Yes, because women generally didn’t work. That’s a terrible metric.