U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2010, 04:31 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,237 posts, read 27,207,784 times
Reputation: 10607

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMarbles View Post
1. Relative to the size of the economy, very few people died in the war. Much fewer for example than the number of women that entered the worforce.

2. The number of jobs is not constant.
It is not constant, but there are constantly significantly fewer jobs than there are people to fill them. I believe the death toll from the war was "only" in the tens of thousands, but those are tens of thousands that did not come back seeking employment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2010, 06:27 AM
 
3,082 posts, read 1,176,746 times
Reputation: 1080
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I know I'll probably get slammed for this, but all the people who died serving in the military did not come home to take jobs from other people who needed them, so we were able to have more employed. I do not say this out of disrespect, however, just a statement of fact--there are only so many jobs to go around, and more people than jobs, usually.
My co-worker said that very thing to me when i hired in on the railroad ...he called it the big kill off of a generation of men that is why i had a job.I know that sounded cold and heartless but it was the truth and he meant that i should respect the veterans that sacrificed their lives...these old timers were cut from a different cloth.Here where i live in the early 60's you could lose your job and find a new job that same day...the Downtown was booming.Unions,medicare passage,govt regulations,new technology,foreign competition,taxes and energy costs slowly ate away at our manufacturing base [ in 1965 there were 71 manufacturers in Portsmouth Ohio there are only a few today] The shoe companies went one by one the steel mill closing in 1980 and the A-plant in Piketon Ohio ceasing enrichment hurt the regions retailers,merchants and the railroad. i miss the good old days miss the steam engines... N&W was the last railroad to use steam almost to 1960 which was labor entensive high maintenance it took a bunch of men to maintain the fleet and keep them running.They built their own engines in Roanoke Virginia so went a bunch of shop jobs on the system when they switched to diesel electrics.Track maintenance today 3 to 5 machines do the work that 25 men use to do upgrades to the signaling system cut into operators at choke points manned 24/7 computers cut into the number of clerks needed also the end of passenger service cut the work force...stewards,baggage handlers,train crews,clerks all the trades of the railroad.We were told before i retired that the biggest expense or overhead the railroad had was the employee shortly after they started to cut jobs or abolish jobs like mine when you retire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2010, 06:56 AM
 
3,082 posts, read 1,176,746 times
Reputation: 1080
Someone asked if Ohio still has passenger service i don't think so they were planning the 3C Corridor Cincinnati,Columbus,Cleveland but the new Governor is going to kill it.Wish someone would get really serious about real high speed rail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2010, 12:24 PM
 
Location: New York City
2,789 posts, read 2,917,601 times
Reputation: 1656
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
It is not constant, but there are constantly significantly fewer jobs than there are people to fill them. I believe the death toll from the war was "only" in the tens of thousands, but those are tens of thousands that did not come back seeking employment.
There were about 420,000 casualties during the war. But that's a drop in the bucket compared to millions, if not tens of millions, of jobs created during the war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2010, 08:40 PM
 
15,160 posts, read 7,606,049 times
Reputation: 7471
Quote:
Originally Posted by ben86 View Post
Thanks for the replies. I suppose it makes sense that the US was the only major country with a functioning industrial base after the war. I was also surprised to read that your population then was half what it is now. A low, but growing population (15%/decade) with all that land and resources, comparative advantage and a strong manufacturing sector does logically lead to high living standards.
the US was not the only major country with a functioning industrial base, remember that the soviet union also had a solid industrial base. the big difference though was in the US we rewarded hard work and risk taking, where as the soviets did not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2010, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
9,350 posts, read 7,318,579 times
Reputation: 16560
Default Status in August of 1945 - USA vs. Great Britain

Let's not forget that Great Britain had already been fighting both on the continent and in North Africa when the United States entered the war on December 8, 1941. In terms both of population relative to casualties suffered and percentage of national wealth expended, Great Britain ended the war with far greater losses than the USA. In fact, she ended the war almost totally exhausted, even if with most of her industrial capacity still intact. This exhaustion was one of the reasons behind the loss of empire she suffered within a few years after the end of the war: Burma, Malaya, India. The other reason was the change of attitude among colonial peoples who had seen their British masters defeated and bested by the Japanese. While the Japanese proved to be far crueler taskmasters, when their yoke was lifted the Burmese, etc. had little stomach for accepting anybody's yoke. Thus the Japanese slogan "Asia for the Asians" was ironically fullfilled in a fashion totally unimagined by its creators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2010, 09:20 PM
 
Location: New York City
2,789 posts, read 2,917,601 times
Reputation: 1656
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
the US was not the only major country with a functioning industrial base, remember that the soviet union also had a solid industrial base. the big difference though was in the US we rewarded hard work and risk taking, where as the soviets did not.
Are you kidding? The Soviet Union sustained the most damage during the war out of any belligerent nation. Entire cities were leveled to the ground in half the country.

And the US was a much richer country even before the war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2010, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Exeter, NH
4,507 posts, read 2,202,407 times
Reputation: 3911
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMarbles View Post
There were about 420,000 casualties during the war. But that's a drop in the bucket compared to millions, if not tens of millions, of jobs created during the war.
And the fact that women entered the workforce to fill the war jobs, though they returned home for the most part when the men came back. Until our economy degraded and it took two incomes to match what one used to, of course. Now even that if far preferable to the massive structural unemployment we'll be dealing with far into the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2010, 09:46 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 18,596,168 times
Reputation: 14472
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMarbles View Post
Are you kidding? The Soviet Union sustained the most damage during the war out of any belligerent nation. Entire cities were leveled to the ground in half the country.
Ah... that's a bit of a stretch. The Nazi's invasion didn't penetrate even a 1/4 of the Soviet Union and while their was significant damage to Moscow, Stalingrad and leningrad but the Soviets had moved the great preponderance of their industrial centers to the east prior to the invasion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2010, 10:52 PM
 
Location: New York City
2,789 posts, read 2,917,601 times
Reputation: 1656
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Ah... that's a bit of a stretch. The Nazi's invasion didn't penetrate even a 1/4 of the Soviet Union and while their was significant damage to Moscow, Stalingrad and leningrad but the Soviets had moved the great preponderance of their industrial centers to the east prior to the invasion.
The majority of Soviet population - about 3/4 - lived in Europe. Sure, there were vast stretches of land in the northern part of European Russia and Siberia but for the most part that is uninhabitable subarctic taiga. Altogether, over 85 million Soviet people fell under German occupation - or just under half the total population.

Most of the Soviet industry was concentrated around Moscow and Leningrad - the two largest cities- - and Ukraine. Neither city was captured but both were heavily bombed. Ukraine was totally occupied, and whatever wasn't destroyed or evacuated was taken back by Germans back to Germany. The Soviets did evacuate the most essential war-related industries back to the east but that didn't make up what was lost. You cannot evacuate large cities in a few weeks. Soviet industrial output fell markedly from 1941 to 1942. To a large extent the Soviets needed to rely on American goods via lend lease, and that is after converting their *entire* industrial production to war needs.

In addition to industry, the western Soviet Union also contained the most productive areas of Soviet agriculture. It too sustained incalculable loses, with most of the animal stock gone, millions of acres of land gone fallow.

Any way you look at it, a huge part of the country was in ruins. Cities destroyed, infrastructure -roads, bridges, electrical grid etc- gone. Everything needed to be rebuilt from scratch.

Here, for example, is Kiev, the country's third largest city after the war:



Imagine what Georgia or South Carolina looked like in 1865, except worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:00 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top