U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-24-2019, 01:52 PM
 
8,587 posts, read 4,508,200 times
Reputation: 8469

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
Ideally, the goal is to have a 1960s economy with 2010s (soon to be 2020s) social standards.
I'd like to hear more about this view.


The 1960's economy was booming in part due to spending on the Vietnam War.

By the end of the 60's growth was dramatically slowing and inflation was increasing to around 5%.

There were 2 major dollar crises in the 60's that ultimately led to the US abandoning Bretton-Woods in 1971.

By the late 60's the top 100 companies held nearly 50% market share, meaning less choice for employees and consumers.



Of course there were some good benefits - 98% of domestic goods were made in the US. 25% of all global exports of industrialized nations came from the US.

There were many more people paying into Social Security than were taking out. Same goes for Medicare.

 
Old 05-24-2019, 03:46 PM
 
51,925 posts, read 47,746,480 times
Reputation: 16203
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
Ideally, the goal is to have a 1960s economy with 2010s (soon to be 2020s) social standards.
The economy was starting to slump during the 1960s. The seeds of that started to grow in the 70s.
 
Old 05-24-2019, 04:01 PM
 
4,708 posts, read 1,720,138 times
Reputation: 3170
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjames68 View Post
I'd like to hear more about this view.


The 1960's economy was booming in part due to spending on the Vietnam War.

By the end of the 60's growth was dramatically slowing and inflation was increasing to around 5%.

There were 2 major dollar crises in the 60's that ultimately led to the US abandoning Bretton-Woods in 1971.

By the late 60's the top 100 companies held nearly 50% market share, meaning less choice for employees and consumers.



Of course there were some good benefits - 98% of domestic goods were made in the US. 25% of all global exports of industrialized nations came from the US.

There were many more people paying into Social Security than were taking out. Same goes for Medicare.
We had a balanced budget, our urban cores outside of a handful of the mega cities today were all densely populated, diverse and vibrant (even if on a downward trajectory), wealth inequality was at historic lows, labor unions were at their strongest, housing, education and health care were all affordable, wage growth was keeping up with inflation and our infrastructure was at its finest state, with a government that was willing to spend a ton of money in transit projects (interstate highways, subway systems, etc.).

Last edited by citidata18; 05-24-2019 at 05:04 PM..
 
Old 05-24-2019, 04:55 PM
 
8,587 posts, read 4,508,200 times
Reputation: 8469
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
We had a balanced budget, our urban cores outside of a handful of the mega cities today were all densely populated, diverse and vibrant (even if on a downward trajectory), wealth inequality was at historic lows, labor unions were at their strongest, housing, education and health care were all affordable, wage growth was keeping up with inflation and our infrastructure was at its finest state, with the government that was willing to spend a ton of money in transit projects (interstate highways, subway systems, etc.).
On the surface this all sounds great. Except for the shorter lifespan, untreatable cancers, lower productivity, less globalization, stigma against women in the workforce, ghettos, assassinations, aircraft hijackings, threat of nuclear war, corrupt union leadership aligned with the mob, and a few other things that I’m sure will immediately come to mind.

You can’t cherry pick decades unfortunately...
 
Old 05-24-2019, 05:06 PM
 
4,708 posts, read 1,720,138 times
Reputation: 3170
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjames68 View Post
On the surface this all sounds great. Except for the shorter lifespan, untreatable cancers, lower productivity, less globalization, stigma against women in the workforce, ghettos, assassinations, aircraft hijackings, threat of nuclear war, corrupt union leadership aligned with the mob, and a few other things that I’m sure will immediately come to mind.

You can’t cherry pick decades unfortunately...
Which is why I said the ideal goal is to have a 1960s economy with present day social standards.

As far as "less globalization," that's not necessarily a bad thing IMO, given its results has left us with a ton of hollowed out urban cores (outside a few mega cities) and small towns.

And frankly, I'd take corrupt union leadership over the corporatism of today.
 
Old 05-24-2019, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Murica
838 posts, read 718,266 times
Reputation: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian_M View Post
Hi, I see it's your first time on the internet.



Let me explain about "click-bait" used in titling things. It's some over-the-top and/or shocking statement intended to cause a viewer, such as yourself, to go further than just the title. This tactic came into existence as a way to increase ad revenue for "news" type sites, but has been co-oped by those who fall for the tactic as a means to try and garner more attention for themselves/their opinions.



You know when you're shopping for an item, perusing through a classifieds section and see something like a beautiful 1963 Corvette listed for $1,000? You know that the asking price is unreasonable, it's too good to be true. Well, the same filter can be applied to titles. Anything that's claiming something you Know is outlandish and unsubstantiated can simply be dismissed outright. No need to put any further thought or effort into it. The reason is that if the person who's making the cry for attention didn't go ahead and provide any semblance of evidence in the first place, you're Never going to cajole them into doing so. Doesn't matter how much you post. We will go ahead and ignore the reports available about efforts to change a persons opinion only pushing them further into that opinion. On the contrary, by posting you are Directly feeding the need for that individuals attention grab, they get their notification fix (and dopamine release ~ oh yeah, this is addiction driven when not financially driven).



There's only one fix for this. Don't post to things that are outlandish. Yes, I know, the "at large" population will ALWAYS post and feed these trolls. Just like the "at large" population will fall for phone telemarketers and scammer, and email scammers, and snail mail scammers ~ which is why those things STILL exist. But, every little bit helps, you never know where the threshold of "not worth the effort" exists for any given troll and every troll that doesn't post counts towards a better overall user experience.
"click bait"

No I made it because conservative celebrities like Nick Dipaolo all the sudden sold NY and NJ homes and moved to Georgia in a matter of weeks within the last six-months..

wahhhh burger vacuum glutton-fiends are inconvenienced from this forum not being an echo-chamber..
 
Old 05-24-2019, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Columbus, GA
948 posts, read 425,783 times
Reputation: 640
How does one keep track of where celebrities of Nick Dipaolo's...fame?...stature?...irrelevancy, that sounds right, how does one keep track of where celebrities of Nick's irrelevancy move to?

That's sounds creepy.
 
Old 05-24-2019, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Silver Spring MD
145 posts, read 53,679 times
Reputation: 232
Who is Nick DiPaolo?
 
Old 05-24-2019, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Naples FL
603 posts, read 180,014 times
Reputation: 896
After the debacle of the 1948 presidential elections where the Southern Democratic Party ran a completely separate ticket there was a uneasy truce in the 1950’s for a while. The South began abandoning the Democratic Party in the 1960’s after Johnson’s Civil Rights act of 1964 which many Southern Democrats saw as outright treasonous. When legendary Southern Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond( and 48’ Presidential candidate for the south) from SC switched parties to the GOP in 1964 it was a bit of a turning point for the Southern Democrats and the shift particularly towards Goldwater from the traditional Dixiecrat southern democrats was massive and continued onwards. In fact some long time Southern Politicians such as Georgia Governor Lester Maddox we’re essentially Democrats in name only despite him having served as Lieutenant to Jimmy Carter in his later years. The South has always been staunchly conservative and it was actually the abandonment of conservative politics by the Democratic Party ( which began with the New deal and FDR) which led to the GOP becoming the party of the south. Reagan’s consolidation of this completed the transformation almost completely.
 
Old 05-26-2019, 01:31 PM
 
51,925 posts, read 47,746,480 times
Reputation: 16203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taksan View Post
After the debacle of the 1948 presidential elections where the Southern Democratic Party ran a completely separate ticket there was a uneasy truce in the 1950’s for a while. The South began abandoning the Democratic Party in the 1960’s after Johnson’s Civil Rights act of 1964 which many Southern Democrats saw as outright treasonous. When legendary Southern Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond( and 48’ Presidential candidate for the south) from SC switched parties to the GOP in 1964 it was a bit of a turning point for the Southern Democrats and the shift particularly towards Goldwater from the traditional Dixiecrat southern democrats was massive and continued onwards. In fact some long time Southern Politicians such as Georgia Governor Lester Maddox we’re essentially Democrats in name only despite him having served as Lieutenant to Jimmy Carter in his later years. The South has always been staunchly conservative and it was actually the abandonment of conservative politics by the Democratic Party ( which began with the New deal and FDR) which led to the GOP becoming the party of the south. Reagan’s consolidation of this completed the transformation almost completely.
A few things to consider. Conservative means "to conserve". There is a status quo that is being kept. And the status quo has varied over the years. What was conservative in 1948 vs what was conservative in 1988 can have different meanings.


And I'll be blunt. I have no respect for the likes of Southern Democrats from the 1940s-1960s. Lester Maddox is one person I have no respect for. No respect for Strom Thurmond either. I will get into that in a later post.

I still have a question for you, and you have not answered it. In your opinion, what got screwed up in the 1960s?
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.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top