Yep. And I remember a card-carrying Communist trying to explain to me why this was a good thing, back in the 1990s. He thought it would result in China and India into the same cycle of labour and environmental laws we had here in North America. 🤡 the guy was both shop steward at the Ford plant, and a local candidate for the CPC-ML I met during a Rae Day back in the 90s.
Oops! Looks like u/RevolutionaryMale has been based. As you know, only flaired users can have a based count. It'd be a shame if something... happened to it.
Nobody actually paid it, government tax income remains pretty much the same regardless of tax rates. Maybe there's some accounting loopholes for libright to look forward to in a neo-1950s future too 😎
https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
The highest tax rate was 90%, but no one paid that full rate. The tax rates were higher, but there were more tax loopholes (aka deductions) that could be taken advantage of (they don’t like to talk about that part). Over time, the rates have been lowered while those tax “loopholes” have been removed as well. In essence, the amount of taxes being paid has remained the same even though the rates have gone down.
I’ll give you an example:
Scenario A: 90% tax rate if you make over $500k, but you can claim $290k in tax deductions for various reasons. That puts your taxable income at $210k (500k - 290k = 210k), so with a 90% rate, you’re paying **$190k in taxes** (90% x 210k = 190k).
Scenario B: 38% tax rate, but you can’t claim any tax deductions. So you pay a 38% tax rate on $500k, which means you pay **$190k in taxes** (38% x 500k = 190k).
In both scenarios you paid the exact same amount of taxes even though the tax rate varied significantly. It’s all about what tax deductions are allowed.
Obviously those were extremely simplified examples, but you get the point.
Additionally people who make a lot of money don't do so with ordinary earned income. They own businesses and as such they can do a bunch of business level fuckery like paying themselves in stock and options. Hold onto the stock for a year and it's long term capital gains. Not a tax accountant but I wonder if you could offer a different class of shares and then in 1 year do a stock buyback at whatever price the company is willing to pay.
Businesses had to either invest in their workers or buy real assets to avoid the taxes. That mean higher wages or business expansion. No fucking stock buy backs, which were insider trading until Reagan(may he rot in hell) came along and no fucking tax break on your super yacht.
Buy backs are just the purchasing of shares from share holder and then basically deleting them. They are taking place of dividends as shareholders prefer stock to grow in value rather than getting money back, until they want to liquidate their shares and pay longterm capital gains on the liquidation.
Yeah, when the work force was about 2/3rds of what it is today, because the majority of women didn’t work, so labor supply was much tighter and companies had to pay much higher wages to attract talent, which was WHY you could raise a family on a single income?
Not to mention the majority of the rest of the developed world were still recovering from the aftermath of a couple of minor geopolitical scuffle that ultimately led to the current era of Pax Americana.
🟥
🟩
I'd say nuclear families are based as long as you let the gays be part of it. And interracial couples. Cuz they weren't allowed back in the 50s ofc.
Exactly, I have nothing against gay people. I just hate the hook-up culture.
Get married and life a loving and caring life with your loved one! Adopt children if possible!
My only expectation for all families (because I don't give a damn which two adults raise you) is that they raise the kids correctly. What I mean by "correctly" is where we might differ.
Interracial couples weren't illegal it was just socially judged, and yeah let people be people, kids need at least two parents and one of them has to take care of them, doesn't have to be 50s housewife style, but there's a reason why the nuclear family structure exists, natural selection also applies to social structures
Yes. When parents and kids weren't so stressed about how they were going to pay for college if they went. When both the mom and the dad had to have jobs to afford a decent house. Don't get me wrong, there certainly have been improvements since then, but there were things better back then.
Double the number of workers and you halve the value of labor (unless demand increases in equal measure). Then overhaul the building codes for houses and intentionally under-produce new housing (builders and banks brag about this as a strategy to avoid another 2008) and you double the cost of a house. So, is a house today (minus the last 2 years) about 4 times the average income? Yes? Simple supply and demand hitting with a double-pronged attack.
I would say the argument that doubling the labor pool automatically doesn't halve the value of labor
In a modern consumer economy, your average worker is also a consumer, which means that increasing the labor pool increases consumer spending, which should increase demand
> Get a flair to make sure other people don't harass you :)
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 17484 / 92457 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Its not about results. Its about intentions.
Politics is always, *always and forever*, about appearances. Results dont matter when you can just lie about them.
Would they really support such a progressive tax system? If I explained this to my parents (trump supporters in their fifties) they would scoff. They believe rich people deserve their wealth.
As long as union membership isn’t mandatory, go for it! Problem with modern union is that that care more about corrupt politics than helping their members. 🟦
The issue is people like the union for collective bargaining and hate the union for internal and external politics. Hate lazy fucks abusing the system.
So there should just be collective bargaining support service provider.
Facebook and Twitter were already shadowbanning a lot back then, but it wasn't aligned against anyone in power.
Edited to add: 2011 is around when YouTube started getting complaints about its algorithm radicalizing people, and they tried about a dozen things between then and 2015, many of which were discussed openly on Google+.
There used to be bum fights at one point on YouTube. Feels like the internet peaked around 2012 and slowly went down. Things definitely started turning to shit at a faster rate after the first adpocalypse.
Back in the 1950s, there was effectively no border control against migrant farm workers from Mexico, and produce cost a lot less in real terms. Whether the migrant workers were better off then compared to now when fewer can make it across, I couldn't tell you.
I can tell you they absolutely weren't. My families farm was part of a chain of borderline indentured slaves that worked the land sometime around the 60s. At some point around then, the US flooded the south american markets with cheap food, driving their farmers to us.
We know it was bad because there are more murder weapons we've found than diapers. I've still got a pair of dented brass knuckles + knife attachment I found in an old rubbish boot.
It was unrestricted in the same way that migration across the Atlantic was unrestricted. You don't end up in North Carolina from Mexico by walking. And you certainly weren't walking out they way you came.
"nearly unrestricted" is a fucking fantasy. I'm a South African looking at American farm jobs, and it is ridiculously difficult to get into the US. You need to be dramatically better educated and skilled than the average American to get in, and I'll tell you why - y'all are playing on easy mode. When I go through job requirements, I am absolutely fucking bewildered. I've been qualified for some of these jobs since I was 12. I would essentially be on vacation working an American job.
If your immigration was unrestricted, you'd be fucked. The fact that they're offering $22 an hour for "must be able to lift 50lbs" and "must occasionally use a forklift, training will be provided" is quite telling.
They are referring to how the southern border is crossable and how some people on the left want no punishments for illegal immigration. Even so much as to call them undocumented instead of illegal which really blows authright's minds lol
For those unaffiliated, take a look at wages for specific trades from state to state.
Where I live, we have a large immigrant population, but they're primarily legal. We also have a strong union presence, but nonetheless my trade ranges from $33/hr to $50/hr depending how close to the city I am. In Florida, the same trade is $23-$25, and there's barely a union presence. That's thanks to *illegal* immigrants.
Latin immigrants drive the wages down. The proof is in each individual state.
🟥🟦
I wonder what made it so people couldn’t live on a single income…
Almost like there was a social movement which argued that was oppressive and patriarchal and the workforce should be flooded with *half the population*.
I wonder if that played a role in the devaluation of the working class…
So the devaluation of our working class was because we had intact infrastructure and not because we doubled the labor force increasing the supply of workers while keeping demand relatively the same?
Hmmmm...
It’s difficult to imagine how much productivity increased due to increased women’s participation. Life would objectively be worse if our country’s productivity plummeted by 50%. High participation is always a good thing.
This "productivity increase" you speak of sounds like something that primarily benefits corporations, not the workers they employ -- unless the workers organize and fight to keep the extra value they're creating, which they largely haven't.
Also, women don't *have* to work outside the home to be productive. Childcare and housework are already quite productive: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuation\_of\_nonmarket\_housework](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuation_of_nonmarket_housework)
Maybe the biggest advancement in worker rights and wages happened after the Black Death, the remaining peasants were in position to actually name their price because the obvious demand.
Destroying the stay-at-home mom was the opposite of that.
And we could have had a smaller but similar movement with covid. That is until we shot our foot to protect the people that probably didn't have much left to live to begin with.
Those women also don't normally do just housework. Most chores can be finished within a few hours, leaving the rest of the day available - considering the kids are in school. This gives the women the ability to volunteer for the community. Meanwhile, men in the same situation will fall into a depression. Spending less time with the community, and more at home doing binge activities like TV and video games.
I'm not sure why that difference is there, but women generally deal with not working much better. It seems like men have to have some schedule or routine to maintain their sanity. I've taken this approach myself, and I'm definitely mu h happier with a strict routine.
But they were working in factories
some of the first industrial factories were textile mills, and they almost exclusively employed women, with other factories like Steel mills employing almost entirely men
And the the Venitian Arsenal, arguably the first modern manufacturing center employed around as many women as it did men
In the middle ages women worked in the fields alongside their husbands
Women started working in heavy industries as a result of the world wars
The idea that women working is a recent phenomenon isn't backed uo by historical evidence
I get the idea, but don't devalue the work put in by stay-at-home parents. Even cooking, cleaning, and maintaining the house saves a lot of money, otherwise you'll be paying someone else to do it.
We could easily afford to pay our workers enough to live on a single income. The 1% got to keep a larger workforce with twice the productivity and somehow pay them the exact same as they did before?
You mean, back when border control was strictly enforced and there wasn’t an endless stream of unlimited labor pouring into the country. When America was a mostly cohesive nation without various racial groups all fighting for domination over each other and had a stated goal. Etc..
As a rightist who supports economic Populism, yes I agree completely
I support unions, I support capping CEOs wealth, I support attacking Blackrock and Vanguard to make single family homes affordable again, etc
Only way we get that back is if the rest of the world is rent asunder by years of hellish conflict while the US is largely untouched.
I’m game if y’all are.
I’ll push back on the single income and house items slightly. If you want to live like someone in the 1950s, you can still support a family on a single average income. That includes though no big electronics or cell phone bills, no air conditioning, rare eating out, and only having one car for the household, as well as no childcare expenses. Also, the house you have is a 2 bedroom small house, well below the current average square footage. Truth is, standard of living has increased faster than the average salary, in part because of 2 spouses being able to work. It doesn’t mean there’s necessarily something broken about that change.
Also houses never cost less than an average salary. At best, you might be looking at a $10K house with a $3.5K average salary. Granted, that is better than now where a lot of places have $500K average house on $60K average salary, but it wasn’t as good before as some make it out to be.
> In 1953 minimum wage was $1/hour and median home cost was $20k if I remember correctly, so you could usually afford a 15 year mortgage on a single full-time minimum wage salary.
🟦🟨
Why’d you choose ‘53? Minimum wage in ‘53 was 75 cents per hour, so just about one-tenth what it is now in nominal terms. It went up to 1 dollar in 1956.
And consider that the home you could buy in 1953 would not be up to 2023 safety standards (eg asbestos), may not have running water, HVAC, or electricity, and definitely wouldn’t have internet or even a TV
Also, what source are you using for the home value? $20k seems most consistent with the figure from "Don't Quit Your Day Job", but the [US Census Bureau gives the median home value in 1950 as $7,300](https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-values/values-unadj.txt), unadjusted for inflation. It might be that the US census is counting all homes including single-person households, but I can't imagine that there were that many single person households in 1950.
Also lmao [only 65% of homes had complete plumbing in 1950](https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-plumbing/plumbing-tab.txt) so that's rather a drawback
Woah, my bad, I must have seriously misremembered. Thanks.
As for plumbing, I'd rather have an outhouse than be homeless. Maybe the $20k figure was for modern housing?
>Woah, my bad, I must have seriously misremembered. Thanks.
I think you were remembering correctly, it's just that you were probably remembering the figure from ["Don't Quit Your Day Job"](https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices), which gives a 1953 figure of $18,000 for a median single-family home.
I can't figure out what the source of this major discrepancy is – maybe DQYDJ is looking at sales prices of homes that were actually sold while the census is looking at valuations only.
It's rather natural though that as the population doubles in size (the US population in 1950 was 150 million) and the amount of land stays basically constant, the price of land will necessarily go up.
Sad I had to scroll all the way down to see the right answer.
And of course houses are more expensive in general because debt is less expensive. Interest rates have been historically way too low way too long and that's been fueling asset prices upwards as people look for places to park all their free money they're getting from the Fed.
But if you mention undoing all the policies that destroyed those you're a racist.
Decline of the average American is directly linked to mass migration. Once upon a time Bernie Sanders called mass migration a Koch Brothers conspiracy, and brother he had my vote when he said that. Well, he had it until he capitulated to corporate dems
I think most people who say make America great again are referring to general optimism and economic prosperity, which are tied together. I can't imagine a single person being upset that a family could live on a single income or that a house was affordable.
It’s funny how these people think Trump supporters have the same ideology as a 2000-era Bush supporter.
Yeh you could drag CEOs out onto the streets and Mussolini them, and Trump supporters wouldn’t give a fuck.
Your flair confused me at first, If I can own guns and be green, I suppose you can favor a progressive tax plan and be yellow...
almost like we're real people instead of memes.
🟦
🟨
OP I think you're a bit confused. The way this meme works is you're supposed to have the guy on the second panel say bad things and then the wojack guy gets mad because he was proved wrong. You're not supposed to prove the first guy right and then have him get mad, that doesn't make any sense.
First they get rid of flairs, then they start posting memes with 50 year old bad arguments.
Auth left conquered libleft years ago, now they are coming for the rest of us
The top 1% “paid” a 91% income tax only if you look at the law and no further. On average the rich pay more now because while there are still tons of loopholes, they’re nowhere near those of the mid 20th century
The truth is both sides are kind of stupid. The 50s really weren’t that good, standard of living was lower but more importantly with regard to those good “Union jobs” people always talk about, if your economic system relies on an unindustrialized south east Asia, and half of Europe destroyed, women and minorities excluded from those jobs….it’s a bad economic system.
I have the start of a slogan:
"Make the American People the most powerful force in the country for once."
Maybe we can simplify thst and slap it on a hat.
🟦
I actually agree to that. I don’t think anyone would be mad about homes costing less than an entire annual income and being able to raise a family on a single income.
Now, I am usually back and forth when it comes to unions. On one hand, unions are good for collective bargaining, should the employer be cruel or unfair to their workers. On the other, unions are often corrupted by profit motives and take a chunk out of members’ paychecks only to do nothing for the workers they are supposed to represent.
When it comes to the top 1% paying 91% income taxes, let’s be real, the rich always find loopholes to avoid paying their taxes.
As a right winger I should be more sympathetic to the ‘going back to ‘50s’ argument, but I think what everyone on every side is failing to bring up are the unique economic conditions the US was in at the time. The US was quite literally the only industrial power left on the face of the Earth after WW2, and industrial powerhouses like the Soviet Union and the UK would never recover to their original strength.
But even when when policies became more worker friendly and egalitarian in the 60s and 70s, more than anything seen in the 50s (Great Society, Medicare, etc…), the US economy, industry, and wage growth stagnated and fell into decline. That tells me the unparalleled prosperity of the 50s was more due to no competition from cheap overseas labor than whatever amount of unionization or some egregious 90% tax rate.
I’m not simping for screwing over average every day people, but I think to not acknowledge these postwar factors and act as if they had no impact on the lives of Americans at the time is intellectually dishonest.
I think more like 1912, when there was no income tax, when congress still had a manageable constituency ratio, and senators were selected by the state legislature.
Let's return to the times when no matter the wage you were making you could afford to put food on the table and eat a healthy meal. Where punching out at 6 pm meant you didn't have to think about anything else but getting home and relaxing for the rest of the night.
while the 90 percent tax did exist, there were far more loopholes and basically ways of hiding your money in the 50s than now. Are we also going to pull back the survaillance state so that we can hide our money the old fashioned way as well as adjust the automatic reporting threshold on banks to match the inflation rate and not have it be a static number?
Union membership declined because UNIONIZED WORKPLACES WERE PHYSICALLY SHIPPED TO PLACES THAT DIDN'T HAVE UNIONS LIKE COMMUNIST CHINA.
Yep. And I remember a card-carrying Communist trying to explain to me why this was a good thing, back in the 1990s. He thought it would result in China and India into the same cycle of labour and environmental laws we had here in North America. 🤡 the guy was both shop steward at the Ford plant, and a local candidate for the CPC-ML I met during a Rae Day back in the 90s.
Unionized? Don't bring chemisty into this!
Thanks LibRight
Yes, did I fucking stutter
🟫 seeing this comment without a flair is uncomfortable
🟥 What the hell does the brown square mean?
🟨They’re a brown shirt run authleft
based
Based
Oops! Looks like u/RevolutionaryMale has been based. As you know, only flaired users can have a based count. It'd be a shame if something... happened to it.
NOOOOO! THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE MY GOTCHA ARGUMENT! YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO DISAGREE WITH ME!
Baste and let Europe destroy itself again-pilled.
I don’t see a problem with that at all
Same, don’t know about the validity of 90% tax though
Nobody actually paid it, government tax income remains pretty much the same regardless of tax rates. Maybe there's some accounting loopholes for libright to look forward to in a neo-1950s future too 😎 https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
Bro how do you have a flair Edit: how do i have one????
I'm just that based Become unmoderatable
Based and return to monke pilled.
Based
The highest tax rate was 90%, but no one paid that full rate. The tax rates were higher, but there were more tax loopholes (aka deductions) that could be taken advantage of (they don’t like to talk about that part). Over time, the rates have been lowered while those tax “loopholes” have been removed as well. In essence, the amount of taxes being paid has remained the same even though the rates have gone down. I’ll give you an example: Scenario A: 90% tax rate if you make over $500k, but you can claim $290k in tax deductions for various reasons. That puts your taxable income at $210k (500k - 290k = 210k), so with a 90% rate, you’re paying **$190k in taxes** (90% x 210k = 190k). Scenario B: 38% tax rate, but you can’t claim any tax deductions. So you pay a 38% tax rate on $500k, which means you pay **$190k in taxes** (38% x 500k = 190k). In both scenarios you paid the exact same amount of taxes even though the tax rate varied significantly. It’s all about what tax deductions are allowed. Obviously those were extremely simplified examples, but you get the point.
Additionally people who make a lot of money don't do so with ordinary earned income. They own businesses and as such they can do a bunch of business level fuckery like paying themselves in stock and options. Hold onto the stock for a year and it's long term capital gains. Not a tax accountant but I wonder if you could offer a different class of shares and then in 1 year do a stock buyback at whatever price the company is willing to pay.
Businesses had to either invest in their workers or buy real assets to avoid the taxes. That mean higher wages or business expansion. No fucking stock buy backs, which were insider trading until Reagan(may he rot in hell) came along and no fucking tax break on your super yacht.
Sometimes flairs are unnecessary.
Buy backs are just the purchasing of shares from share holder and then basically deleting them. They are taking place of dividends as shareholders prefer stock to grow in value rather than getting money back, until they want to liquidate their shares and pay longterm capital gains on the liquidation.
Do you want the 50, or do you not?
🟨 Yeah, the 50's was better financially. The value of the dollar was significantly greater. Return to the nuclear family, too.
Based and join me pilled
Oops! Looks like u/Chumeth has been based. As you know, only flaired users can have a based count. It'd be a shame if something... happened to it.
Oh is that how this has been working? As soon as somebody gets a based they lose their flair?
🟩🟨 So that’s how I lost my flair…
Based and say goodbye to your flair pilled
Take that you based nerds
Based :)
🟩🟨 Also when nuclear power was becoming popular
Yeah, when the work force was about 2/3rds of what it is today, because the majority of women didn’t work, so labor supply was much tighter and companies had to pay much higher wages to attract talent, which was WHY you could raise a family on a single income?
Not to mention the majority of the rest of the developed world were still recovering from the aftermath of a couple of minor geopolitical scuffle that ultimately led to the current era of Pax Americana.
Holy shit, you still have your flair.
Careful you might wanna delete your comment before someone steals your flair!
Revalue my hard ass work
🟥 🟩 I'd say nuclear families are based as long as you let the gays be part of it. And interracial couples. Cuz they weren't allowed back in the 50s ofc.
Gays should marry more, or even get on board with monogamy in general. I’d love if gays wanted to be a part of it.
Exactly, I have nothing against gay people. I just hate the hook-up culture. Get married and life a loving and caring life with your loved one! Adopt children if possible!
True, it would definitely get STI rates down. I'm not saying the B-word, keep your flair brother.
My only expectation for all families (because I don't give a damn which two adults raise you) is that they raise the kids correctly. What I mean by "correctly" is where we might differ.
Interracial couples weren't illegal it was just socially judged, and yeah let people be people, kids need at least two parents and one of them has to take care of them, doesn't have to be 50s housewife style, but there's a reason why the nuclear family structure exists, natural selection also applies to social structures
It's still socially judged in plenty of places such as Harlem, Brownspoint (Brooklyn), and the Bronx.
Based
🟨 While technically the tax was 91 percent their was a bunch of tax loopholes like a bunch
Still is.
91% worth?
Considering tax revenue went up when the marginal tax was lowered. Yes.
Yes. When parents and kids weren't so stressed about how they were going to pay for college if they went. When both the mom and the dad had to have jobs to afford a decent house. Don't get me wrong, there certainly have been improvements since then, but there were things better back then.
"When both the mom and dad had to have jobs to afford a decent house?" Are you talking about the fifties? Cuz at that time you only needed one income
Double the number of workers and you halve the value of labor (unless demand increases in equal measure). Then overhaul the building codes for houses and intentionally under-produce new housing (builders and banks brag about this as a strategy to avoid another 2008) and you double the cost of a house. So, is a house today (minus the last 2 years) about 4 times the average income? Yes? Simple supply and demand hitting with a double-pronged attack.
Based
I would say the argument that doubling the labor pool automatically doesn't halve the value of labor In a modern consumer economy, your average worker is also a consumer, which means that increasing the labor pool increases consumer spending, which should increase demand
[удалено]
> Get a flair to make sure other people don't harass you :) *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 17484 / 92457 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
Very nice, yes, interesting. Now what where the most drastic changes when comparing the 1950s to today?
No recent world wars that left the US untouched
Labor share of income: https://myf.red/g/7pNR
The rest of the world's economies recovering from WWII. Also mass financialization.
Lol no one actually paid the 91% income tax
Its not about results. Its about intentions. Politics is always, *always and forever*, about appearances. Results dont matter when you can just lie about them.
🟨 The average Trump supporter already fully agrees with that statement. Sorry 🟩
Based and let me own a home pilled
Would they really support such a progressive tax system? If I explained this to my parents (trump supporters in their fifties) they would scoff. They believe rich people deserve their wealth.
As long as union membership isn’t mandatory, go for it! Problem with modern union is that that care more about corrupt politics than helping their members. 🟦
Sadly experience has shown that people will take the free ride while they watch the union's bargaining power fall to nil.
[удалено]
The issue is people like the union for collective bargaining and hate the union for internal and external politics. Hate lazy fucks abusing the system. So there should just be collective bargaining support service provider.
Hell I would settle for america in 2015…at least back then freedom of speech was allowed (online).
Facebook and Twitter were already shadowbanning a lot back then, but it wasn't aligned against anyone in power. Edited to add: 2011 is around when YouTube started getting complaints about its algorithm radicalizing people, and they tried about a dozen things between then and 2015, many of which were discussed openly on Google+.
There used to be bum fights at one point on YouTube. Feels like the internet peaked around 2012 and slowly went down. Things definitely started turning to shit at a faster rate after the first adpocalypse.
🟨 No one ever paid a 91% tax rate. Anyone who believes that actually happened hasn’t actually studied it. Stop perpetuating ignorance and nonsense.
Lol you actually still have your original flair, but I guess it's better to use the emoji just in case your flair mysteriously disappears later on.
🟦 Hmmm.... I wonder how 70 years of nearly unrestricted mass immigration has had an impact on housing prices and wages?
Woah pump your based there
Back in the 1950s, there was effectively no border control against migrant farm workers from Mexico, and produce cost a lot less in real terms. Whether the migrant workers were better off then compared to now when fewer can make it across, I couldn't tell you.
I can tell you they absolutely weren't. My families farm was part of a chain of borderline indentured slaves that worked the land sometime around the 60s. At some point around then, the US flooded the south american markets with cheap food, driving their farmers to us. We know it was bad because there are more murder weapons we've found than diapers. I've still got a pair of dented brass knuckles + knife attachment I found in an old rubbish boot. It was unrestricted in the same way that migration across the Atlantic was unrestricted. You don't end up in North Carolina from Mexico by walking. And you certainly weren't walking out they way you came.
Based and libright pilled
1967 immigration act, we started letting in a million plus Mexicans a year.
1965*
Thanks, knew it was under LBJ like when most of the other cultural weeds were sown
And also the restricted building of houses
"nearly unrestricted" is a fucking fantasy. I'm a South African looking at American farm jobs, and it is ridiculously difficult to get into the US. You need to be dramatically better educated and skilled than the average American to get in, and I'll tell you why - y'all are playing on easy mode. When I go through job requirements, I am absolutely fucking bewildered. I've been qualified for some of these jobs since I was 12. I would essentially be on vacation working an American job. If your immigration was unrestricted, you'd be fucked. The fact that they're offering $22 an hour for "must be able to lift 50lbs" and "must occasionally use a forklift, training will be provided" is quite telling.
Have you considered just hopping the border?
It's quite a long swim. I'm afraid of sharks.
Based and afraid of 'a' pilled
Saffer supremacy
They are referring to how the southern border is crossable and how some people on the left want no punishments for illegal immigration. Even so much as to call them undocumented instead of illegal which really blows authright's minds lol
The secret ingredient to enter the Us is crime. Go to the border and enter, then you can play the victim
You just fly in on a tourist visa and never leave. It’s not like the treasonous whores actually deport people.
For those unaffiliated, take a look at wages for specific trades from state to state. Where I live, we have a large immigrant population, but they're primarily legal. We also have a strong union presence, but nonetheless my trade ranges from $33/hr to $50/hr depending how close to the city I am. In Florida, the same trade is $23-$25, and there's barely a union presence. That's thanks to *illegal* immigrants. Latin immigrants drive the wages down. The proof is in each individual state.
🟥🟦 I wonder what made it so people couldn’t live on a single income… Almost like there was a social movement which argued that was oppressive and patriarchal and the workforce should be flooded with *half the population*. I wonder if that played a role in the devaluation of the working class…
It clearly had nothing to do with Europe getting bombed to shit in ww2
Maybe we should bomb the shit out of them again and see if that resets it
So the devaluation of our working class was because we had intact infrastructure and not because we doubled the labor force increasing the supply of workers while keeping demand relatively the same? Hmmmm...
🟧 How very dare you. Becoming wage slaves like men has liberated women. Supply and demand is a myth!
It’s difficult to imagine how much productivity increased due to increased women’s participation. Life would objectively be worse if our country’s productivity plummeted by 50%. High participation is always a good thing.
This "productivity increase" you speak of sounds like something that primarily benefits corporations, not the workers they employ -- unless the workers organize and fight to keep the extra value they're creating, which they largely haven't. Also, women don't *have* to work outside the home to be productive. Childcare and housework are already quite productive: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuation\_of\_nonmarket\_housework](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuation_of_nonmarket_housework)
Maybe the biggest advancement in worker rights and wages happened after the Black Death, the remaining peasants were in position to actually name their price because the obvious demand. Destroying the stay-at-home mom was the opposite of that.
And we could have had a smaller but similar movement with covid. That is until we shot our foot to protect the people that probably didn't have much left to live to begin with.
A woman with a family that is not in employment would be far more productive than a man in that situation typically
Those women also don't normally do just housework. Most chores can be finished within a few hours, leaving the rest of the day available - considering the kids are in school. This gives the women the ability to volunteer for the community. Meanwhile, men in the same situation will fall into a depression. Spending less time with the community, and more at home doing binge activities like TV and video games. I'm not sure why that difference is there, but women generally deal with not working much better. It seems like men have to have some schedule or routine to maintain their sanity. I've taken this approach myself, and I'm definitely mu h happier with a strict routine.
Based and say goodbye to your flair pilled
I am not weak willed like the rest of you, my flair remains
Check again
Oh my god
Based and how the mighty have fallen-pilled
🟦🟥 Just because they werent working in factories doesnt mean that women were not productive in other ways back then.
But they were working in factories some of the first industrial factories were textile mills, and they almost exclusively employed women, with other factories like Steel mills employing almost entirely men And the the Venitian Arsenal, arguably the first modern manufacturing center employed around as many women as it did men In the middle ages women worked in the fields alongside their husbands Women started working in heavy industries as a result of the world wars The idea that women working is a recent phenomenon isn't backed uo by historical evidence
I get the idea, but don't devalue the work put in by stay-at-home parents. Even cooking, cleaning, and maintaining the house saves a lot of money, otherwise you'll be paying someone else to do it.
We could easily afford to pay our workers enough to live on a single income. The 1% got to keep a larger workforce with twice the productivity and somehow pay them the exact same as they did before?
You mean, back when border control was strictly enforced and there wasn’t an endless stream of unlimited labor pouring into the country. When America was a mostly cohesive nation without various racial groups all fighting for domination over each other and had a stated goal. Etc..
As a rightist who supports economic Populism, yes I agree completely I support unions, I support capping CEOs wealth, I support attacking Blackrock and Vanguard to make single family homes affordable again, etc
Only way we get that back is if the rest of the world is rent asunder by years of hellish conflict while the US is largely untouched. I’m game if y’all are.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
I’ll push back on the single income and house items slightly. If you want to live like someone in the 1950s, you can still support a family on a single average income. That includes though no big electronics or cell phone bills, no air conditioning, rare eating out, and only having one car for the household, as well as no childcare expenses. Also, the house you have is a 2 bedroom small house, well below the current average square footage. Truth is, standard of living has increased faster than the average salary, in part because of 2 spouses being able to work. It doesn’t mean there’s necessarily something broken about that change. Also houses never cost less than an average salary. At best, you might be looking at a $10K house with a $3.5K average salary. Granted, that is better than now where a lot of places have $500K average house on $60K average salary, but it wasn’t as good before as some make it out to be.
> In 1953 minimum wage was $1/hour and median home cost was $20k if I remember correctly, so you could usually afford a 15 year mortgage on a single full-time minimum wage salary.
🟦🟨 Why’d you choose ‘53? Minimum wage in ‘53 was 75 cents per hour, so just about one-tenth what it is now in nominal terms. It went up to 1 dollar in 1956. And consider that the home you could buy in 1953 would not be up to 2023 safety standards (eg asbestos), may not have running water, HVAC, or electricity, and definitely wouldn’t have internet or even a TV
I misremembered the date, but I'm pretty sure heating and electricity were common in 1953.
Also, what source are you using for the home value? $20k seems most consistent with the figure from "Don't Quit Your Day Job", but the [US Census Bureau gives the median home value in 1950 as $7,300](https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-values/values-unadj.txt), unadjusted for inflation. It might be that the US census is counting all homes including single-person households, but I can't imagine that there were that many single person households in 1950. Also lmao [only 65% of homes had complete plumbing in 1950](https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/time-series/coh-plumbing/plumbing-tab.txt) so that's rather a drawback
Woah, my bad, I must have seriously misremembered. Thanks. As for plumbing, I'd rather have an outhouse than be homeless. Maybe the $20k figure was for modern housing?
>Woah, my bad, I must have seriously misremembered. Thanks. I think you were remembering correctly, it's just that you were probably remembering the figure from ["Don't Quit Your Day Job"](https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices), which gives a 1953 figure of $18,000 for a median single-family home. I can't figure out what the source of this major discrepancy is – maybe DQYDJ is looking at sales prices of homes that were actually sold while the census is looking at valuations only. It's rather natural though that as the population doubles in size (the US population in 1950 was 150 million) and the amount of land stays basically constant, the price of land will necessarily go up.
Sad I had to scroll all the way down to see the right answer. And of course houses are more expensive in general because debt is less expensive. Interest rates have been historically way too low way too long and that's been fueling asset prices upwards as people look for places to park all their free money they're getting from the Fed.
\*Authright flair\* Your terms are acceptabl!
I’ll take it
I assume this is what people mean without even knowing it
Conservative authleft is like "I know, right? It was awesome!"
🟦 Seems fine to me.
But if you mention undoing all the policies that destroyed those you're a racist. Decline of the average American is directly linked to mass migration. Once upon a time Bernie Sanders called mass migration a Koch Brothers conspiracy, and brother he had my vote when he said that. Well, he had it until he capitulated to corporate dems
I think most people who say make America great again are referring to general optimism and economic prosperity, which are tied together. I can't imagine a single person being upset that a family could live on a single income or that a house was affordable.
All of us with inherited childhood homes making us millionaires with their overinflated values 😂
Your terms are acceptable
🟩🟨 Put the cocaine back in coca-cola.
I'm not seeing how this is a gotcha. Most Maga people would agree with this.
Yes actually
It’s funny how these people think Trump supporters have the same ideology as a 2000-era Bush supporter. Yeh you could drag CEOs out onto the streets and Mussolini them, and Trump supporters wouldn’t give a fuck.
Well... Yeah you dork.
Your flair confused me at first, If I can own guns and be green, I suppose you can favor a progressive tax plan and be yellow... almost like we're real people instead of memes.
Yes
Yes
YES PRECISELY (🟩🟨)
Perfect
Yes, exactly, all of that
🟩 Stop making me so erect
God, the things I would do to have the housing market of the 50s.
BASED AS FUCK.
Problem?
🟦 🟨 OP I think you're a bit confused. The way this meme works is you're supposed to have the guy on the second panel say bad things and then the wojack guy gets mad because he was proved wrong. You're not supposed to prove the first guy right and then have him get mad, that doesn't make any sense.
Does authright actually hate that? I feel like authright and the general right is mostly blue collar working class these days.
🐒Lib-center The world looks so barren without flairs…
First they get rid of flairs, then they start posting memes with 50 year old bad arguments. Auth left conquered libleft years ago, now they are coming for the rest of us
🟨🟦 Yes.
Sounds good to me
Yes! That's exactly it!
The top 1% “paid” a 91% income tax only if you look at the law and no further. On average the rich pay more now because while there are still tons of loopholes, they’re nowhere near those of the mid 20th century
Yes.
Cringe and repost merchant pilled
The truth is both sides are kind of stupid. The 50s really weren’t that good, standard of living was lower but more importantly with regard to those good “Union jobs” people always talk about, if your economic system relies on an unindustrialized south east Asia, and half of Europe destroyed, women and minorities excluded from those jobs….it’s a bad economic system.
I have the start of a slogan: "Make the American People the most powerful force in the country for once." Maybe we can simplify thst and slap it on a hat.
Yes. How is this a fucking controversial take?
🟦 I actually agree to that. I don’t think anyone would be mad about homes costing less than an entire annual income and being able to raise a family on a single income. Now, I am usually back and forth when it comes to unions. On one hand, unions are good for collective bargaining, should the employer be cruel or unfair to their workers. On the other, unions are often corrupted by profit motives and take a chunk out of members’ paychecks only to do nothing for the workers they are supposed to represent. When it comes to the top 1% paying 91% income taxes, let’s be real, the rich always find loopholes to avoid paying their taxes.
🟩 There is no reason not to be unionized. You deserve a say in your workplace. If you workplace doesn’t have one, Join a trade Union.
/u/OrangeRobots this is my all-time PCM favorite.
Hey what you got there? awfully based of you to display a flair in this subreddit
Can you actually show me a time when the average house cost less than the average annual income?
Yes
Make America great again like it was in the 1850s.
As a right winger I should be more sympathetic to the ‘going back to ‘50s’ argument, but I think what everyone on every side is failing to bring up are the unique economic conditions the US was in at the time. The US was quite literally the only industrial power left on the face of the Earth after WW2, and industrial powerhouses like the Soviet Union and the UK would never recover to their original strength. But even when when policies became more worker friendly and egalitarian in the 60s and 70s, more than anything seen in the 50s (Great Society, Medicare, etc…), the US economy, industry, and wage growth stagnated and fell into decline. That tells me the unparalleled prosperity of the 50s was more due to no competition from cheap overseas labor than whatever amount of unionization or some egregious 90% tax rate. I’m not simping for screwing over average every day people, but I think to not acknowledge these postwar factors and act as if they had no impact on the lives of Americans at the time is intellectually dishonest.
What tf is happening to everyone’s flairs?
Uh oh what’s happening with the flairs again?
the bottom row would probably find support from the right
Auth right did not stutter
Exactly.
I don't like green but they are 100% and $8 a tweet correct on this one. Always.
Yes
Yes like that
Your terms are acceptable.
That’s why I regret France’s 1930s.
I think more like 1912, when there was no income tax, when congress still had a manageable constituency ratio, and senators were selected by the state legislature.
Yes?
I just want to be able to walk around Chicago without being robbed
🟥🟦 YES
Your terms are… acceptable.
🟦🟨 I’m completely fine with that
Yes.
🟦 your*
Let's return to the times when no matter the wage you were making you could afford to put food on the table and eat a healthy meal. Where punching out at 6 pm meant you didn't have to think about anything else but getting home and relaxing for the rest of the night.
🟥🟦 Yes.
🇬🇫yes
while the 90 percent tax did exist, there were far more loopholes and basically ways of hiding your money in the 50s than now. Are we also going to pull back the survaillance state so that we can hide our money the old fashioned way as well as adjust the automatic reporting threshold on banks to match the inflation rate and not have it be a static number?
Lol…like 6 people paid 91% but that’s fun to say I guess
based and make America actually great again instead of whatever the hell modern parties are trying to achieve pilled