[TalkingCodeMonk]

I never implied the 1950's was the pinnacle of morality. I was referencing the tropes that "traditional" "conservative" politicians since Reagan have consistently virtue signaled, while they aggressively worked to achieve the exact opposite.

There is evidence of that being a common 50's perspective though. It was when most conservatives and liberals alike had been burned by the greed of the guilded age, stock market collapse, great depression, and world war. The majority of the working class in the developed world were experiencing significant gains in QoL/SoL thanks to labour movements and aggressive unionization, did not view CEO's as admirable heroes, or fellow consumers and workers with malice and contempt. Hard work actually resulted in financial security, and greater opportunity for your children.

[ElProlactin]

> Hard work actually resulted in financial security, and greater opportunity for your children.

The economy of the 1950s was due to a variety of factors, including lack of international competition (European and Japanese industrial bases were devastated in the war), pent up consumer savings from war time, demographics (the baby boom), etc. Unionization was certainly a part of the mix but it seems you're cherry-picking to support your romanticized view.

And let's not forget: the 1950s were a good economic time if you were a white man. They weren't nearly so great if you were black or a woman.

[TalkingCodeMonk]

How is it a romanticization to assert what the entire history of global demographics and statistics support?

The distribution of work vs financial security was not uniform, but every developed economy had a greater distribution of wealth and stronger economic mobility in the 1950's than in the 1930's, or almost any time in human history. Every country not directly involved in cold/civil war improved in these factors from 1945 until the 80's, and that has continued in most of the developing world until today.

Do you believe black or indigenous populations were in a better position in 1930, or at any time during colonialism/imperialism, than they were in 1950? If you did, you would be wrong, and the only way to support it is by "cherry-picking" and "romanticization".

[ElProlactin]

Let's go back to your original statement:

> What ever happened to the concept of building a valuable, quality product and stable returns for generations? Working to improve the quality of life and standard of living of the community? Of the world? I feel like a 1950's traditional conservative when I suggest that, but most Americans are so heavily indoctrinated with corporate greed and sociopathy they'd consider that sentiment radical leftist extremism.

The implication here was that, at some point in the not too distant past (like the 1950s), the US had less "corporate greed and sociopathy." And that the US was working in some benevolent manner to improve life for future generations and even the entire world.

I made the argument that the economic situation during this period of time was the result of factors like the war and demographic tailwinds, not some sense of morality that has been lost in recent years.

The US has been a violent, oppressive country since its founding. Violence, conquest and displacement, slavery, political assassinations, genocide, brutal individualism.

To suggest that the US of the 1950s, or any other period of time in the 20th century, was morally superior to the US of the 2020s because wealth was more evenly distributed (among working white men) and white men had more economic mobility requires in my opinion a significant romanization about what US society is and was.

The US might have been founded on the highest of ideals but the actual history is very much a story of "actions versus words".