Something to ponder upon:
After World War Two there were a large number of demobilised men who were weapons trained and battle tested and they'd been promised 'sunlit uplands' when the war ended.
Not really for this.
The big change after WW2 was civil rights. Black soldiers from the South went to Europe where (especially in France) a bunch of white people treated them not only as equals, but saviors.
Even if the white people in their own armed service didn't.
When they came back, they understandably didn't want to go back to how it was.
I think you're thinking of the WW1 Bonus Army
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
The Bonus Army was a group of 43,000 demonstrators – 17,000 veterans of U.S. involvement in World War I, their families, and affiliated groups – who gathered in Washington, D.C., in mid-1932 to demand early cash redemption of their service bonus certificates. Organizers called the demonstrators the Bonus Expeditionary Force (B.E.F.), to echo the name of World War I's American Expeditionary Forces, while the media referred to them as the "Bonus Army" or "Bonus Marchers". The demonstrators were led by Walter W. Waters, a former sergeant.
Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1945. Each certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier's promised payment with compound interest. The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates.
On July 28, 1932, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shot at the protestors, and two veterans were wounded and later died. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the U.S. Army to clear the marchers' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded a contingent of infantry and cavalry, supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned.
A second, smaller Bonus March in 1933 at the start of the Roosevelt administration was defused in May with an offer of jobs with the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) at Fort Hunt, Virginia, which most of the group accepted. Those who chose not to work for the CCC by the May 22 deadline were given transportation home.[2] In 1936, Congress overrode President Roosevelt's veto and paid the veterans their bonus nine years early.
You can thank american imperialism ;).
There are NO first-world countries without paid public healthcare.
It's our obsession with personal profit. It doesn't matter what your economic model is called. When you maximize gain at the cost of everything else you weaken the integrity of the very foundation that it exploits.
It was never going to be possible for the US to maintain that kind of standard of living forever. It worked out in the 1950s through to the 1970s because WWII left huge swaths of industry and agriculture in Europe and Asia devastated — it took decades^0 for affected countries to rebuild. Meanwhile, North American based manufacturing soared and became the envy of the world — everyone bought form North America, and anyone with no particular skill set who was looking for a job could get a good Union job in any number of factories.
But that couldn’t last forever. There was no policy the US Government could have taken (other than perpetual war against everyone else?) that would have kept the rest of the world from re-industrializing. Japan, China, Germany, Italy, France, and the UK (amongst others^1) were able to re-industrialize to a point where the US suddenly had competition again — and while the US could have some competitive advantage against some of its more Western allies due to size, they weren’t going to be able to keep that kind of lead forever against China, Taiwan, and Japan. The world wound up with more capacity than there was a market for, and so the winners were the ones that could do the job the cheapest (as is the way in a competitive marketplace).
It was an anomaly that brought the kind of prosperity the US experienced in the post-WWII years; you can’t recreate that today (as it’s only due to the limitations of the technologies at the time that North America was broadly spared any destruction during the war years — in the post WWII nuclear/ballistic missile era that wouldn’t be the case anymore).
^0 — there are still areas in Europe that are uninhabitable (and unfarmable) today due to WWI and WWII.
^1 — it did somewhat help that the Soviet Union re-industrialized under Communism; the generally closed nature of their economy, combined with the huge inefficiencies of most of its industries under centralized control didn’t really challenge or threaten the US’s economic might.
You ignore the incredibly high cost of the Vietnam War. At the height, America was dropping three Hiroshimas a day on the jungle. US plants were working 24/7 to supply the steel, which meant German and Japan had to build their own plants. When the Arab Oil boycott hit, Detroit was doubly screwed, because Toyota and Volkswagen already had small gas sippers ready to go.
America could have regained it's edge after Vietnam ended, but Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation let the wealthiest build vast fortunes without doing anything to save the 'Rust Belt.'
One major factor: women entered the workforce. Labor supply doubled, and two incomes per household became normalized. Our current economic system fails to account for the work of raising children which was implicitely built into the "traditional family" model.
That's a double whammy for workers. The value of labor is halved. Both partners are expected to work to achieve a similar standard of living. And, without one partner doing household and child-rearing labor, those costs are borne by the workers.
One major factor: women entered the workforce. Labor supply doubled, and two incomes per household became normalized.
I think that may be a case of putting the cart in front of the horse. For one, the labor supply did not double, and a significant amount of women have been in the workforce since the 40's.
In 48' a little over 30% of women worked, today it's only 58%. So, I really doubt a gradual 25% increase in labor supply spread over 60 years is really responsible for the rapid decrease in livable wages we saw from the late 80's on.
Also, an increase in labour supply only equates to a reduction in labour value if production value stagnates or decreases. This is the opposite of what happened post 80s, production has skyrocketed, but labour value has stagnated. This typically means that companies are transferring excess profits to shareholders rather than employees.
Cite your sources on this economic theory of yours, that is if you can find any that didn't come out of some MRA's ass
I suspect affordable housing is the main thing here that has been stolen.
The whole mess of the economy is hanging on that one thing. It gobbles up every spare penny. There isn't enough of it, and the price is only being constrained by how much the highest bidder is prepared to pay. The highest bidders are professional couples, no kids. If that's not you, you ain't getting shit.
As a wise man once sang, "build fuckin' houses everywhere, millions of the cunts".
Oddly enough both of my grandmothers had full time jobs along with their husbands. It's never been a thing for me, although I know this is odd.
It's true, women worked many jobs in the past especially if they were poor. Feminism is mainly a tool to normalize the femme CEO, the femme worker is as old as England.
It wasn’t stolen as much as we willingly gave it up for modern convenience such as letting women work outside the home, prioritizing single family housing and car ownership in the suburbs, cutting taxes for the ultra wealthy and a plethora of other choices we made 70 years ago.
at least they found the time to ban tiktok today
Ha ha I have you all beat. I am living in the future with a three income household.
Me, an intellectual, who makes less than the American minimum wage because I live in a third world country: You guys can't make ends meet with your inflated s Dollar salaries? 🧐
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the more money people make in a country the more expensive things are. So that inflated salary you are talking about also comes with inflated costs of housing and food and clothes etc.
Americans make more in wages, but goods and services are generally more expensive as well. Many people work multiple jobs, but can barely afford their means, and/or are trapped in a cycle of debt. Idk your situation, or that of your country, so I won't say we're in as bad a situation as you. Poor Americans might be in a more preferable position overall.
From looking at jobs recently I would suggest getting into nursing or surgery tech at your local community college. Travel nurse jobs are paying $2500/ week.
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
