Here is a rough graphic from those ultra-liberals at Pew, which goes back a little further than Algher’s numbers. It shows single-income households starting at c. 72% in 1960, vs dual income households at c. 25%. There is a steady change to the cross-over around '80, continuing steadily across to 37/60 in 2012.
So, obviously that is not a greatness factor, because we all know Reagan made America great – it was right there in his slogan.
I think that’s just of two-parent households. I dug up for all households once. I’ll see if I can find that. IIRC we have many more single-parent households.
That’s not to say things don’t still suck for a lot of people. That report is a good read; I wish they’d update it.
So median income is up, but it’s up a lot less for the lower quintiles and more for the higher. It’s also important to remember that isn’t tracking individuals. A poor immigrant family brings the numbers down even if everyone is doing better. Likewise, retiring boomers provide downward wage and income pressure.
I think you should be able to find this information somewhere in the American Housing Survey.
Keep in mind using Norway as any kind of economic benchmark is like the son of the factory president asking the line workers kid why his dad hasn’t bought him a sports car already. Norway is the third largest exporter of natural gas in the world with a population smaller than Minnesota.
Yes, but none of the oil money gets spent, it all goes into the sovereign wealth fund.
Note that all of this is pretty identical in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland etc… countries with very different resource bases.
1960 was near the peak of the post-war boom, wasn’t it? Are there statistics going further back? Say to 1800? I can only find graphs going back to 1950.
Meh, things are very similar in all Scandinavia, and in fact Western Europe & Japan, too. Maybe south Europe is a little worse. There is also the issue of paid vacation, paid maternity leave, mental care, subsidized childcare, subsidized old age homes, and, not least, number of yearly working hours. Also other quality of life issues like crime rate, life expectancy, obesity, drug addiction, incarceration rate, public transportation, quality of infrastructure, etc, etc,
US is an extreme outlier in inequality, but also extremely inefficient in providing quality of life for most of her population given the very large GDP/capita.
French :
Get good grades, get to college : yes, with caveats. There’s a good public university system and you’ve got a great chance of getting in - even if your high school record wasn’t stellar, like mine was. They essentially take all comers, though the budget is getting stretchy these days. Once in, the selection is a bit harsher (a lot harsher in some fields like pharma, med school, engineering etc…) but provided you’re not a complete idiot you’re likely to get at least the 3-year diploma generally speaking. Getting into Masters and Doctorates is a bit dicier - but still very doable on merit alone. In all cases, while not entirely free the whole thing is immensely cheaper than US universities - we’re talking 500 bucks a year, plus textbook costs. Housing grants and loans are available to students, with much less punitive later life costs than in the US.
That’s one thing.
On the *other *hand, there’s also what we call the “grandes écoles”, which are much more prestigious than public universities and competition to get into them is as fierce as the spots are limited. Most are also private & very expensive, though a few aren’t - the Ecole Polytechnique, for example, actually pays its students a salary because they’re technically soldiers. It’s a Napoleonic thing, don’t ask :). Fat chance getting in those unless your high school grades were spectacular to begin with AND you do great at the entrance exam, which itself usually requires a couple years of prep school which will be utterly wasted should you fail.
All in all, those’re the nigh-exclusive turf of the bourgeoisie (there are scholarship kids of course, but they’re far from the majority, and even if you do get a scholarship the cost of moving to and living near a grande école is steep).
Whether you’ll get a job in your field when you’re out is a different matter altogether, again barring special cases (e.g. med. schools - there are exactly as many openings to the entry exam as there are doctors needed that year. So you will get a spot to settle somewhere. Whether it’s in the speciality you want or the region you like, well… how good are you at cramming and do you have a steady supply of cocaine ? :D)
Healthcare for life : yes. No questions asked. Not everything is covered, many things are covered only partially, but not only will you never go bankrupt paying back a doctor or hospital, we also put a premium on prevention over cure. We’d rather have even the poorest of the poor get regular check-ups and scans than have them rushed in the ER with sudden acute kidney failure or somesuch. Private insurers cover what public healthcare doesn’t, mostly.
**If you worked hard and saved; you could buy a home and raise a family. That’s… less of a given.
On the one hand, we have a robust welfare and work-safety system as well as generous unemployment benefits commensurate with one’s previous salary. On the other hand, social mobility isn’t for everyone as the country is both pretty damn classist/racist and in deep denial about it. Still, even if my country can fuck you in the arse for being born in the wrong zip code or with the wrong skin tone, there’s still public lodgings and long-term unemployment, while a concern, isn’t dramatic yet. Minimum wage, public lodgings, welfare and healthcare put together mean that you kinda have to work at falling through the cracks. It’s also much, much, much easier to buy your own home and make a good living should you live away from Paris & the major cities… but of course, most of the big jobs are in Paris & the major cities, so it’s a bit of a catch-22.
It’s not perfect, far from it, but I do believe our poor generally have it better than, say, Detroit’s or Flint’s.
Then, you could retire. **Absolutely… so far. We face the same demographic issue wrt retirement as every first world country out there (ie. rising average age ; mortality decreasing, longevity increasing) so the future of the system is uncertain ; and we face the same deadlock about it as everywhere else (nobody wants to retire later, nobody wants the pensions axed, nobody’s down with my culling ideas) but my grandmother having died last year and left me half her savings, I can vouch that retirement checks ain’t a joke here.
Of course, there’s a big caveat : nothing is free, so we also pay taxes. Like, a **lot **of 'em, both direct and indirect. We enjoy the highest payroll tax level in the world (number oooone ! number ooone !) and are in the top twenty wrt individual taxes and VAT. The estates tax is no joke here, either. While we have relatively few very poor people, we don’t have all that many ultragazillionaires either. We do have the richest woman in the world (and in history) though, so there’s that I guess.
I don’t think America was ever “great” but it was probably at its best between, say, the passage of the Civil Rights act and the increasing inequality / median wage stagnation that started in the mid-1970s. So let’s say 1965-1979 or so. I also disapprove of abortion so I guess the best era was, say, around 1970.
America had a big space of “greatness” between the Civil War and the Depression. We had a frontier, and that’s very good for a nation. We were militarily mighty – the Spanish American War showed that we could fight – and yet we were isolationist enough to pose little threat to the world. We went through a huge phase of industrialization, and, despite some rhetoric, we’re a huge steel-pouring nation even today.
Bad things? Plenty. Jim Crow laws and the virtual re-enslavement of blacks. Only the most sketchy rights for women (but they did get the vote in this era.) Robber Baron industrialists and financiers: you think the “top ten percent” are bad now… Anti-Asian racist, anti-Hispanic racism, hell, anti-Irish racism! Also religious yahooism.
But compare us to most other countries of the era, and we were pretty darn great.
As a child of the late 50s / early 60s it seems to me the real point isn’t greatness, but perception of greatness.
Up through the early Johnson years there was a pervasive optimism. Yes, we lived under the shadow of near-instant nuclear was with the Soviets.
But America was getting bigger and newer and better. And we were *all *participating in it. Both in the building and in the reaping of the rewards. (Admittedly I say this from a white male perspective). Tomorrow would be better than today and any setbacks were temporary.
How many rank and file Americans of either political leaning feel that way today? Or did last year or 9 years ago or …?
That’s the cleverness of it, just as de Gaulle was careful not to define Gaulllism too closely.
I’n curious why you picked “mid-1970s” for “increasing inequality.” The federal minimum wage more than doubled (in nominal dollars) during the late 70’s and didn’t fall (in inflation-adjusted dollars) to its 1954 level until the mid 80’s. The sharp rise in income inequality statistics began about 1982 (and didn’t reach the high levels of the late 1920’s until about 2000).
I’m sure that replacing “mid 70’s” with “early 80’s” seems like extreme nitpicking in the broader context of your post, but I aim to help stamp out “#AlternateFacts” !
