This message was self-deleted by its author

[merrily]

142. I think you may have misunderstood. I never said people did not do well in 1955.

To the contrary, I thought that I specified that the post-war manufacturing sector did do well, so we have no disagreement there. I said as well though that there have always been large income disparities. One thing does not cancel out the other. Both things were true.

You can do very well as far as putting food on the table and maybe some extras, without doing anywhere near as well well as the rich. I don't think we have any disagreement there.

As far as unions, they are not separate from what I said. If the American manufacturing sector had little to no competition worldwide immediately after WWII, that meant huge demand for American goods worldwide. Not unlimited, but huge. There was another factor, too, also connected with WWII--we were seen as heros, which made people want to be like us--wear jeans, drive American cars, etc.

Anyway, owners of most manufacturing facilities would have wanted to put as much product out there as they possibly could. To do that in an era in which robotization and mechanization had not reached the heights of today, owners needed human workers. So, workers could get away with quite a lot, including union demands.

When jobs are scarce, as they are today, unions do not have as much bargaining power. Without bargaining power, desire for unions decreases.

As far as college graduates post World War II, yes, the availability of jobs did have something to do with that. So did the G.I. bill. So did student loans that were made directly by the government, no bank middlemen. So did the belief that, if you sent your kid to college, he or she would automatically have a better life than that of yours in the factory. So did tuitions that were a fraction of what they are today.