2) The two have nothing to do with each other. While the rise in life expectancy happened gradually over the course of the century, the rise in divorce rates was very sharp from 1965 to 1980.
3a) Again, the rise in illegitimacy happened between 1965 and 1980 and has generally been a social disaster.
3b) In terms of material well being perhaps. In terms of culture, absolutely not. Read "Gang Lead for a Day" and then compare to "How the Other Half Lives". And violent crime certainly has not been falling in the inner cities: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=271919
4) Read Robert Putnams's Bowling Alone. Basically TV and video games have replaced the old civic organizations like the Masons or bowling leagues.
5) High drop out rates are a feature. It means young adults aren't required by law to waste their life earning a meaningless credential just to enter their chosen profession. I discuss this in full in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=358326
6) What government spending do you find so useful? The military bases in 170 countries? The carrier fleet that would last about 30 minutes in modern cruise missile warfare? The space shuttle program that only makes news when a shuttle explodes every ten years? The corn and ethanol subsidies? The housing/welfare programs that have created a permanent urban underclass? Medicare/medicaid, which consume 7% of GDP on healthcare, yet only manage to cover a fraction of the population?
7) My point was that the overall employment rate among black men has declined dramatically. This is a disaster. Even if their material well being is ok, being unemployed is emasculating.
8) The problem is the Dilbertization of the economy. The soulless organization man companies, filled with pointy haired bosses, are a child of World War II.
9) Well I certainly hope so.
10) Both U.S. today and U.S. pre-Fed had a nasty business cycle. But the advantage of the system back then was that in the panic of 1907 Wall St. bailed itself out. No need for several trillion dollars of government money. Other advantages of 1907 include no inflation, no Sarbox, and companies actually paying dividends.
Overall, I would still prefer to live in 2009. But that's almost entirely due to the exponential growth of technology. But remember that technology can move in a different direction than the other components of a society.
Technology is much, much better today. But the political system is far, far worse. Culture is better in some ways ( Rock & Roll, movies, blogs) and worse in others (fewer civic organizations, awful architecture). There is no reason we could not restore the political system of 1909 while keeping all our new fangled toys. Then we would have the best of both worlds. On the other hand, if the political situation continues to deteriorate, eventually technological growth will start to slow down or even reverse. That is scenario that must be averted.
Read up on the government of 1908, it was extremely corrupt.
Anyway, Technology is driving most of the social changes you're talking about. Something like 50% of the average persons medical expenses occur in the last year of their life which makes insuring the old extremely costly. The government pays for ~50% of all medicine in the US and most of it would not exist if a) it where not available and b) people where not living as long. The world would probably be more wealthy without that drain, but I don't know if it would be better.
I expect the government of 1908 was more corrupt than the government of today, people did not have the money to let government take that much off of them. 1908 introduced the Model T, before that modern roads where pointless in most places. I think the streetlight best summarizes government involvement, when 1000 people per hour are driving underneath them it's a extremely useful, but they are pointless in the middle of a corn field. Nobody is going to pay per light to see at night so it's really just a question of government/local groups or nothing. Saying public infrastructure is best served by private companies seems to miss the poor service they provide. EX: Cellphone coverage in the US. So yes taxes are up, but it's not like the money is set on fire we are getting a lot of services from that money.
When it comes to social organizations things like MMO guilds and facebook let people be far more social than the average pre car social club. While face time might be decreasing the average person is far more social today than at any other point in history. And considering how much more free time people have facetime might also be increasing.
Edit: Over the last 100 years the middle class and the wealthy have left city's and have only recently been returning. Murder statistics among the poor and they have always been high so correlating it with city living is missing the point. You can look at the murder rate in inner city's or the murder rate among high school dropouts and see the same trends.
PS: I think human nature has changed little over time, most social changes are a reaction to increased technology / prosperity and throughout history the rich tended to become fat, self absorbed, and decedent. The powerful / well connected become corrupt. And working people get stepped on.
Read up on the government of 1908, it was extremely corrupt.
Indeed it was. But perhaps you have heard the name K Street before? The retail, envelopes-full-of-cash corruption is now mostly gone. Corruption today is organized, supersized, and legalized. It's called interest group politics. Worse, because government is so much bigger, both in revenues and the extents of its regulations, interest group politics has a far more pernicious impact on our lives than the corruption of 1909 ever did.
The world would probably be more wealthy without that drain, but I don't know if it would be better.
Even given that we want to spend more on healthcare, the government healthcare programs waste somewhere on the order of 80% of the dollars spent. My point was that the taxes we now pay are not being put to good use.
I expect the government of 1908 was more corrupt than the government of today, people did not have the money to let government take that much off of them
Just look at the rates. Combined federal tax rates for a median earner in 1909: 0%. Combined federal tax rates for a median earner 2009: ~20%.
The government was very corrupt then, but at least people new it was corrupt and thus had little inclination to vote in leaders that would raise taxes. Our modern government, via its K-16 education system, has basically taught everyone that the government is our mother and that giving it money is righteous and good.
So yes taxes are up, but it's not like the money is set on fire we are getting a lot of services from that money.
Federal taxes do not pay for streetlights and cell phones ( and neither does much of state and local taxes). I generally view the interstate highway program as a disaster that destroyed urban neighborhoods and created an unsustainable reliance on automobiles.
When it comes to social organizations things like MMO guilds and facebook let people be far more social than the average pre car social club.
You have got to be be kidding. Human beings did not evolve to socialize via text.
Over the last 100 years the middle class and the wealthy have left city's and have only recently been returning. Murder statistics among the poor and they have always been high so correlating it with city living is missing the point.
Murder statistics among the poor and they have always been high so correlating it with city living is missing the point.
This simply false. At the turn of the century, 85% of the population of Milwaukee were immigrants or the children of immigrants. Yet the homicide rate was 3.7. The other big northern cities were similar. The people in these cities were mostly poor immigrants. Yet they worked hard and moved forward in life. In the 60's, breakdowns in law enforcement, "urban renewal", and the growth of the welfare state allowed the growth of a large criminal underclass in the cities. Riots and muggings pushed the hard working middle class out into the suburbs Poverty does not cause crime. Culture and lack of rule of law cause crime.
Do you really think 80% of government health care money is wasted? [Citation Needed] Most study's suggest that private inshurance is less efficient than public spending so I am not really sure what your talking about there.
"In 1913 the 16th Amendment was passed, which allowed Congress authority to tax the citizenry on income from whatever source derived." So yes the "income tax" showed up in force, but the government still had plenty of income sources back then. The possibility of free trade is really an outgrowth of the federal government giving up on import taxes for most products.
In 1900 the recorded homicide rate in the US was under 2 per 100,000. 3.7 is about twice that and today Milwaukee has a little over twice the national homicide rate. I would suggest that the statistics under represented the homicide rate back then, but this is just going to go around in circles. Look into the actual numbers and try and come up with an unfiltered view of what that time was like. Hell, read some newspapers from back then. By 1910 the homicide rate had "gone through the roof" which should suggest they where measuring different things. Anyway, have a nice night.
Do you really think 80% of government health care money is wasted? [Citation Needed]
The Singapore government spends 1.3% of GDP on health care and the private sector spends around 2% of GDP. Overall, their health indicators are slightly better than our indicators in America. The U.S. government spends 7% of GDP on health care and the private sector spends another 7%. The delta between what the U.S. spends and what I think would be spent with a well run system is what I consider the waste. Singapore is an example of much better run system that exists in the real world. It's not an 80% difference in spending, but it's close.
Most study's suggest that private inshurance is less efficient than public spending so I am not really sure what your talking about there.
I do not find that surprising. "Private" healthcare in the U.S. is really a system of government licensed cartels. The nurses unions, AMA, insurance companies, drug companies, big hospitals, etc have all manipulated the political system to drive up the cost of care.
In 1900 the recorded homicide rate in the US was under 2 per 100,000. 3.7 is about twice that and today Milwaukee has a little over twice the national homicide rate.
The crime rate for Milwaukee statistic was from 1911, the immigration stat was from 1900, since I couldn't find one from 1900.
You can ( and I have) read accounts from the time, and the difference in crime and levels of decay becomes even more apparent. Read How the Other Half Lives and then compare it to The Corner or Gang leader for a day.
Either way, the point stands - these cities, with a high proportion of poor immigrants, did not have anything like the underclass problem that exists in the same cities today.
Added as a separate post to counter the "And violent crime certainly has not been falling in the inner cities"
The actual numbers don't support his or you're assessment. Dramatic increases in a few areas dramatic reductions in others, but our worst city is has 2/3rd of the crime of the worst city in 1911. Tracking where the populations moved shows that crime is down overall even as people migrated to other areas.
1911-1914
Baltimore Md = 5.8 vs 45 in 2006 big jump.
Chicago Ill = 9.0 vs 16 in 2006
New York = 5.9 vs 6 in 2006
Seattle Washington = 9.6 vs 4 in 2006 less than 1/2?
Nashville Tennessee = 35.9 vs 13 in 2006 big drop?
Memphis Tennessee = 69.7 vs 19 in 2006 another big drop?
Taking our worst cases from 2006 and comparing them to 1911 is a mistake. Our best city has 4.4% of the murder rate of our worst so the variability is just huge.
Nashville and Memphis both had their borders redrawn a few years back to encompass many of the surrounding towns. The inner city is no better than it was in the 1910's, the borders are just different and so the stats are different.
Also note that trauma care is much, much better now than in 1900. All things being equal, you'd expect a much lower homicide rate now. In 1900, if a guy gets shot three times in the stomach, he's a statistic. In 2009, he makes a full recovery ( http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/crime_d... ).
At any rate, the point remains that many of the once great American cities - Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Cleveland - are either in ruins or feel like they came out of the movie Blade Runner ( http://www.detroityes.com/home.htm ). This did not need to happen. The fall of these cities was the result of particular decisions made by particular political actors, and we are all poorer for having lost them.
2) The two have nothing to do with each other. While the rise in life expectancy happened gradually over the course of the century, the rise in divorce rates was very sharp from 1965 to 1980.
3a) Again, the rise in illegitimacy happened between 1965 and 1980 and has generally been a social disaster.
3b) In terms of material well being perhaps. In terms of culture, absolutely not. Read "Gang Lead for a Day" and then compare to "How the Other Half Lives". And violent crime certainly has not been falling in the inner cities: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=271919
4) Read Robert Putnams's Bowling Alone. Basically TV and video games have replaced the old civic organizations like the Masons or bowling leagues.
5) High drop out rates are a feature. It means young adults aren't required by law to waste their life earning a meaningless credential just to enter their chosen profession. I discuss this in full in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=358326
6) What government spending do you find so useful? The military bases in 170 countries? The carrier fleet that would last about 30 minutes in modern cruise missile warfare? The space shuttle program that only makes news when a shuttle explodes every ten years? The corn and ethanol subsidies? The housing/welfare programs that have created a permanent urban underclass? Medicare/medicaid, which consume 7% of GDP on healthcare, yet only manage to cover a fraction of the population?
7) My point was that the overall employment rate among black men has declined dramatically. This is a disaster. Even if their material well being is ok, being unemployed is emasculating.
8) The problem is the Dilbertization of the economy. The soulless organization man companies, filled with pointy haired bosses, are a child of World War II.
9) Well I certainly hope so.
10) Both U.S. today and U.S. pre-Fed had a nasty business cycle. But the advantage of the system back then was that in the panic of 1907 Wall St. bailed itself out. No need for several trillion dollars of government money. Other advantages of 1907 include no inflation, no Sarbox, and companies actually paying dividends.
Overall, I would still prefer to live in 2009. But that's almost entirely due to the exponential growth of technology. But remember that technology can move in a different direction than the other components of a society.
Technology is much, much better today. But the political system is far, far worse. Culture is better in some ways ( Rock & Roll, movies, blogs) and worse in others (fewer civic organizations, awful architecture). There is no reason we could not restore the political system of 1909 while keeping all our new fangled toys. Then we would have the best of both worlds. On the other hand, if the political situation continues to deteriorate, eventually technological growth will start to slow down or even reverse. That is scenario that must be averted.