Comparing the 1950s with today

[Xanadu Moo]

I'd like to open the discussion for the relative merits of the 1950s western civilization vs. today's, focusing on the human condition -- the quality of life, however one would care to define that (the definition is part of what I'd like to explore), although I'm thinking some distinction should probably be made to separate our condition from other areas of advancement which could be neutral to our well-being. B.F. Skinner said something about mankind having advanced in the technological age in every area except for behavior. I'm not advocating his radical proposals for the condition, but I'd like to hear what others think.

Maybe another way to look at it is "Are we as happy/fulfilled as we were fifty years ago?"

1. Do you feel the human condition in our society is better today than it was in the 1950s or worse, or the same?
2. What are some indications that our society is better or worse off, or the same?
3. What are the most significant moments/movements of the last fifty years contributing to this factor?
4. What gradual processes have contributed along these lines?
5. How do we either remedy the situation or keep it from retrograding?
6. What sociological path are we on, based what we've witnessed in the industrial and technological ages?

I'd like to suggest several significant areas where our society has regressed steadily over the past few decades, and I think they outweigh the ares of progression. First, I recognize the positive aspects of many changes over the last fifty years. The medical field has increased life expectancy and general health. One caveat there, however, is that 25% of us still smoke, drug abuse is higher, obesity is higher, and AIDS is an ongoing epidemic, so the overall benefit seems to be somewhat negligible. While we have the means to be more healthy, we're actually becoming less healthy. We're not using that knowledge to benefit us overall.

Civil rights has seen improvements for the black community and other minorities. Whether some of its related programs, such as affirmative action, are a step backward is another matter. And if you listen to black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Charles Rangel, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP, racism is still a problem of epic proportions in their eyes. Violence and crime has gotten worse, especially among blacks. The welfare state is worse today. Single-parent families have skyrocketed. So whatever strides have been made in civil rights can be said to have been mitigated for the most part.

Scientific discoveries and technology have admittedly progressed exponentially. Knowledge is at a premium. But what have we done with that knowledge? Where has it gotten us so far? Has it addressed any of our social issues? Can we expect it to?

• Litigation has handicapped our economy, not to mention the medical industry.
• Pollution is worse than fifty years ago. (it's better than twenty years ago, but that's not what we're comparing)
• Homelessness is worse today. Another product of substance abuse.
• Road rage is likely indicative of where we've gone in some of our basic social relations. Another such microcosm for society can be seen in the behavior of professional athletes. Fifty years ago, the norm was for such a person to be genial and respectful. Today the norm is for them to be uppity, pampered, and disgruntled. Progress?
• More working hours are needed to keep up. Is dual-spouse employment a step in the right direction?
• We have less leisure time than we used to. We're working harder and getting less to show for it.
• Vulgarity and crude language are more prevalent today. Is this an improvement? Is bringing the bathroom out into the open a sign of progress?
• We're becoming more numb to things that used to shock us (violence, graphic sex, four-letter words). Is this a sign of maturity or of losing our sensitivity? Where does desensitizing end? Does it have any limits?
• Respect for elders has declined.
• Marketing is targeting younger and younger demographics, teaching them materialism at an early age when they don't have the perspective to assimilate it properly.
• Formal language has dipped more into the colloquial pool. Relaxed expression indicates a lazy attitude and lack of respect.
• Noise pollution has worsened. People are louder with their electronic gadgetry, and so having your "space" is a lot more difficult.

The overriding theme seems to be egocentrism. Look out for #1, and everyone else get out of the way. Over the last fifty years, we seem to have turned more inward. In search of the "self" instead of embracing the idea of a community.

The biggest impact for the worse in my opinion has been the assault on childhood. The world is much less child-friendly than fifty years ago. It's more dangerous in terms of violence, crime, child abuse, and proliferation of sexually graphic material. Childhood innocence and simplicity have given way to aspects that suit adults better. Children are being forced to grow up faster, and yet psychologists concede that emotional maturity cannot be accelerated to the same degree, and consequently we get kids with baggage thrown at them that they are not equipped to handle, and then it dogs them throughout their life. Coupled with many of them raising themselves while their single mom is working, they lack an authority figure to guide them. And then the ultimate manifestation of putting the child last is in abortion. We tout the rights of women, but curiously not until they're adults.

Isn't it interesting that escapism is at an all-time high? If our society has gotten better, then why have more people tried to flee from this reality by means of increased drug use, alcoholism, suicide, overeating, body piercing, plastic surgery, breast implants, transgender surgery, neon hairdos, body-covering tattoos, role playing, (fill in the blank here), etc. ... Why are people trying to be everything other than what they are?

I think we've got major social problems that won't solve themselves automatically by just letting things take their course. I don't see any indication that the lows we've reached have plateaued yet. I'm sure we can find new ways to regress. That's the direction we've been pointed in for the past few decades, and the slope is as steep as ever.

[MagusYanam]

I for one (the born-suburban young white male that I am) am well aware that modern society has many flaws. But personally, I wouldn't exchange the relative freedom I have today for the society of conformity that was the norm in the '50's.

People like to paint a Norman Rockwell-style painting of the 'good old days', I note. An age when life was simpler and people were just better. Based on my knowledge of U. S. history, however, I would say that this Norman Rockwell is at best the unreachable (and unreached) archetype of 1950's society, at worst completely unrepresentative.

I agree that violence and crime are problems in today's society, but looking at the numbers, when haven't they been? As to the racism question, the answer is cut-and-dried. We have made progress. The problem still exists and it is still serious, but only a fool would deny the progress that has been made. As to the violence / crime statistics, I would like to see some citations with meaningful numbers and sources.

In the 1950's, a young black man of my age and relative situation would not have had the same opportunities as I to get a good education or a well-paying job. We likely would have lived in officially-segregated neighbourhoods and gone to separate schools. That young black man would not even have been able to sit across the aisle from me on a bus or in a movie theatre. And now, look where we are. I went to a high school and now go to a college that welcome and embrace people of varying cultures and racial backgrounds. People don't care where I sit in relation to a black person on the Kalamazoo Metro bus. I wouldn't call that small potatoes.

The welfare state seems to me to be a separate question. How is it 'worse'? What standards would you set for this? I have no doubt that there are welfare cheats and frauds out there. But suppose they comprise ten percent of those on active welfare. What sort of resources would you be willing to spend on ensuring that welfare money gets only to those who need it? If many more of the welfare 'reforms' the Repubs keep pushing pass, we'll be spending more trying to keep cheats off the rolls than we would lose were we to keep the system the way it is. That's the societal perspective.

On a personal level, welfare doesn't seem to be doing enough. There are many people around where I live who are on active welfare, hold two jobs and still can't support their families. I'm in favour of increasing the minimum wage and putting some restrictions on business insofar as it would mean decreasing the amount spent on welfare and increasing the amount being used to pay off the national debt (not to mention the increased standard of living).

Litigation is a problem, true - as are pollution and social problems (road rage, low standards of behaviour, et cetera). Much of this, however, stems from the vulgar culture of capitalism and consumerism that has its roots in - you guessed it - the 50's. The 50's saw with growing prosperity and reassertion of the capitalistic values the boom of the commercial and the societal 'needs' to have more stuff and to get ahead of the Joneses, et cetera. This in turn led to 'personalisation' and false individualism - buying into the latest corporate fad would help you to assert your identity. 'Bigger' and 'faster' became identified eventually with 'better'. This became apparent in modern society with the advent of fast food, television, SUVs, et cetera ad nauseam.

As to the other concerns about the modern age you mentioned - growing use of four-letter words, desensitisation to violence and sex, et cetera - I'm not sure I can identify with that. I'm a filial, obedient, nonviolent person even with all of my exposure to modern culture. I was brought up in a home where swearing was heavily discouraged and where I could look to my mother and father as good role models. I may be the exception to the rule in that I was raised in an Anabaptist church that believed that all forms of violence are wrong. But yes, I've watched Star Wars, the Matrix and Family Guy (which I personally love since, as a New Englander, I can catch a lot of the insider gags most other Americans wouldn't get). All of these shocked me to some degree or another in the violence or the crudity of the language, but in the end, each work of entertainment does have value - sometimes even in that selfsame shock (not the same as 'shock value').

Also, a final note - simplicity is not necessarily a virtue. Much of the touted 'simplicity' of the '50's was detrimental to our societal ethos (otherwise, would the rebellion and disillusionment of the '60's have happened?) and ran contrary to the central values which this country supposedly holds dear.

[ST88]

Xanadu:
You make some interesting points. Many of them are refutable, but I think you have tapped into the science-fiction type fear that many religious conservatives (and non-religious conservatives) have been yammering about for decades now. I remember when in-vitro fetilization and test-tube babies were harbingers of the "Brave New World" that would lead to the decline of Western Civilization, among other such Declines.

Has scientific progress outstripped and outrun moral progress? You may have an argument if you think so, but you have to make it without appealing to (a particular) religion.

OK.

Maybe another way to look at it is "Are we as happy/fulfilled as we were fifty years ago?"

1. Do you feel the human condition in our society is better today than it was in the 1950s or worse, or the same?
2. What are some indications that our society is better or worse off, or the same?
For the first part of this question, I'll focus only on the U.S. As would be expected, it depends on what part of society you would like to look at. the 1950s were a time when many personal issues were suppressed and repressed. To make a judgment about whether or not the human condition has gotten better (if the term is even viable), you would have to make a judgment on whether it's better to allow people to express non-conforming viewpoints or to have them act like they're conforming (for example). It was also a time when many people were discouraged from doing things they wanted to do. For example, women were discouraged from getting jobs other than secretary/nurse/teacher. This, despite the fact that many of them had worked successfully in homeland factories and other industrial and commerical capacities during WWII. Blacks and other minorities were similarly discouraged from advancing in the workforce.

In terms of overall happiness, I think in general that people were more comfortable in their roles in the 1950s than they are today. I think there is a lot more anxiety about "where do I fit" in terms of the larger society. There are many reasons for this, but in my opinion, the biggest reason is that there is little preparation for dealing with modern life as many experience it. Instead of the community shaming rituals of the 1950s, there is the promise of fulfillment coming out of commerical America that, although they ultimately ring hollow, this comes too late for many to realize how they're being manipulated. Teaching about this manipulation -- also called critical thinking skills -- is severely lacking.

The role of religion in society has filled this power vacuum to some extent -- for those who seek "meaning" in their lives from outside sources. The power of religion to affect how people think and how they view the world pushed people from churchgoing "good people" to anti-liberal zealots. A defined doctrine for them to follow gives them more security than the previously murky "Good American Christian" label.

And I don't think you can talk about how Americans feel about security in general without talking about 9/11. For years, Americans saw how the Middle East was treated by terrorists, but that it "couldn't happen here." And the presidental administration of the time has used the rhetoric of religion to justify its actions since then -- if not outright religious arguments.

3. What are the most significant moments/movements of the last fifty years contributing to this factor?
- The Brown v Board of Education decision
- The assassination of Martin Luther King
- Roe v Wade (& the invention of the Pill)
- The Watergate hearings
- The election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency

4. What gradual processes have contributed along these lines?
- The "gradual explosion" of television as a cultural medium
- The rise of religious fundamentalism & the acceptance of hate as a viable way of thinking about others
- Rock 'n' Roll Music

5. How do we either remedy the situation or keep it from retrograding?
- You got me. Maybe pound pound pound the idea that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Because an ideal society isn't possible, we shouldn't strive for ideals without pragmatic solutions to actual problems.

6. What sociological path are we on, based what we've witnessed in the industrial and technological ages?
- Doctoral theses will be written on this, I'm sure. The societal results of the industrial revolution are still being felt even a hundred years later. The information revolution seems to have spawned its own set of social values that have threatened long-held assumptions and violated many comfort zones.
-The speed of communication and information transfer has been shortened so as to virtually eliminate delay. I don't think that we have been able to cope successfully with the lack of "down time" that delays in communication (and travel) used to give us.
We'll have to come up with new ideas of the dividing lines between work life and non-work life.

I'd like to suggest several significant areas where our society has regressed steadily over the past few decades, and I think they outweigh the ares of progression.

One caveat there, however, is that 25% of us still smoke, drug abuse is higher, obesity is higher, and AIDS is an ongoing epidemic, so the overall benefit seems to be somewhat negligible. While we have the means to be more healthy, we're actually becoming less healthy. We're not using that knowledge to benefit us overall.

I disagree with this. a) Smoking rates have declined substantially since the 1950s. b) While the drugs of choice have multiplied in terms of choice, actual rates of usage for substances which heighten, enhance, or provide escape from reality have not changed. In the 1950s, the drugs of choice were alcohol, barbituates, and amphetimines, which were legal at the time. The drugs of choice are now illegal, which is the problem of non-libertarian government, not personal choice. As long as there are people who think they want to have a good time, there will be mind-altering substances. c) While AIDS is a new epidemic, past epidemics were just as deadly, if not more so. Witness polio, influenza, smallpox, tuberculosis, syphillis, malaria, and a host of other pre-antibiotic diseases.

The knowlege of nutrition is perhaps the biggest advance. I think the problem with obesity has less to do with eating habits and more to do with psychological attitudes towards food, which stem from eras like the 1950s and the Depression, but are now inadequate.

Because of the prevalence of smoking (it used to be marketed as a health product), the attitudes towards food in general, and the idea that there would be "better living through chemistry," I would argue that the 1950s were harmful for society as a whole. I'd much rather we skipped the 50s and had gone straight to the 60s.

Civil rights has seen improvements for the black community and other minorities. Whether some of its related programs, such as affirmative action, are a step backward is another matter. And if you listen to black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Charles Rangel, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP, racism is still a problem of epic proportions in their eyes.

You certainly can't go by the rhetoric of these guys. The fact is, blacks are better off now than they were then. That's something you can't deny. And, like you say, whether or not you agree with Affirmative Action, it has most certainly created opportunities for minorities who wouldn't otherwise have had them. Whether it has outlived its usefulness is another matter.

Violence and crime has gotten worse, especially among blacks. The welfare state is worse today. Single-parent families have skyrocketed. So whatever strides have been made in civil rights can be said to have been mitigated for the most part.

- Correction: drug-related violence and crime has gotten worse. This leads back to the government's stance on the prohibition of drugs.
- How can you call the "welfare state" worse? What exactly does that mean?
- I am always amused at the hand-wringing over single-parent families. This is exactly the kind of pop-psychology that gets into the mainstream and doesn't let go no matter what the evidence.
- To me, the leaps forward that society has made in terms of how white America treats blacks outweighs by far the problems that you mention. Those have more to do with economic problems than problems that are inherent to blacks.

Scientific discoveries and technology have admittedly progressed exponentially. Knowledge is at a premium. But what have we done with that knowledge? Where has it gotten us so far? Has it addressed any of our social issues? Can we expect it to?

Scientists should not be expected to set social policy. Scientific progress represents the accumulation of knowledge, not intelligence. You can't blame science for not addressing social problems because it only answers questions. The people who set policy are the ones who ask the questions -- in an ideal world. Also in an ideal world, those people are elected.

• Litigation has handicapped our economy, not to mention the medical industry.

Litigation and the threat of litigation is an essential part of a free-market economy, especially in the absence of government regulation. It is virtually the only way to ensure that companies are making and distributing products and services that are safe for the public.

• Pollution is worse than fifty years ago. (it's better than twenty years ago, but that's not what we're comparing)

The population is also higher, which is what pollution levels reflect. Without a sound policy to move to cleaner fuels, the prevailing systems will just expand and build on themselves.

• Homelessness is worse today. Another product of substance abuse.

A bigger impact on homelessness is mental illness. Thank Reagan for opening the doors of institutions and letting many mentally ill people out of the streets in order to save money.

• Road rage is likely indicative of where we've gone in some of our basic social relations. Another such microcosm for society can be seen in the behavior of professional athletes. Fifty years ago, the norm was for such a person to be genial and respectful. Today the norm is for them to be uppity, pampered, and disgruntled. Progress?

I don't see how these two are related. One is related to our innate sense of rules. The other is related to ridiculous amounts of money. If you want to argue that baseball is not a better environment than the 1950s, then I'm with you.

• More working hours are needed to keep up. Is dual-spouse employment a step in the right direction?

As the standard of living goes up, so does the cost of living. "Keeping up" is a choice made by people who think they need luxuries. As you say, if you value cable television and cell phones over time with your child, something's wrong.

• We have less leisure time than we used to. We're working harder and getting less to show for it.

What does "show for it" mean?

• Vulgarity and crude language are more prevalent today. Is this an improvement? Is bringing the bathroom out into the open a sign of progress?

It's more prevalent today in the media than anywhere else. In the 1950s, people were still swearing like sailors, but it was a big open secret because such talk wasn't allowed in the movies and on TV.

• We're becoming more numb to things that used to shock us (violence, graphic sex, four-letter words). Is this a sign of maturity or of losing our sensitivity? Where does desensitizing end? Does it have any limits?

I don't think the correct word is "numb." It's a little more complicated than that. It used to be that such things shocked us more (as a society, not individuals), but just because they don't provoke the same shock reaction ("Oh, Heavens!") doesn't mean that we are numb to them. It means that our reaction is no longer a knee-jerk shock. Now, instead of having the luxury of dismissing an entire argument because of a vulgarity, we take it for granted that the vulgarity is merely part of the expression of the argument. It's a sign that we're paying more attention to what people are saying instead of how they're saying it. I'd say that's progress.

• Respect for elders has declined.

That's because they keep telling us how great things were in the 1950s.

• Marketing is targeting younger and younger demographics, teaching them materialism at an early age when they don't have the perspective to assimilate it properly.

Advertisers will always choose money over morals. This was true back in the 1950s when they were selling us cigarettes and nuclear power and it's true now. The truth is, most adults of the 1950s did not have the perspective to assimilate the information properly because thinking critically about such things was not encouraged. Marshall McCluhan would not be for at least another decade.

• Formal language has dipped more into the colloquial pool. Relaxed expression indicates a lazy attitude and lack of respect.

There is nothing wrong with this. English is a constantly evolving language. Relaxed expression does not indicate a lack of respect, it indicates an acknowledgement about the receiver. I find that the more "relaxed" a person is while communicating, the more respect s/he has for the listener. Traditionally, in English anyway, the greater the lack of respect someone has for someone else, the more stilted and semantically complex the language gets. Unless it's intended as an epithet, in which case there's little difference between the 1950s and today.

• Noise pollution has worsened. People are louder with their electronic gadgetry, and so having your "space" is a lot more difficult.

This is true. Noise pollution is a big problem. Hearing loss is becoming more and more common due to things like headphone usage and industrial employment.

The overriding theme seems to be egocentrism. Look out for #1, and everyone else get out of the way. Over the last fifty years, we seem to have turned more inward. In search of the "self" instead of embracing the idea of a community.

All this started post-WWII. The American Dream of this period was to own your own home, your own car. Women were encouraged to take care of their own houses. The vacuum cleaner, the dishwasher, and the tumble dryer meant there was truly an opportunity for one woman to successfully do it all alone. Why the emphasis on everyone owning their own things? Capitalism, of course. It's much more profitable to sell to individuals than it is to sell to extended families who share. This was the theme of the 1950s, and it has only grown since then. what we are witnessing now is the direct result of that consumer culture, what our current president like to say, in code, as an "ownership society."

The biggest impact for the worse in my opinion has been the assault on childhood. The world is much less child-friendly than fifty years ago. It's more dangerous in terms of violence, crime, child abuse, and proliferation of sexually graphic material. Childhood innocence...

The dangers to childhood have always been there. It's just that now they're out in the open because people feel like they are finally allowed to speak about them. In the 1950s it was much more acceptable for a father to beat his children -- they didn't call it abuse back then, they called it discipline, and then corporal punishment. There are more guns lying around, it's true, and that's unfortunate. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about sexual material, though. I think parents are afraid to talk about sex to their children, have been afraid about it for fear of encouraging it... say it with me now... since the 1950s. This social myth is still hanging around for some reason. There is no correlation between viewing sexually graphic material and a) violence towards women, b) age of first sexual encounter, and c) "deviant" sexual behaviors (until age 17). Mainstream pornography was practically invented in the 1950s.

The "assault on childhood" you speak of is the childhood of the 1950s. An ideal Leave it to Beaver childhood that never really happened. What we call violence and intimidation now used to be called the laws of the schoolyard. Again, the access to guns and other weapons has increased, which is a big problem. But the attitudes haven't. And don't think that there wasn't childhood sexual abuse back then. It's just that no one talked about it -- children were made to feel the blame and the guilt for provoking it.

Isn't it interesting that escapism is at an all-time high? If our society has gotten better, then why have more people tried to flee from this reality by means of increased drug use, alcoholism, suicide, overeating, body piercing, plastic surgery, breast implants, transgender surgery, neon hairdos, body-covering tattoos, role playing, (fill in the blank here), etc. ... Why are people trying to be everything other than what they are?

I'm not sure where to start with this. Escapism isn't at an all-time high. There has always been escapism, and it has always been at a high level. Without escapism, there would be more nervous breakdowns and guys in the clock tower. Alcoholism rates are affected by reporting rates -- people are more likely to admit they are alcoholics now than they were then. The increasing suicide rate is a myth, a fabrication. In 1992, the CDC's Alexander Crosby had this to say about it:

Some statistics indicate that suicide attempts among younger persons have not increased, but the methods and means they are using are more lethal, making the attempts more successful.
- A Brief Overview of Suicide

There is also the problem of reporting. In the 1950s it was a scandal if a teenager committed suicide, so it was sometimes not listed as the cause of death. Now, people are more likely to tell the truth about things like that.

For those personal expressive methods, like piercings and, what, role playing?... How is that not expressing who you are? If there is something about a nose ring that you think expresses who you are to others, where's the fiction? This strikes me as being more honest with oneself than merely doing what everyone else is doing, which, by the way, yes, is a part of 1950s culture. This is also true for sex change operations. If this is who you think you are, where's the fiction?

As you say, there are problems with the way our culture has evolved, and these need addressing. But to look back at the 1950s as some sort of gold standard to shoot for is naive at best. I find it the case that people who want to go back to the 1950s are mostly uncomfortable with the culture of personal expression that is encouraged nowadays. It was much easier and psychologically comfortable to walk around thinking that everyone else thought like you did because they wore the same clothes and smoked the same cigarettes.

[Vladd44]

Hi Xanadu Moo!

The 50s represented not only Norman Rockwell, it also left a legacy of intolerance, bigotry and race hatred. It is highly inaccurate to not consider the 1950's mindset to be one of the integral building blocks of our current society. To romanticize this period is to ignore the stumbling block the 1950s represented in human history.

Violence and crime has gotten worse, especially among blacks. The welfare state is worse today. Single-parent families have skyrocketed. So whatever strides have been made in civil rights can be said to have been mitigated for the most part.

While I also find certain current policies regarding affirm action offensive. It is in no way comparable to lynchings. Also, I have no idea why you felt compelled to bring up single parents, violence and crime in your paragraph about minority issues. These issues affect all of us, not just one segment of the population.

The 50's gave us Joseph McCarthy, I am sure bush has a altar for him somewhere.

Women's were second class citizens. Even the most basic of reproductive rights were excluded from them until 1960, when the FDA approved the legal distribution of birth control pills. This puritanical viewpoint is responsible for teen pregnancy issues for the last 3 decades. In Europe, there is no debate whether teen sex should or shouldn't occur.It's a matter of keeping teens as educated and safe as possible. Average age at first intercourse is higher for teens in Europe. Teen birthrate, abortion rate, and instances of AIDS are all far lower. . I don't see the purpose in shielding people from reality. Attempting to shelter children does them no good, only harm. Reality has a way of catching up with people. Sheltered people lack the experience of making decisions. Innocence is a myth, and those that attempt to persuade themselves of their child's innocence does so at the risk of that child's well being. A predator would not hesitate to take advantage of your child's innocence. In many cases the 50's view served to the advantage of child predators.

The medical field has increased life expectancy and general health.

the overall benefit seems to be somewhat negligible.

heh, I guess you and I have different views on benefits. I guess I will have to settle for no advantage other than living longer.

Scientific discoveries ... have admittedly progressed exponentially..... But what have we done with that knowledge? .... Has it addressed any of our social issues?

Do you think the global effort put into tsunami relief would have been logistically possible in 1950?

Infant Mortality has gone from 30 per 1000 to around 6 in the US. Averages would imply that 6 of the 24 saved will go on to smoke, drink and abuse drugs (+ the other bad things u mentioned people doing). I think their families will be happy to bury them as adults rather than as infants.

With the appalling enviromental record of the 50's, and our govt testing nuclear weapons while exposing its citizens to fallout. How can we not consider the "gift" of the 50's? We are still cleaning up their mess.

I'm not sure where to go with the drug/alcohol issue. I am not sure exactly what you mean by all time highs, but in the industrialized nations (only really credible figures I could find) alcohol consumption is down. In the Netherlands where they have legalized marijuana, adult use is about the same as the USA. However for young adolescents, rates of marijuana use are lower in the Netherlands than in the United States.

If body piercing, plastic surgery, breast implants, transgender surgery, neon hairdos, body-covering tattoos and role playing are worthy of mention as major problems with our society. Then I am very optimistic. I only wish that such trivial matters were all we had to be concerned about. However, it points to one of the few areas we may agree in principle. The dangers of rampant consumerism. However, I don't see how a linear view from the 50s to present could do anything than condemn the 50's for the same stride towards materialism that we see in todays society. I refuse to blame marketing for materialism, materialism begins at home.

It concerns me to think that the leader of my country believes that he knows the end of the book, I would rather a leader who considered less bleak alternatives. It is small wonder that christians run around thinking the sky is falling.. I only hope such disruptions don't serve ill in the long run. The last time those in power held such beliefs, it took us 900 years to get out of it. I can only hope that this time we reject the call to superstition and fear.

Why are people trying to be everything other than what they are?

I ask christians that same question all the time. When it gets down to it, we share around 95% of our genetic material with chimps. What can we expect, Ever been to the zoo?

I would have to agree, we do face a uncertain time ahead. Our destination is uncertain, but with resolve and self determination we can move to the next level in our development.

[BeHereNow]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The welfare system in the States has returned to the paternalism of the 50’s. At that time the government paid the bills for recipients so they would have a warm place to stay and food to eat. The liberalism and permissiveness of the 60’s (which overall I favor) put the welfare money directly into the hands of the poor. Now the pendulum has swung back and welfare funds for the poor are paid directly to the vendors for housing, utilities, food and health care.
Welfare reform of the 1990’s is a large joke, a sham, a deception on the American people. The only ones laughing are the lazy poor.

Jesus said we would always have the poor with us, and certainly this is true.
There are essentially two types of poor, which admittedly is an over simplification, but does no harm to our discussion. There are the working poor and the lazy poor.
The working poor want their family to be free of the extreme wants caused by poverty.
The lazy poor want the minimal luxuries the working middle class enjoy, but they feel it should be given to them.

In the 50’s the lazy poor wanted adequate housing, meat with every meal, a car, a TV, a nice winter coat, the basics.
Today the lazy poor want a cell phone for every adult, large screen TV with expanded cable ($75+/mo), nice apartment with paid utilities, lots of junk food for the kids, designer label clothing, nice car (maybe two), nice Christmas presents for the kids. This has become the standard for the working middle class and the lazy poor feel entitled to it as well.

If we use a broad definition of “cheat”, well over half of the recipients are cheats. Sometimes this only means that they could work if they wanted to, but they don’t. Some do not really “cheat” as in breaking the rules. They lie about looking for work and wanting to work, and that is a form of cheating. They claim their poverty is no fault of their own when absolutely it is their fault. There are many government and private organizations willing to help the poor, and the lazy poor double dip from every possible source hiding this fact from each of the others.

Both sides of the political process are to blame.
Our county has a population of 75,000 and the monthly food stamp issuance is $500,000 per month. Welfare subsidizes private business as much as it subsidizes the poor. Medical assistance payments to doctors, pharmacies and hospitals is 5 or 10 times as much. Housing and utility payments meet or exceed the food stamps. Add another $500,000 per month for administrative costs.
The 5000 families (one or more persons) on public assistance of one kind or another represent millions of dollars per month to the local economy in our county alone.

The system encourages the welfare mentality and rewards rather than punishes the system abusers.

Ah, but what of the original question. Is the welfare situation better or worse than it was 50 years ago?
If children are going to bed hungry it is the fault of the parents, not society. In the 50’s society shared the responsibility with the parents.
Children are still dirty, hungry and sick, and the parents do not care. Money is squandered on luxuries the poor should not expect and the children suffer. They “learn” that having the right clothes is more important than good nutrition. [The indocrination of secular consummerism] Capitalism is a double edged sword. If we want the good, the bad will come as well.
To me, the whole thing is a total wash. For every foot of ground gained, a foot was lost, and the reverse.

Has the human condition changed in the last 6000 years?
Does a particular individual live and die feeling more “fulfilled”?
No.
The reason for human existence is human existence. It isn’t about being smarter, or richer, or even healthier. It is simply about being.
The environment has changed and improved as man controls it.
Human knowledge has changed and improved.
The material benefits available have changed and improved.
If you value these things you will disagree with me.
In that sense society is better off than it was 50 years ago.

JMHO, as always, questions and comments welcomed.

[turtleguy]

Today the lazy poor want a cell phone for every adult

that is so true. its dumb to me that poor americans are fat and when i go by a homeless station and half the guys in line are talking on a cell phone.

[MagusYanam]

BeHereNow, I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with you in half of what you say and disagreeing in the other half.

There are essentially two types of poor, which admittedly is an over simplification, but does no harm to our discussion. There are the working poor and the lazy poor.

You're right: this is oversimplification, and it is by no means detrimental to the conversation. But I don't think the distinction does a whole lot of good, either. After some study, I have come to think that most poor people are decent and work hard to get by, but some make really bad decisions that prove very harmful in the long run.

I'm not denying that there is a segment among the poor who really are frauds who don't contribute. I think, however, that these are vastly outnumbered by the poor folks who just didn't think something through a ways back and are continually paying the price.

My father once told me about a class he attended where he was assigned to draw up a budget for an anonymous poor family on partial assistance. In the spreadsheet there were blank spaces listed for 'cigarettes' and 'cable TV'. Since he didn't think these were high-priority (like food or the kids' sneakers), Dad left those spaces blank and divided the budget amongst those items he felt were necessary for this family. His spreadsheet was rejected because the working assumption was that the mother of this family smoked and their home had cable the family wanted to keep. The bad choices made here were hurting this family financially.

Now, were these people lazy? No. Were they absolutely blameless for their state of poverty? No, but neither can we say that they were entirely to blame, either. A poor education or poor upbringing might have been the cause. The problem of poverty is a sadly complex one which can't really be reduced to a problem of 'working poor' and 'lazy poor' (would it were that simple!).

On the other hand, you make some very good points regarding the distribution of the welfare money and how the actual process happens.

Money is squandered on luxuries the poor should not expect and the children suffer. They “learn” that having the right clothes is more important than good nutrition. [The indocrination of secular consummerism]

Indeed. Rampant consumerism and the excesses thereof are a pox on our society, but my complaints with regard to consumerism are more cultural than they are social. (Perhaps, being the liberal that I am, I should be more concerned with the latter, but the former I find outrages the artist in me on a more visceral level.)

The environment has changed and improved as man controls it.

Well and good up to that point. But then I got to this point and did a double take. '... improved as man controls it'? What?

I love the National Parks, especially out west. Grand Teton, Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain. They are lovely in part because man does not control them (though even in the National Parks this is changing, and not for the better). The sheer power and beauty of nature untouched (or nearly so) by human hand is better, IMHO, than any city (cities are good to live in, but that's because people are intrinsically messy creatures and we need some artificial cleanliness; National Parks are better to visit).

Even in light of the context of this thread, I would have to disagree with this assessment. In the '50's, air and water pollution in L. A. weren't as bad as they are now (it was plenty bad back then, true - bad enough for Tom Lehrer to write a song about it - but even so) and, though suburban sprawl was on the uptake, it hadn't by 1960 reached the epidemic proportion that it has today.

So, yes, just a few quibbles with your post and some general agreement on my part.

[BeHereNow]

BeHereNow, I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with you in half of what you say and disagreeing in the other half.

Shouldn’t be anything awkward about that.

BeHereNow wrote:
There are essentially two types of poor, which admittedly is an over simplification, but does no harm to our discussion. There are the working poor and the lazy poor.


You're right: this is oversimplification, and it is by no means detrimental to the conversation. But I don't think the distinction does a whole lot of good, either. After some study, I have come to think that most poor people are decent and work hard to get by, but some make really bad decisions that prove very harmful in the long run.
I'm not denying that there is a segment among the poor who really are frauds who don't contribute. I think, however, that these are vastly outnumbered by the poor folks who just didn't think something through a ways back and are continually paying the price.

It is worth noting that there are many poor people who do receive welfare benefits, therefore could not be fraudulent.
I should have pointed that out. Actually my discussion was about those poor receiving welfare of some sort (cash/medical/food stamps), which is a subset of the poor. Among this subset, most are cheaters. They convince themselves that they have to do it.
Little old ladies get $100 a month from an adult child and that is reportable income as a family contribution, but they do not report it and lie about it if confronted. The rich and the poor make bad choices all of the time. Not one huge mistake that they spend years paying for, but small, bad choices all of the time.

My father once told me about a class he attended where he was assigned to draw up a budget for an anonymous poor family on partial assistance. In the spreadsheet there were blank spaces listed for 'cigarettes' and 'cable TV'. Since he didn't think these were high-priority (like food or the kids' sneakers), Dad left those spaces blank and divided the budget amongst those items he felt were necessary for this family. His spreadsheet was rejected because the working assumption was that the mother of this family smoked and their home had cable the family wanted to keep. The bad choices made here were hurting this family financially.

Now, were these people lazy? No. Were they absolutely blameless for their state of poverty? No, but neither can we say that they were entirely to blame, either. A poor education or poor upbringing might have been the cause. The problem of poverty is a sadly complex one which can't really be reduced to a problem of 'working poor' and 'lazy poor' (would it were that simple!).

All classes of people make bad choices in their finances, and often it adversely affects the family.
With the poor, someone else has to pay for the mistakes. If you failed a test, but the guy next to you got the failing mark, and you still got a “C”, you might have less concern than if you received the failing mark. When the lazy poor make bad financial decisions, someone else has to pay. They “learn” that bad choices do not have bad consequences.
I’ve been doing this for 20 years on and off (different states). What else can I say. I was a bleeding heart liberal and absolutely will still defend the need for a welfare system. I compare it to the Judicial system in reverse. Yes, some innocent are punished because the judicial system is not perfect, but it is the price we have to pay for law and order.
Yes, some undeserving will receive benefits they are not entitled to because the system is not perfect, but it is the price we have to pay to prevent people from living on the streets and being hungry.
There are a lot of “welfare myths”, but in some cases saying it is a myth, is the myth, because it is true.
One of my favorite is: Myth: “Most welfare recipients are undeserving adults”.
Truth: “Most wefare recipients are children”.
Truth as I see it: Sure, if we count heads most recipients are children. But of course no benefits are issued to children. A parent who has 4 children gets more benefits than a parent with one child. The parent gets the benefits, not the children. The parent does not have to use the benefits for the benefit of the children. The first requirement for many programs is that there is a child in the family. No child, no benefit. Statistically the child received the benefit, but if the adult had no children, they would have to work to pay for the benefit.
Young women with children do not have to work to pay for the heat. Young women without children do. Sad but true.

BeHereNow wrote:
The environment has changed and improved as man controls it.


Well and good up to that point. But then I got to this point and did a double take. '... improved as man controls it'? What?

Yes, I’m using “environment” in the loose sense, simply “one’s surroungings”. We have moved from caves to skyscrapers, but where is the progress?

[ST88]

The environment has changed and improved as man controls it.

Well and good up to that point. But then I got to this point and did a double take. '... improved as man controls it'? What?

I love the National Parks, especially out west. Grand Teton, Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain. They are lovely in part because man does not control them (though even in the National Parks this is changing, and not for the better). The sheer power and beauty of nature untouched (or nearly so) by human hand is better, IMHO, than any city (cities are good to live in, but that's because people are intrinsically messy creatures and we need some artificial cleanliness; National Parks are better to visit).

Even in light of the context of this thread, I would have to disagree with this assessment. In the '50's, air and water pollution in L. A. weren't as bad as they are now (it was plenty bad back then, true - bad enough for Tom Lehrer to write a song about it - but even so) and, though suburban sprawl was on the uptake, it hadn't by 1960 reached the epidemic proportion that it has today.

I would argue that the 50s set the stage for the "epidemic proportion" you speak of. The culture of trash spawned by the 50s left us totally unprepared for how to dispose of many wastes, including PCBs, nuclear material, pesticides, petroleum products, and industrial solvents. We had to overcome the idea that the world was our trash heap, and we're still trying to. These attitudes of instantly disposable consumer products essentially started in the 1950s as we were trying to figure out how to live in places called suburbs, made possible by one of the biggest environmental disasters of the last 100 years, the gas-powered automobile. Since then, it's been an issue of tweaking the system just enough to quell environmental outrage. For example, we make cars that keep the noise and smog out better instead of addressing the noise and smog.

We still have a 1950s mindset when it comes to consumption, and many of us can't seem to make the shift in thinking that those ideas are outdated, that they were outdated when they arose, and they are more difficult to fix now because of the consumer monoculture created in that time. Many of the societal ills we face now were started in the 1950s, environmental breakdown is just one of them.

[MagusYanam]

Agreed, ST88. My point was not that the mindset of the '50's was any better environmentally than today's, however, but rather that the overall environmental situation in 1959-1960 was not as bad as it is in 2004-2005.

As it is today, things are pretty bad. But with petrol prices on the rise there seems (finally!) to be some incentive toward an alternative-energy economy. We already have the technology to reduce petrol consumption drastically. I don't know whether I've already brought this up on another thread, but I read a recent Fareed Zakaria article in Newsweek which made a similar assertion. Chrysler is due to introduce a hybrid which can recharge in a wall socket (this should increase mileage to 75 mpg). This is already a drastic improvement. If flexible engines become mainstream, cars will be able to run on both hybrid technology and a mixture of alcohol and petrol which will yield a petrol mileage of 500 mpg (not a fuel mileage; since the fuel would be composed of only one-fifth petrol, for argument's sake, the mileage per gallon of petrol would be increased by a factor of five).

There are forces at work in the U. S., however, that discourage development of hybrid / mixed fuel technology. Many of these, such as capitalism, were locked into our society during the 1950's. Capitalism is said to encourage innovation - here I see the reverse happening. Corporations, especially ones that (to use this example) depend on petrol interests, like to seek the quick fix (which is, in this case, continuing our current level of petrol consumption - why else should petrol prices be so low in this country?). I think that in order to progress as a society, the entire idea of capitalism (perhaps even our entire system of societal values) will have to be rethought.