fuck this paywall, I cannot afford this shit. Someone post the article, and I'm dying to read the Comments.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3221820&forum_id=2#30464448)

G**b*l C*p*t*l*sm.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3221820&forum_id=2#30464542)

Always lolled at that example

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3221820&forum_id=2#30464554)

When was America at its best?

Put the question to voters and many will point as far back as the 1960s. Put the question to economists and they identify a much more recent peak in U.S. living standards.

Forecasters in The Wall Street Journal’s monthly survey of business, academic and financial economists were asked to rate whether U.S. living standards were higher today or at various points in the past. Around 80% say those standards are higher today than during the 1990s or earlier.

The 2016 presidential campaign has exposed worries among many voters about a U.S. in decline. The sentiment played a particular role in boosting the candidacy of businessman Donald Trump, with a campaign slogan pledging to “Make America Great Again.”

While many economists view the U.S. as not fully recovered from the recession that began in 2007 or the previous recession in 2001, that still leaves a 40-year disconnect compared to voters who see the U.S. in a half-century of decline.

The Pew Research Center recently polled voters on the question “Compared with 50 years ago, life for people like you in America is better or worse?” A plurality of 46% said things were worse now. Only 34% said life today is better than in the 1960s.

A Morning Consult poll asked voters whether the 1960s or 1980s were better than today. In that survey, 31% said the ‘60s were better and 37% said the 1980s were better.

“Between technology and health advances, today is much better than in 1960,” said Amy Crews Cutts, chief economist at Equifax.

By many of the measures economists are inclined to look at, it is not a close call. In 1960, the life expectancy of the average American was a full decade shorter than it is today, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The median personal income, after adjusting for inflation, is 55% higher today than in 1960, according to the Census Bureau. These measures of overall well-being continued to rise throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Why do so many voters put such little stock in the past 50 years? Economists point to a few culprits.

First, wages or available jobs have deteriorated for some demographic groups, particularly men without a high-school diploma and men who worked in manufacturing (two groups with some overlap).

Second, we have just lived through the “first decade where the average worker lost ground,” said Joel Naroff, chief economist of Naroff Economic Advisers. Overall incomes declined during the two most recent recessions, but not enough to set people back to a 1960s standard of living.

About 53% of respondents in the Journal’s survey said the U.S. today is “about the same” or “worse” than it was in 2000. About 63% said the same about 2007. The survey of 70 economists was conducted from May 6 to May 10, though not every economist answered every question.

Third, “Current material standards are much higher than in 1990, but the degree of uncertainty is far higher too,” said Lou Crandall, chief economist of Wrightson ICAP. The U.S. may be healthier and wealthier than in the past, but these have been more uncertain times in the labor market than many workers had anticipated.

Fourth, many voters could be thinking primarily about broader social changes that have occurred in the past 50 years, rather than directly considering whether they would want a 1960s standard of living today.

Finally, the election process could be undermining confidence in the economy. Switching presidents is always an uncertain proposition, but three-quarters of the survey’s respondents view this year’s election as especially uncertain. A sizable group of economists—about 42%—think the uncertainty is so high that the economy is already suffering damage.

“Businesses may defer investment and hiring decisions until they have a better sense of the direction of the next administration,” said Michael Carey, the chief economist for North America at Credit Agricole.

Many economic decisions of businesses and consumers depend, in part, on confidence. This campaign season has been a long exercise in talking down that confidence.

The panel of economists is not very optimistic about the year ahead. On average, they see a 20% chance that the U.S. will fall into recession in the next year—about double the risk of last year. They believe the pace of job growth is likely to slow, and worry about the risk of economic fallout in the U.S. if China’s economy continues to deteriorate.

The outlook is far from rosy, economists say, but going back to a 1960s standard of living wouldn’t help.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3221820&forum_id=2#30464476)

DING DING DING

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3221820&forum_id=2#30464481)

By what standard? Crime was worse then. Food security and access to healthcare was worse. Familial stability (less divorce; families closer together) was probably better. There's plenty to nitpick with the conclusions in the article but I do think people have rose-colored glasses when they reminisce about a "whiter" past.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3221820&forum_id=2#36453277)

Life expectancy for whites has actually been dropping as well. The only cohort in a first world country to ever experience this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3221820&forum_id=2#36453433)

It works in Twitter, though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3221820&forum_id=2#36453380)