Definitive guide to the goold old days

[ChicosBailBonds]

#1 Everybody always things "stuff" was better "before". Cars, music, food, people, girls, MU's campus, bars, civility, smoking, etc.

#2 Sometimes people are right, sometimes they are wrong about "stuff" and "before".

LOL.   Very true, some things are nostalgic and carry sentimental value to folks as well.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni...I owe you an apology.  The whole time I was saying the 50's and 60's and then I see you said in the last 40 years, which would be the 70's on.  You correct that since the 1970's and early 80's, things have gotten better in violent crime and property crimes....the 1950's & 1960's still much better, but I needed to read your post more carefully (especially in light of others here not reading mine very carefully). 

In the last 40 years, things are better.  If anything, that shows the source point to be so crucial.  For my parents, grandparents, etc....things are much worse based on their benchmark.  For those that think things are better now, if you were around in the 1970's then you would be right because things were so bad in the 1970's. 

Benchmark is important.  Sorry for not taking the time to read your "last 40 years" comment better than I did.

[swoopem]

What are you talking about the 70s were awesome. The Grateful Dead were on fire and MU hoops was winning, doesn't get much better than that.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

There's that Andy Bernard from The Office finale quote, "I wish there was a way to know you're in the good old days before you've actually left them."

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Remember the Song "These are the Good Old Days!"

Sometimes they are

[Coleman]

No, don't watch Leave it to Beaver.

In one part of your paragraph you say violent crime is lower than in the 1950's, then you say last 40 years, but you post homicide rates, which are not in totality what is used for violent crime.  You are conveniently parsing one part of violent crime (murder) to suggest violent crime is down.  It's not down since the 1950's and 1960's, far from it.

My data is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI and they don't claim what you claim....the official US gov't holders of crime statistics.  

The violent crime rate in 1960 was 160.9 (per 100,000 citizens.  In 2012 it was 386.3.  I fail to see how that is LOWER.  

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=daaSearch/Crime/State/StateCrime.cfm

In fact, the last time it was below 200 was 1964...it hasn't sniffed even below 375 since 1970.

That's just violent crime, which is defined by Murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault by the FBI.   So if you want to define homicide as violent crime as if that is the only definition, you would be wrong and I suggest you use what the FBI uses.

But for giggles, let's just look at just the murder rate in the 1950's....2011 it is 4.7 per 100,000.  In 1950, it was 4.6.  In 1951, it was 4.4, 1952 it was 4.6, 1953 it was 4.5, 1954 it was 4.2, 1955 it was 4.1, 1956 it was 4.1, 1957 it was 4.0

Now let's look at property crime rates, non violent crime.

1960...1,726.3 per 100,000
2011...2,908.7 per 100,000

Again, not safer. 1950's, even better numbers than 1960's.

Sorry, you're just flat wrong on this one.  The data is there.  Have at it, but you're just flat wrong....you are one of the best posters here Pakuni, but on this one you don't have the data to back it up....humorous  Leave it to Beaver comment or not.  The data is the data.

I don't appreciate the folks here crapping on me for "not living in that era", but then ignoring those that did and who said it was better and the data proves it 100%.

Something you fail to take into account is domestic violence, which largely wasn't even considered a crime in the 1950s, and at the very least was generally unreported (pretty telling of the culture of the times, if you ask me). Things like forcible rape were surely largely unreported as well due to the power of women in society.

Chico, the bottom line is you are simplifying things way too much. You are failing to even recognize the migration patterns that took place in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1950s, African Americans were still largely in the south, forced to work in traditional jobs like sharecropping, service jobs, and other low-wage positions that kept them largely out of contact with urban whites. This of course all changed with the great migration, but even then, cities were very segregated. Surely you aren't suggesting we return to those times?

EDIT: Hope people don't read this as me stating that African Americans moving into cities were somehow solely responsible for a rise in crime. My point is that ethnic groups in general were largely segregated (even white ethnic groups were still largely in the neighborhood of their country of origin). The move to a pluralistic society is going to have bumps in the road, but that doesn't mean the "good old days" were better.

It's also pretty laughable that you want to remove racism from discussions of the 1950s since race and racism permeated those times. It's like trying to remove indulgences from the Protestant Reformation.

[Pakuni]

Pakuni...I owe you an apology. 

No worries.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Something you fail to take into account is domestic violence, which largely wasn't even considered a crime in the 1950s, and at the very least was generally unreported (pretty telling of the culture of the times, if you ask me).

Chico, the bottom line is you are simplifying things way too much. You are failing to even recognize the migration patterns that took place in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1950s, African Americans were still largely in the south, worked in traditional jobs like sharecropping that kept them largely out of contact with urban whites. This of course all changed with the great migration, but even then, cities were very segregated. Surely you aren't suggesting we return to those times?

EDIT: Hope people don't read this as me stating that African Americans moving into cities were somehow solely responsible for a rise in crime. My point is that ethnic groups in general were largely segregated (even white ethnic groups were still largely in the neighborhood of their country of origin). The move to a pluralistic society is going to have bumps in the road, but that doesn't mean the "good old days" were better.

The other thing to consider is that it was quite bad to be (insert nationality) in (insert decade) in America.

You can fill in the blanks. Native American, Irish, Italian, Japanese, African, Polish, etc. 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, etc.

So, while it was probably great to be a WASP in 1955 or 1965, it probably wasn't as much fun being a Native American family.

The "good old days" is a matter of perspective.

[keefe]

In shorts and black socks, while smoking a pipe.  

The evolution of Pipe Smoking in the United States

[ChicosBailBonds]

What are you talking about the 70s were awesome. The Grateful Dead were on fire and MU hoops was winning, doesn't get much better than that.

I lived a good chunk of the 1970's in Central American and South America.  When we got back, it was malaise, gas lines, terrible unemployment and inflation, hostages, Vietnam, Watergate, etc. Not a great decade.  But MU was good. 

[Lennys Tap]

I lived a good chunk of the 1970's in Central American and South America.  When we got back, it was malaise, gas lines, terrible unemployment and inflation, hostages, Vietnam, Watergate, etc. Not a great decade.  But MU was good. 

How old are you? Are these really your memories or just things you read or heard about? I graduated in 1970, so I was a young man during that decade. All the things you mention happened at some point for some part of the 70s but being young then was not the horrible experience you describe. In fact, my (real life) recollections of that time are pretty much all good.

[GGGG]

Not to mention that if he spent a "good chunk" of the 1970s in South America, and when he got back he lists stuff that happened in the early part of that decade, it leads me to believe he has a way over-active imagination.

I mean, he is two or three years younger than me, and of the stuff that he listed, gas lines and hostages are really the only thing that I remember affecting my life.

[Lennys Tap]

Not to mention that if he spent a "good chunk" of the 1970s in South America, and when he got back he lists stuff that happened in the early part of that decade, it leads me to believe he has a way over-active imagination.

I mean, he is two or three years younger than me, and of the stuff that he listed, gas lines and hostages are really the only thing that I remember affecting my life.

Doesn't he blog under Warrior '92 or something like that? If that's the case he spent 20-30% of the decade in diapers and his "memories" of Watergate, inflation, gas lines and high unemployment aren't really his own.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I turned 11 in 1980 and while the hostage crisis clearly stands out my recollection of the 70s is more little league baseball, summer vacations "On Golden Pond" in New Hampshire, very long drives to visit in cousins in central Maine and spending a lot of time in ice rinks in Southern New England watching my brother play hockey.

[swoopem]

Wow that one chick in the gas mask has a blunt going into the bong, very impressive.

[Jay Bee]

I turned 11 in 1980 and while the hostage crisis clearly stands out my recollection of the 70s is more little league baseball, summer vacations "On Golden Pond" in New Hampshire, very long drives to visit in cousins in central Maine and spending a lot of time in ice rinks in Southern New England watching my brother play hockey.

Perhaps you didn't mature as quickly as young Chicos?

I'll tell you all what... advancements in technology open up so many additional opportunities for people - and is one of many ways for "poor" people to improve their economic standing, if desired. Not enough have realized it yet and they probably never will.

The point of no return has probably long passed. The divide is such that (too) big government is here to stay. That's why living on an isolated compound is the life for me.

Also, no matter how long and baggy shorts get, they are an improvement over the sickening basketball shorts of the not-so-distant days of yesteryear.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Perhaps you didn't mature as quickly as young Chicos?

I'll tell you all what... advancements in technology open up so many additional opportunities for people - and is one of many ways for "poor" people to improve their economic standing, if desired. Not enough have realized it yet and they probably never will.

The point of no return has probably long passed. The divide is such that (too) big government is here to stay. That's why living on an isolated compound is the life for me.

Also, no matter how long and baggy shorts get, they are an improvement over the sickening basketball shorts of the not-so-distant days of yesteryear.

I'm not a history major, so I'm sure somebody can help me on this, but didn't "big government" start with FDR and the "new deal"?

Did people with private sector jobs resent the guys who worked for the CCC back then?

Don't get me wrong, I actually would like a smaller federal government and give the states back some power... but I'm not sure that Big Fed is something that is "new". It has been around since the 40's, right? Dare I say, even in the golden age of the 50's.

[Pakuni]

Don't get me wrong, I actually would like a smaller federal government and give the states back some power... but I'm not sure that Big Fed is something that is "new". It has been around since the 40's, right? Dare I say, even in the golden age of the 50's.

The Golden Age of the 50s was made possible in part by federal programs, such as the GI Bill and the Federal Aid Highway Act.

[Coleman]

I'm not a history major, so I'm sure somebody can help me on this, but didn't "big government" start with FDR and the "new deal"?

Did people with private sector jobs resent the guys who worked for the CCC back then?

Don't get me wrong, I actually would like a smaller federal government and give the states back some power... but I'm not sure that Big Fed is something that is "new". It has been around since the 40's, right? Dare I say, even in the golden age of the 50's.

I was a history major (and M.A.), and you nailed it. "Big Government" has led to the most prosperous decades of our country's existence, largely due to the military-industrial complex and funding that led to major innovations in science and technology in the 1940s, 50s and 60s (the space race, or semiconductors anyone?), major upgrades in infrastructure (Eisenhower's Interstate system), massive improvements in medicine (courtesy of NIH) and increases in educational achievement (GI Bill).

Now, I'm not saying this is all a good thing. One can make solid arguments against the military-industrial complex. But there's no disputing the fact that America's best economic times were largely funded by the federal government, and the Defense Department in particular.  

To answer your question about private sector resentment towards the CCC, there was some, but FDR had massive amounts of political capital to make it happen. In general, the federal programs such as the CCC, TVA, etc. were  lauded by both sides of the aisle. Part of this was because there were so little private sector jobs available (1/3 of the country was unemployed), and people could see the value in these programs were providing in upgrading infrastructure. These programs resulted in public school buildings, parks and bridges that everyone in society used. And to be frank, you didn't have things like political talk radio or television that was as divisive and misinforming the public.

[Hards Alumni]

This is an epic thread.  Truly epic.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How old are you? Are these really your memories or just things you read or heard about? I graduated in 1970, so I was a young man during that decade. All the things you mention happened at some point for some part of the 70s but being young then was not the horrible experience you describe. In fact, my (real life) recollections of that time are pretty much all good.

I remember Peru vividly, partly because we survived an earthquake that killed massive amounts of people.  There was also an attempted coup that happened when we were there and as Americans we had a tank in our neighborhood to help protect westerners...have some great photos of that.  

Panama I was too young.  Like I said, everyone has their own benchmarks.  To me, the 1970's as a kid were fine, for my parents and what they came back to it was not great for many of the reasons I mentioned.  Whether it was Nixon, Carter, Vietnam, Watergate, gas lines, hostage crisis, horrific economy, etc.  

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not to mention that if he spent a "good chunk" of the 1970s in South America, and when he got back he lists stuff that happened in the early part of that decade, it leads me to believe he has a way over-active imagination.

I mean, he is two or three years younger than me, and of the stuff that he listed, gas lines and hostages are really the only thing that I remember affecting my life.

Vietnam ended in 1975.  Hostages in 1979.  Carter Malaise 1976-1980.  Gas lines happened in the early 70's and again in the late 70's (here in California).  I think maybe you need to recalculate your historical calendar. 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I was a history major (and M.A.), and you nailed it. "Big Government" has led to the most prosperous decades of our country's existence, largely due to the military-industrial complex and funding that led to major innovations in science and technology in the 1940s, 50s and 60s (the space race, or semiconductors anyone?), major upgrades in infrastructure (Eisenhower's Interstate system), massive improvements in medicine (courtesy of NIH) and increases in educational achievement (GI Bill).

Now, I'm not saying this is all a good thing. One can make solid arguments against the military-industrial complex. But there's no disputing the fact that America's best economic times were largely funded by the federal government, and the Defense Department in particular.  

To answer your question about private sector resentment towards the CCC, there was some, but FDR had massive amounts of political capital to make it happen. In general, the federal programs such as the CCC, TVA, etc. were  lauded by both sides of the aisle. Part of this was because there were so little private sector jobs available (1/3 of the country was unemployed), and people could see the value in these programs were providing in upgrading infrastructure. These programs resulted in public school buildings, parks and bridges that everyone in society used. And to be frank, you didn't have things like political talk radio or television that was as divisive and misinforming the public.

Outstanding. Thanks for the insight.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Doesn't he blog under Warrior '92 or something like that? If that's the case he spent 20-30% of the decade in diapers and his "memories" of Watergate, inflation, gas lines and high unemployment aren't really his own.

Never said they were "my own", but unless you grew up in a family that wasn't impacted by a bad economy, it does trickle down to the entire family....inflation, unemployment, etc.  Gas lines I remember vividly as here in California we had red flag days.  You got to go to the pump depending on the last digit on your license plate.  Considering the 4 family members I had in Vietnam in 1974 and 1975, I remember that vividly.

We are all in tune with things at different levels.  Your 20-30% in diapers is kind of funny.  First, I attended MU for five years with 3 majors and a minor...so it took five years to get out.  I was born in the 60's.   Because I attended school in Panama and Peru, the US system had me start a year later because those schools down there weren't accredited the same way.  Good try on the detective work, however.   

[GGGG]

Vietnam ended in 1975.  Hostages in 1979.  Carter Malaise 1976-1980.  Gas lines happened in the early 70's and again in the late 70's (here in California).  I think maybe you need to recalculate your historical calendar. 

I said you "lists stuff that happened in the earlier part of that decade."  I was thinking Watergate and Vietnam specifically.