<p>Actually no. The base unemployment rate of the 1950s and 1960s was 3% while its 5% now and has usually been higher. That means more people are on welfare and drugs than ever before. The fact I brought up tupac is because he did and it shows you how well the average person knows about the 1950s.</p>
<p>And Justin beiber, twilight, and Rebecca black ARE representative of your culture and can sum up what 50%+ of what you kids are interested in. If combined with techno and techno rap it becomes 90%</p>
<p>Kev, look at some actual numbers: [File:US</a> Unemployment 1890-2009.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif]File:US”>File:US Unemployment 1890-2009.gif - Wikipedia)</p>
![http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif]File:US](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif%5DFile:US){kind=link}
<p>You’ll see that, through the 1950’s and 1960’s, unemployment is, on average, slightly below 4.5 or 5 percent. Today, it seems like the US rate hovers around 5 percent, present economic crisis notwithstanding. Blaming “welfare and drugs” for current unemployment is an illogical, incorrect oversimplification of an unbeliably complex economy that teams of people with PhDs in economics cannot understand or predict entirely. </p>
<p>Are you trying to argue that Rebecca Black is representative of “my” (?) culture? That’s ludicrous. You’re so detached from youth you don’t know with whom or what you’re arguing. Also, you can’t objectively argue that electronic and rap music are bad; that’s purely opinion. </p>
<p>Do you speak English fluently? You might want to go back and reexamine that last sentence in your first post from the tenth, if so. Man, I cannot believe I’m feeding this ■■■■■.</p>
<p>The very fabric of our employment system is breaking. So many jobs have been lost from your beloved technology that there is NO hope technology will replace them. Go to any former: Milkman,( soon to be )mailman, receptionist, file sorter, (soon to be) reporters, (soon to be) paperboys, (soon to be) cash register operators, toll booth operators in some areas, typing pool secretaries, typewriter repairmen, elevator operators, bowling alley workers/drive in workers/malt shop workers/arcade workers (because who needs places where people can gather and have fun when you have the socially castrating internet!), switchboard operators, (soon to be) people in the radio industry, copy boys (errand boys, people who are in competitive internships don’t count), (soon to be) soldiers, and oh so many more jobs and ask them about this subject. These jobs combined equal millions of jobs that will never be replaced by mechanics who work on the machines that replaced them (one mechanic can fix hundreds of machines thus meaning only one in hundreds of these jobs are replaced) and I’m not even talking about the HIGH SKILL jobs that will never return from good old globalization’s offshoring. The unemployment is grossly understating the damage done to our once great economy and you most likely will be flipping burgers with that college degree of yours or working at Starbucks. Yes, there are jobs to be had but unless you were alive in the 1970s (and thus have the age and experience to get a high paying job) or know how to program one of those websites than most likely your best bet will be a McJob. And before you say you can acquire one later remember, they won’t count McDonalds as real experience.</p>
<p>And yes, Rebecca Black and Justin Beiber are part of your (and sadly mine since I am a part of it) generation and so they are representative of your culture. You’re from an era of selling out and lack of talent. Face it.</p>
<p>Kid I must admit, for being part of that Beaver generation, you’re almost smart enough to be a part of mine.</p>
<p>Civilization plateaued with the Greeks.</p>
<p>You people arguing that “civilization’s” peak was in the 1960’s are so arrogant to limit civilization to the United States. To pretend that the advances (political, scientific, and humanitarian) that have occurred since your “Golden Age” in the Third World (not to mention the Second and First) don’t matter or are inconsequential is unbelievably ignorant and conceited. I say, this is probably why so much of the world hates the United States: We’re a country rife with ignorance, political stagnation, lack of will, and misplaced nostalgia that prevents real progress, social or otherwise, from being made.</p>
<p>CoolKev1, everything you’ve said is either hyperbolic or unsubstantiated rubbish. The fact that you can say that the elimination of the soldier as an occupation is a bad thing (?!?!?) is an insight into your thought process. Oh, well. Maybe, if we’re lucky, we can return someday to the slaughter and strife that massive armies brought to the world, the days when tens of thousands of deaths was a walk in the park. Compare that to the present, when a dozen unnecessary military deaths is a rightful outrage, and you have your dichotomy in a nutshell: The “good old” days of racism, unmade social progress, and American political imperialism versus the present, in which prejudice in the US has been marginalized and attacked and despotism abroad has been under attack for years.</p>
<p>You know, CoolKev1, your rant about disappearing jobs is invalid. Throughout history, different sorts of jobs have come and gone. I don’t know that there were many coopers or blacksmiths during the fifties and sixties, and yet somehow humanity has gotten by. Has “my beloved” (I suppose you’re typing this on a typewriter, are you?) technology changed the way that employment works in the US and in the entire world? Yeah. Also, the sky is blue and water’s wet. If there is no incentive to go to college, then people will stop going to college; there’s a higher education bubble as it is, and it’s just waiting to pop. Before you criticize this generation for being obsessed with college (which it is; look at the URL of the forum), remember that the seeds for this were sowed by the Baby Boomers’ GI Bill. The hop you make from talking about the diminishing value of college degrees to the eternal damnation of college graduates to McDonald’s is…questionable, at best. Actually, judging by the quality of your writing, you’re pretty likely to find yourself covered in grease as part of your job.</p>
<p>This “ARGH THE BEATLES WERE BETTER THAN JUSTIN ‘BEIBER’” argument isn’t going anywhere. Maybe Bieber (notice: I before E) writes more simplistically than the Monkees, maybe not. I can guarantee you, though, that neither the Beatles nor the Monkees wrote music as complex (I’ll use complex because “good” is entirely subjective) as Mussorgsky or Holst, and while that doesn’t dispel the “Music is constantly declining” idea, it certainly sets your “peak of music” argument on fire. </p>
<p>Keep in mind, future readers: Before you side with the OP, remember that he called for the assassination of a sitting president earlier in the thread, and CoolKev1 expressed a desire to roll back all the life-saving technology that is applied in war (and, while you, the potential reader, might feel as I do that war is an abomination, you must recognize that fewer lost lives is at the very least a measurable improvement). This thread is laughable in its narrow-mindedness and ignorance.</p>
<p>I couldn’t agree more with your first para, atleast. It IS extremely narrow minded and big headed to think that the US seems to constitute the whole world as far as ‘progress’ in any manner is concerned.</p>
<p>My argument remains that civilization has never come anywhere near its full potential. </p>
<p>In the 1950s and 60s, the Korean War killed almost 2 million people, and the Vietnam War, begininng in this period, killed over 3 million people. The Sino-Russian War and the Cuban Missile Crisis almost ended human civilization where it stood. And wars continue to be fought today and genocides committed because of greed or petty differences in religion and culture.</p>
<p>War, injustice, and cruelty are the antithesis to the “peak of civilization.” For all the advancements in science, technology, and culture, the human ability to be anything but humane continues to send us two steps backwards. The generation of the 1950s-60s was the first generation with the ability to destroy the entire world, and they nearly did. That is not the peak of civilization by a long shot.</p>
<p>War, injustice, and cruelty are here and more common than ever. All that’s happened is the world has gotten more complicated, jobs have become scarcer, people are more pessimistic, and we are closer to ruin than we’ve ever been before. As an example: You shouldn’t have a 60 page pamphlet just to watch TV. Every day I have to figure out how to navigate that garbage, convoluted, over-complex digital TV and get it to work right when someone presses a wrong button. Never had that problem with analog.</p>
<p>We’ve been over this war thing before, and, no, injustice and cruelty are not more common than ever. That’s just wrong. Wrong. Stop it.</p>
<p>Additionally, condemning an era because you don’t understand its technology is nearly as stubborn and ignorant as refusing to learn how to use a television because it’s “too complex.”</p>
<p>Really now… Then why did once beautiful middle class suburbs become desolate ghettos? I bet I could go to a neighborhood that was once considered middle class in the 1950s/early 1960s and have a high risk of being shot I.E. South Central, Detroit, Oakland, Hayward, Youngstown. Seems a lot like injustice and cruelty for being shot in a drive by for no reason, doesn’t seem just that a beautiful peaceful neighborhood became a war zone… Lets also not forget war torn Africa, the millions of deaths in Afghanistan/Iraq, and the cruel treatment China/NK gives to its civilians. Come on, I dare you to tell me the world is better because you have a new gadget that can read your mail when you’re walking to the bathroom.</p>
<p>Those who believe technology creates jobs: yes our unemployment rate may read 8%, but in reality if you look at it in the way it was measured 50 years ago it would be 25%.</p>
<p>@CoolKev1
Yeah, you made that up. It’s simply not true. Rephrase it in a grammatically correct way and cite your source.</p>
<p>You keep changing your arguments, 1964Impala. Earlier, you said that technology was a problem (!) with the modern world, and now you’re arguing that the most trivial of technology is merely unhelpful, or, as I put it, trivial. You’re breaking ground in armchair philosophy, sir! You dare me to tell you that advances in technology are a good thing? Alright, then. Compare medical technology of the 1960’s with that available today. Advantage: Today. Now, compare communications and computational technology available in the 1960’s with that available today. Bear in mind that this technology is what runs the world, vastly improving efficiency and the capability of people to interact, and you’ll realize that the advantage here, too, goes to the modern day. Now that we’ve demonstrated that, in fact, there is technology that has been extremely beneficial to the modern world, you must prove that there is technology that has hurt the world to the same degree, or else the preponderance of evidence is in my favor.</p>
<p>Your argument about the decline of some neighborhoods is rooted in fact, but ultimately as silly as the rest of your posts. Certain cities and neighborhoods decline; this is a fact. What is also a fact is that while these areas are in decline, others are on a decidedly upward trend. You can’t just say that, because someone, somewhere, had their property value go down, 2012 is OMG GUIZE THE WORST THING EVER. </p>
<p>Also, between the wars in Vietnam and Korea, around 11 million people were killed, and many, many more were wounded. At most, between the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, 1.2 million people have been killed. While this is obviously still a tragedy (and I’m solidly against both wars, but that’s a different thread for a different day), it hardly demonstrates that the present day is worse than your “Golden Age”. So, kindly, before you go making random things up out of the blue, check your facts. I’m sick of reading unsubstantiated, grammatically challenged ramblings about how terrible today is.</p>
<p>I think your belief that today is a “golden age” is rooted in hopeless optimism. You do realize that we are closer to a global financial collapse and closer to the ending of civilization than we’ve ever been since the great depression. I think you underestimate the troubles brewing in not only our economic systems, but our social structure as well. This politically correct lasso around is squeezing together our rage and aggression and sooner rather than later this “futuristic new age” will come crashing down upon you and the other hopeless optimists. (Oh and Peak Oil…) Your little iphone will not save you from the bullets that will most likely be used to stop the riots which will happen when peak oil renders the transportation of food, water, and basic necessities impossible.</p>
<p>Also we’ve failed to cure things such as Cancer in those 50 years since the golden age and other malignant disorders like Lyme disease so I’d say that the ultimate purpose of medical research has failed to be met. And Please, the only reason some areas have had an upward trend is because Yuppies have decided these areas are “hip and popping fresh” and that they “match their prius and their hybrid SUV” (which by the way pollute more than a 1964 Impala with no catalytic converter or any smog equipment since the batteries they use are VERY toxic for the environment) and as a result raise the cost of living in these areas driving the lower income people away and forcing them to fend for themselves in the street. Sounds like such a fair system. I thought it was politically incorrect to treat the poor in such a way.</p>
<p>I notice you said nothing about the people killed in China, Cuba, and the NK because they disagree with the government.</p>
<p>PS: Nice job inflating statistics for Vietnam and Korean, I can mention everyone who died from 2000-2012 to even out your bloating. (bet you looked at one of those hip urban liberal blogs).</p>
<p>Also, a lot of that “communication technology” merely causes Obesity and depersonalizes relationship. I’ve met more people, and made more close friends hanging around my body shop waiting for my Impala than my friends have playing online video games.</p>
<p>I don’t think today is some kind of golden age. Don’t make things up. I think the modern day is in many (most, really) ways an improvement over the past, and in a few ways noticeably worse. Oh, the end of civilization is on its way The world is approaching its doom? Okay, Glenn Beck. Shall I give Goldline a call?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s silly, absolutely silly. At what point did the failure to accomplish a (likely impossible) goal become a complete lack of progress? Survival rates and lengths for those diagnosed with cancer have increased DRAMATICALLY since your supposed “Golden Age”. [This</a> report](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/22/increase-survival-rates-cancer-types]This”>Dramatic increase in survival rates for some cancer types, study shows | Cancer | The Guardian) shows that this is true. Further, there’s been a vaccine created for cervical cancer, and cancer detection has vastly improved in the past couple decades, let alone since the 1960’s. Lyme Disease is almost never permanently damaging with reasonably timely application of antibiotics. Need more convincing? Here’s a short list of medical technologies developed since the 1970’s:
[ul]
[<em>]CT scans
[</em>]Insulin pumps
[<em>]MRI scans
[</em>]The complete eradication of smallpox
[<em>]The invention of antiviral drugs
[</em>]A plethora of vaccines (hepatitis, cervical cancer, rotavirus, HPV, etc)
[<em>]Intravascular stents
[</em>]Complex organ transplants
[<em>]Gamow bag (used to treat altitude sickness, HAPE, and HACE)
[</em>]Polymerase chain reaction (used in duplication of genetic material for testing)
[<em>]Surgical robots
[</em>]Sequencing of the human genome
[li]Many, many others[/li][/ul]</p>
<p>I could spend all day talking about the proliferation of life-saving technology and drugs in the First, Second, and Third Worlds, but I’d be wasting my time, based on how much you seem to care about the people they save. Anyway, on to the next fallacy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is going nowhere. What are you trying to prove? That wealthy and upper-middle-class people build nice houses in new places? Hold on, guys, we’re dealing with a proper civil engineer over here. This has been true far longer than you’ve been alive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hold on, we’re talking about what, now? I’m not sure how this little tidbit found its way into this thread, but it’s out of place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, ho! I suppose it took decades of economic study to figure out that higher property values exclude poorer people, didn’t it? I wasn’t aware having money and using it to buy a nice house among other nice houses was an attack on the poor. “…[T]reat the poor in such a way”? You’ve lost me. I don’t know what you’re trying to argue anymore. Whether or not rich people are bad (spoiler: they’re not) has no impact on the quality of the 1960’s as opposed to the 2010’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, no, because that’s all been going on since the 1950’s. The latest of those regimes to come to power was Castro’s, in Cuba, and that was in 1959. All three of those countries have been oppressed since your “Golden Age”, and any repression of political beliefs has been constant since then. In reality, people in China and, to a lesser extent, Cuba have become more free in the decades following the 1960’s. So, thanks for bringing those three nations up; they really broaden my argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those statistics aren’t inflated; however, I did make the mistake of including “all casualties” for all of the conflicts, when I intended to include only deaths. Here are the actual totals, including those who remain missing.</p>
<p>Korea (Total military deaths, both sides): 945,478 (this is low, as I ignored several small NATO-allied nations’ casualties)
Korea (Total civilian deaths): About 2.5 million
Korea (Total): About 3,445,478</p>
<p>Vietnam (Total military deaths, both sides): 1,588,132 (again, low-balling)
Vietnam (Total Vietnamese civilian deaths, as estimated by Vietnamese government): 2,000,000, though some have estimated deaths as high as twice this
Vietnam (Total civilian deaths, other nations): Let’s just say 2 million. This is low, but includes those killed in Laos and Cambodia as a result of the conflict in Vietnam.</p>
<p>Total, both wars: 9,033,610 dead, though this is with the lower number estimated by the Vietnamese government.</p>
<p>Now, on to Iraq and Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Afghanistan (Total military deaths, both sides): 55,030
Afghanistan (Total civilian deaths): 34,000 (a high estimate)
Iraq (Total military deaths, both sides): 61,339 (again, a high estimate)
In the last count I gave, I used the ORB poll to determine the Iraqi civilian death count. It reported upwards of a million deaths, a number that has now been thoroughly discredited as absurdly inflated. The Iraqi Body Count Project reports a number in the neighborhood of 130,000.</p>
<p>Total, both wars: 280,369 dead.</p>
<p>War is sick. Each and every one of those deaths was unnecessary and should have never happened. However, what these figures show is that you, again, are wrong. These figures came mostly from officially reported death counts, and are therefore legitimate. Based on these figures, I believe I can emphatically state that your hypothesis, that wars are worse today than they were in your “Golden Age” (which now looks decidedly gilded), is preposterous.</p>
<p>I forgot to mention this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Communications technology is more than X-Box Live. I was talking about things like:</p>
<p>[ul]
[<em>]Skype, which lets people in disparate parts of the world communicate and share video, like that of uprisings in Syria and Egypt
[</em>]Facebook, which has allowed those in the uprisings to communicate
[<em>]Satellite technology, which has improved communications around the globe, as well as the accessibility of information in remote locales and developing nations
[</em>]The Internet, which has worked in similar ways
[li]Countless other technologies that you’re dismissing as accessories to video games.[/li][/ul]</p>
<p>Further, the cause of widespread obesity is the increased prevalence of sedentary lifestyles and, to a lesser extent, less-healthy foods. This is one of the problems that I mentioned exists with the modern world, which is far from perfect. A reminder: As I said, I’ve never argued that the modern day is perfect. To the contrary, I’ve merely said (again and again and again), that your “Golden Age” was anything but, and was in many ways worse than the world today.</p>
<p>Where do you think the “sedentary lifestyle” comes from
Genius? Perhaps all that extra time on the computer watching that new viral video that came out (ie that Jedi kid one)
I’d also like to bring forward this fellows case on “technology”
[On</a> the growth of technology (1961 vs. 2011) itsnobody](<a href=“Private Site”>Private Site)
And I’d like to give you a few 1950s vs now scenarios:
Scenario:
Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.
1961 – Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.
2011 – School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counsellors called in for traumatized students and teachers.</p>
<p>Scenario:
Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.
1961 – Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2011 – Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Scenario:
Jeffrey won’t be still in class, disrupts other students.
1961 – Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the Principal. Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2011 – Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.</p>
<p>Scenario:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.
1961 – Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2011 – Billy’s dad is arrested for child abuse.* Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang…* State psychologist tells Billy’s sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison.* Billy’s mom has affair with psychologist.</p>
<p>Scenario :
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1961 – Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.
2011 – Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.</p>
<p>Scenario:
Pedro fails high school English.
1961 – Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.
2011 – Pedro’s cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro’s English teacher.** English banned from core curriculum.* Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.</p>
<p>Scenario:
Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.
1961 – Ants die.
2011 – BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with* domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny’s Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.</p>
<p>Scenario:
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary.* Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1961 – In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2011 – Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison.* Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.</p>
<p>One of the reasons I brought up the whole hybrid case is to state how, despite our “green efforts” we fall short of where we were 50 years ago.</p>
<p>CoolKev1, you didn’t bring up the hybrid thing; 1964Impala did. Except, you did, as well, because you’re the same person. Thank goodness; I was concerned that there was more than one person who thought this way.</p>
<p>So, anyway, though I appreciated your transformation of “genius” into a proper noun (what? Just for ME? Oh, you shouldn’t have!), here’s the thing: the ability to rapidly disseminate video, text, images, or audio from, say, Libya’s revolution, doesn’t make people overweight. What has created the scourge of obesity in the US and around the world is a sedentary lifestyle that’s arisen from a combination of high-fat and low-nutrition foods, de-emphasis of exercise in the daily routine due largely to labor-saving technology, and people just being Forrest Gump-levels of stupid about how being healthy, y’know, works. Before you spring up from your typewriter and quote my confirmation of the evils of technology, let me finish. Technology is a fundamentally good thing. The same technology that contributes (far from single-handedly) to the obesity epidemic makes myriad good things possible. I’ve been through that list already, and though I doubt your reading comprehension skills, I’m sure you didn’t miss all of it. A certain distinction should be made, however, and that is that labor-saving technology (like those new-fangled tractors, cars, and forklifts, unheard of in the 1960’s!) is not the sole cause of obesity. To simplify the crisis to a dichotomy of “Technology and fat people or Stone Age and fit people!” is silly. Stop being silly. Oh, and stop talking about technology like it consists solely of YouTube and video games. It doesn’t, and to pretend like it does is silly.</p>
<p>On the topic of that blog post (on the Internet, no less!), I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue, here. The article argues that even though they have been disappointing (no flying cars? The future must have failed us, bro), perhaps, there have been marked improvements in technology since the 1960’s. You’re trying to argue that the 1960’s are better than today. These arguments are incongruous.</p>
<p>All these cute little “scenarios” would be a lot more interesting if they were actually, y’know, real. This would be the ideal place to cite your anecdotes, but, no, you made up the most outrageous scenario you could. Further, all of them address the same problem, intrusive government. I would be a lot more sympathetic to your argument if the United States’ government hadn’t been so damned active in the first half of the Cold War in setting up dictators and knocking down democracies all over the world and at one point nearly causing a nuclear holocaust. Still, though, let’s have a case-by case analysis of your stories, shall we?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse me, in the wake of the dozens of school shootings in the past 20 years, for thinking that students and administrators shouldn’t wander school campuses with loaded shotguns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right. ADD and ADHD are severely overdiagnosed. This is a fact. The solution to this problem isn’t beating the skin off of everyone who’s a little bit too perky in math class until they stop being so energetic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right! What problem can’t be solved with the proper application of force to a child’s flesh?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many schools have zero-tolerance policies toward drugs. This is a bad thing, and this is actually the most sane situation you’ve set up. However, if you’re trying to argue that schools should have “smoking docks”, you can stop, because nobody’s buying it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This one sounds more than unlikely. Really puts the “imp” in Impala, this guy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whew! Almost done. Again, I’m reasonably sure this has never happened. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure it takes more than a context-appropriate hug to be listed as a sexual predator for life. I’m just reading these for laughs at this point.</p>
<p>I notice you resort to criticizing my grammar and denying the existence of my scenarios. That’s proof you have no real point.</p>