Fiction. Being a “liberal” or “freethinker” had nothing to do with it. Being a Soviet/Communist spy had everything to do with it. See the Venona Project and subsequent documentation from Soviet archives after their defeat.
cobrat from a sociological/historic perspective it is fascinating how the Democrats went from the party of slavery, jim crow and creating the KKK ( originally to attack Republicans and later black people) to the party of “civil rights” and the base for a very large portion of black voters. and it all changed in the later 1/2 of the 20th century. things indeed do change rather quickly sometimes.
I was not alive during the 50s, 60s, or 70s, but it is my understanding that the economy was on fire during that period (especially in the 50s) primarily due to post-war pent-up demand for consumer products, and the fact that people saved up quite a bit of money during the war years. That post-war euphoria, combined with lots of money, combined with a strong US manufacturing sector, combined with lots of low hanging fruit in terms of innovation potential resulted in an explosive economy.
As far as taxes are concerned, data shows that despite the current tax structure being totally different than it was in those days, overall tax receipts are similar to where they were back then (~9-10% of GDP). Source: https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent
I think the important takeaway here is that wealthier Americans at that time generally paid a higher share of the tax total tax revenue than they do now. That’s probably a good thing from a business point of view as the upper-middle, middle, and lower classes had more disposable money to spend, and job security at that time (being generally better than it is now) meant people didn’t have to worry as much about saving for a rainy day (resulting in even more money available to spend).
Overall, I think the situation now vs then is completely different. Tax rates don’t tell the whole story obviously, but I do think it would probably be beneficial for all Americans (including wealthy Americans) if wealthier Americans did pay more taxes than they do now. The ultra wealthy would still have more money then they know what to do with, and the consumer class would grow larger.
Agreed, I would add wee bit to it - “No competent manager” would do what you say above because he would be in jail. And competent managers know how to avoid jail. 
The corporation does not own that money (profits); the shareholders do. A corporation, in itself, has NO money at all, which it owns. Please get that.
A company only has money which shareholders have loaned to it to further its existence. Therefore, the corporation cannot give any money away to people who literally have no stake/ownership in the money to being with.
Now, if the shareholders what to give their money away, then that is a different story, but the corporation cannot - it is illegal and against the corporate fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and the Board would be in jail.
On a broader point, employees are not hired because of the desire to improve their lives. They are hired to do a particular job. For that job they get paid the production value of that job, not because they are a nice person.
If a corporation pays more than the production value of the job, it collapses mathematically and goes out of business. So, it is not as simple or possible as “giving profits” to employees for no increased return in what they produce.
Pretty sure that in 1933 and 1941 many people in the world felt that the 20th century was broken and quite miserable too.
And many years before and after
@awcntdb Well said.
I cannot help but think that it was a different attitude in the golden years. How is it they got around all those valid reasons you point out? CEO compensation has gone thru the roof in relation to workers. I get that CEO pay is determined by a compensation board that looks to others and sets pay but this system is broken as it has contributed to the spiraling up of CEO pay. The problem is no such thing is for the workers.
As was stated, labor is generally the largest cost to a company and that company will strive to lower it at any means possible. Remember, Capitalists love slave labor. We are in a race to the bottom on a global scale.
I don’t know where this comes from. Do corporations pay taxes? If globalization brought on by the government increases their profits, no brainer the government use the tax to redistribute the profits somewhat. In fact, I would think the government must have had a discussion about displaced workers before signing NAFTA.
What you state makes sense only if you are economically comparing two different sets of demands curves, while applying the same market forces to each. However, the market forces are not the same for two different demand curves. CEO pay and non-executive employee pay are governed economically by different demand curves, and thus, pay scales literally cannot be compared in an apples-to-apples way.
Fundamentally, pay scales are determined by ability to fill a position, i.e., scarcity of available employees. This scarcity is exasperated by the specificity of skills required. The higher skills required multiplies changes to the pay scale because of the responsibility involved AND the greater inability to fill the position.
Bottom line - it is easy to replace a non-executive employee at any corporation because the skill level is limited and very focused. Therefore, the production value of the job given that employee is not that difficult in the scheme of things. There is, almost always, a surplus of such labor available and this drives the pay scale downwards or keeps it steady relative to inflation, as people compete for the jobs. Filling the spot if a person quits is most times rather easy and sometimes the job is not even filled, but eliminated, and the responsibility given to someone else or another team.
However, finding a CEO is beyond difficult for most companies. The CEO sets the entire agenda for the corporation and under his leadership, the corporation either flourishes or dies. And within the CEO skill set, there is further segmentation because of job type. Real simple - the candidates are few for whatever company is looking. I could easily think of at least 25 companies where there are only about 100 candidates in the entire country capable of running them - and all of them are already in a position. That is a very small pool and it requires a lot of money to get those people to leave what they are doing and to get on board with you.
It does exist; however, there are just too many workers who do the same things to make it worth paying anyone any more than they get now. Want to raise the pay of standard employees, then need to affect the demand curve by having way less of them - that simple.
You think way too highly of government. Not sure what the rest of your post even says though - taxes are not profits. And taxes go to the general treasury, not to employees.
Gosh, I thought the 70s were pretty bleak. Remember the long lines for gas in 1973? I remember my dad telling us we might not be able to drive to church - my parents were so religious that that was a big deal and I’ll never forget the conversation. And the bad economy towards the end of the decade? And the Iran hostages? And disco, ha? I don’t have fond memories of the 70s.
^^^And the Hamburger Helper and tuna casserole. My God, the tuna casserole. I saw some today in a buffet, and I nearly gagged-for real-when I saw it.
^^ Yep, I remember my dad showing me his mortgage payment - interest are was 17.25% - fixed rate. Explains why he decided to pay it off in 5 years. He did the math and said not worth having it. Car loans were similar and that is why he always paid cash for cars - nothing worse than a 15% interest rate on a devaluing asset. This is picnic in many ways compared to the 70s.
@awcntdb wow. another great post. I just don’t want to write that much to make such a well thought out post. hahaha.
I get what your saying but there are just too many examples of CEO’s running the company sideways or into the ground. They still get paid fantastical sums of money. So called turn-a-round experts have a very simple playbook to cut expenses and boost profits while enjoying the stream of sales and income before it begins to be effected by the cuts. The real challenge for the CEO is to convince the employees that they better accept a pay cut because if not they could simply be fired. Again, if the CEO can lower labor costs, then it is a win. Just not for the employees.
The USA was already on the road to being a superpower by the late 1800s but WWI and WWII blew the roof off the expansion. Most of the developed world destroyed itself in those wars. We were basically untouched here. That let us be the main supplier for the rebuilding.
I grew up in the 60s and 70s … and today is far better. There is no nuclear-armed, hostile nation that could wipe out out our entire country in 30 minutes (they still have nukes but aren’t hostile in military terms).
Your sentiments are understood, but flawed in its reasoning. Maybe an analogy would make it clearer.
You seem to have the perspective that corporations exist to specifically create jobs for employees. Actually, they do not. They exist to make a product at the lowest price possible in order to provide a healthy return to its shareholders, who gave the corporations the money upon which they exist.
A turnaround specialist IS NOT there to "turnaround the company’ in the way you imply, i.e., the preserve the company for employees - the specialist is there to take a fiscally failing company and to find way to get the investors money back, and if possible, to get a positive return upon it being dissolved.
Now, if the company can be saved for the long-term, great, but that is rarely ever the purpose. The purpose is to get the investors, who took the risk investing in the company, their money back. Nothing to do with the creation of jobs, employee pay, or making sure employees have a place to work.
Ordinary people do the same in their own lives all the time, but never seem to connect that corporations do the exact same calculus. Let’s say your house is not doing well in terms of an investment, and you decide to sell it before you lose too much. What do you do? You bring someone in (a real estate specialist) to inspect the house; to do an appraisal; to tell you what is is worth; and, to advise you what changes you need to make to improve its value - all in the effort to dispose of it one way or the other for you to get as much positive return as possible or to take the least loss possible. You may even get lucky and find a way to improve the house to the point where you get a lot more out of the house than thought, which may include knocking down walls etc.
And, do people pay the real estate specialist who navigates them through the advice and changes in order to unload the house? Of course, that specialist gets paid regardless if the homeowner gets a return or not. This is because the specialist cannot predict value; they can only help in trying to create the most value. In some cases, the help does not work, but they still get paid.
If people do the turnaround specialist approach with their own properties in order not to take a loss, then it should not be too far a stretch to understand that shareholders (the owners of the corporation property) do the exact same thing when they reach the decision it is time to get out of the investment.
(Quick definition: the real estate specialist I am talking about is not simply the real estate agent who sells house; they could be, but are not necessarily the same. I am talking about the specialist who comes in and creates a plan, gets construction done, and upgrades done in order to sell and maximize value of the house.)
What @awcntdb said might not be popular, but it is 100% true. I will repeat the most important point once again:
Once you get this important point, you will see that most of the decisions corporations make are rational given its objectives.
Of course, while each actor’s actions can be rational considering his/her/its own situation, that could still lead to an overall situation that is less desirable for all actors. Increasing concentration of wealth/capital and therefore power in the hands of fewer people, combined with the devaluation of most labor (which is most of what most people have in an economic sense), can produce a society and economy where most are dissatisfied and angry, leading to various social problems and/or political instability that is detrimental to all, including the wealthy few.
This is a straw man argument because less desirable for all actors does not mean it is not the best result possible. The goal is the best result possible for all actors and a less desirable outcome for all actors may be the best outcome one could get - been there, done that.
Additionally, the focus on all actors is irrelevant because all actors are not the inherently the same, and thus, all actors should not be given the same consideration when valuing worth to the corporation.
Fundamentally, relative the corporation, the employees began already in a less desirable position than the shareholders - no matter what, the corporation makes employees lives better for what ever time they worked there because a job for some time is better than no job during that time. So, the employees got his return upfront (a paycheck), as opposed to the shareholders who often take a loss for years before a profit is made.