That is actually remarkable given that women entered the workforce en-masse during that time. Rapidly increasing the work-force with the same basic needs being serviced and still having any per-worker productivity growth.
Couldn't also have to do with the phase out of Bretton-Woods and the recovery of Europe from WWII during that time?
And with all that social redistribution marginal-utility-wise productivity must be off the charts. $1 in additional purchased products for consumption sure provides a lot more utility to someone at the bottom than $1 in additional products does for a billionaire.
>That is actually remarkable given that women entered the workforce en-masse during that time.
The labour participation rate went from 60 percent in 1970 to 66 percent in 1992. At the same time, average hours worked per employed person declined from about 1900 hours a year in 1970 to 1790 hours a year in 1992:
So there was no relative growth in the size of the work force.
Socialism destroys the economy. Believe it or not, forcibly confiscating the earnings of highly productive people, to give without discrimination to less productive people, is poison to an economy. And that is all social welfarism amounts to:
Leftist authoritarianism that destroys incentives and breeds dependency.
But hey it's politically fashionable to defend welfare, because it makes it look like you stick up for the underdog, so that's what the majority will continue to do.
Any politician that promises more government "help", from the pocket of the faceless taxpayer, will have a major advantage in any election. That's why social welfare spending has increased so dramatically over the last 50 years.
"People not included in the participation rate include those who do not want to work or can't work. This includes people such as students, homemakers, incarcerated people and retirees."
The labor participation rate doesn't include homemakers.
You misunderstand. It groups those who do not work and are looking for a job, with those who work, as being part of the labour force, and thus "participating". Nonparticipants are anyone not looking for work, like homemakers, students, retirees, etc
The problem is most of the "redistribution" that actually happens in the US isn't from billionaires to peasants, it's from doctors and engineers to retail workers. Or from factory workers and truck drivers to themselves, but with a huge list of strings attached to what the money can be used for.
It's not a matter of $1. In that case obviously your example is clear but what if you taxed that billionaire so much that he decided, "why bother" and he stopped investing, building firms and simply decided to live a life of ease in Mexico? The net utility in that case with the job losses and movement of capital it entails would be negative.
Now take a look at the policies on the table. Bernie's medicare for all has a projected cost of 2.5 trillion dollars annually. If we taxed everyone who makes 1 million or more a year at 100% we would have about 1.5 trillion in receipts. It just isn't possible.
Couldn't also have to do with the phase out of Bretton-Woods and the recovery of Europe from WWII during that time?
And with all that social redistribution marginal-utility-wise productivity must be off the charts. $1 in additional purchased products for consumption sure provides a lot more utility to someone at the bottom than $1 in additional products does for a billionaire.