this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
850 points (99.1% liked)

/r/50501 Mirror

663 readers
978 users here now


Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts


founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
 

Originally Posted By u/FuturePowerful At 2025-03-27 10:18:54 AM | Source


you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] laserm@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The wealth was also built on the back of exploited Afro Americans. Remember that even Brown happened in the middle of the fifties.

[–] SendPrudes@lemm.ee 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yes but that was when manufacturing was 33% of the workforce.

Today it’s only 8%. Machinery and robots do the labor and generate extreme wealth in tech and other spaces.

So theoretically you would not REQUIRE the same degrees of exploitation to achieve a middle class similar to that time period.

The win of factory and laborers work is unionization. Tech means decentralized workforce and less likelihood to trust your peers and unionize which was one of the largest wins of the 50s. When you are rubbing elbows with your coworkers - and are geographically living through similar cost of living as your colleagues - you are more likely to strike or require the same or similar types of improvements at the same moments.

[–] isdwtcsnnd@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What people in the US are failing to understand is that there are still good manufacturing jobs in the US today. Pharmaceuticals, aerospace, biotech, etc. They’re just on the higher end and require some type of technical or bachelors degree. Although, with the current regime and how they want to run (or not run) education, makes it seem like they want to bring us back to a developing country status where labor standards are low and manufacturing jobs are “low skilled.”

[–] SendPrudes@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago

Yeah totally agree - which should make workers movements that prioritize wins for all American workers the goal. Child care / education systems that work / health care coverage that works - helps the 8% rugged manufacturing as well as like 50% of the active work force. Vs. bringing back high labor work / low skill - which if we pull it off would mean I what? 2-4% expansion of those industries? So…. 12% of the workforce would be prioritized? (as they expand those sectors).

Internal manufacturing to secure specific interests makes sense. (Medical supplies like during COVID or reduction of reliance from certain super powers sure.

But the current admin is at odds with financing sectors or even stimulating or supporting sectors with policy (it’s actively cutting and damaging policy in them) while also slamming tariffs across the very same sectors.

So it makes no sense. But that’s what I figured going into all this. We are reducing class mobility, while reducing health and safety, with every policy and cut. While increasing the debt simultaneously. It’s wild.