> So while in the 50's, the advantages to being more high status seemed almost cosmetic
Is this the same Fifties with white and colored water fountains, and where women had to leave office jobs when they married?
Is this the same Fifties with white and colored water fountains, and where women had to leave office jobs when they married?
Higher wealth disparity, based on its impact on social stability, measured independently, is bad. Racism/sexism are bad. The impact of things must be measured separately, so our ideas regarding how to improve society are higher resolution and more accurate.
Trying to spark introspection about how all of these things are interrelated, but clearly only to some of us.
The point of the original post was the general lower severe economic disparity in the United States in the 50s vs today. Since the 1980s the Gini coefficient in the United States has raised rapidly across all racial groups. Just because things are better for all deprivileged groups doesn't mean the American people, as a whole, aren't getting screwed over more via the increase in income inequality.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-...
There is such a thing as missing the forest for the trees. Socioeconomic status is intersectional.
It doesn't. It's crucial to understand how the socioeconomic landscape was shaped in context. Policies and historical movements are relevant to the analysis. Social factors such as racism/sexism are considered in "socioeconomic" analysis.
> Is that what you believe
No, I don't follow your reasoning. From an analysis perspective, you claimed that society would benefit from ignoring racism/sexism (social factors) in evaluating "amenities" associated with socioeconomic status. I think this provides lower resolution into issues plaguing society, not higher resolution.
My single point is that status being cosmetic for Americans in the 1950s only makes any sense if you exclude many Americans from consideration.