The era of a strong economy was brought on by factors from WW2 and the weakening was brought on by 2-3x growth in world population.

More people fitting into the same cities means less space and more demand.

More people means more workers for jobs that pay even less because the competition is fiercer than ever.

More people means more percentage of resources going to surviving and less on luxuries.

We can give a small % of global population luxury. US QOL isn’t sustainable on a global scale with the resources available in the world.

I hope no one takes this the wrong way, because I fully support equality for all races and sexes, but there’s also double the workforce now. Women entering the workforce and eventually gaining near, or sometimes even superior footing, means that there are twice as many people competing for the same jobs. A larger candidate pool means companies can pay less and it’s harder to get a job for the individual.

I think about this a lot when people complain about how we can no longer raise a family on a single income.

An interesting thought experiment is to think about how things may be different today if the pill was never invented, as I assume that is likely the lead domino which prompted a lot of cultural change. Would women have entered the workforce? Would wages have stagnated due to so many more people working? Would we be worried about child care costs? Would we be talking about the risks associated with population decline as people are waiting longer and longer to have kids… or simply not having them? Lots of stuff. And it can go both ways… Would the US have been able to keep up with the global economy or would some other country take over? Jobs which may have shifted from male to female, are they now being done better and is that a bet positive? Are women happier today than they were before the pill? Is society better or worse?

I’m not drawing any conclusions, as it’s impossible to know, but an interesting thing to noodle on.