Huh? "The Feudal Years", may not be precisely defined, but Britain was desperately poor then compared to modern countries, and for much of that time wasn't even particularly wealthy compared to contemporary countries, at least not to the point of standing out ahead of the other European nations. It became wealthier later on, esp. with the industrial revolution (which happened in England first so Britain became the wealthiest nation on the planet).
As for the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries they where very good for the average, or even the typical or median American (the later two avoiding the "Bill Gates walks in to the room and now the average person is a billionaire" issue), up until the 30s (at which point it might no longer be considered early 20th century).
Also "wealth" does not equal "wealth for just the few", it doesn't preclude it, but it doesn't imply it.
Wealth and income are what are important, jobs in the broad sense of the term are meaningless. Everyone can do some useless work and in theory get paid (presumably by the government) some pittance to do it, and than we have "full employment" even "zero unemployment", but that hardly means things are good. Jobs are a means to an end (or multiple ends) more than they are an end.
"Preserving jobs" means creating economic stagnation. Would you have 90% still working on the farm or ranch? Should we restore the jobs of elevator operators, manual telephone circuit connectors, and door to door ice deliverers? Of course not, eliminating the need for such jobs freed resources to create more wealth, to the benefit of Americans of all types and wealth levels, not just the already rich. |
