There was massive government involvement -- the wartime economy was not very Adam Smith, starting with the fact that it could draft its labor. This also set the tone that a CEO's salary & benefits might be like a general's. But also many sectors were tolerated monopolies, or close, for decades. People got promoted up the ranks, rather than having bidding wars.

There was high social cohesion, carefully curated for the purpose of winning big wars, and helped by almost zero immigration for 4-5 decades. There were only a few TV stations and they pushed a wholesome christian vision.

The stage of technology was such that big factories could use all the semi-skilled labor they could get, and churn out products which improved everyone's standard of living. It helped that energy was cheap. And transport was expensive, so there was little foreign competition in most goods. And that the pension promises they signed in good years were mostly far from coming due.

It's unlikely we're going to see circumstances like that again. We have to figure out how to make things work with the world we have today, not try to return to some bygone era that was actually really horrible in a lot of ways for a lot of people.

I just think it's worth trying to understand all the ways in which society and the world were different back then. In part so as not to be too easily seduced by anyone offering one of them in isolation as a solution.

> America has a social mobility problem. Children born in 1940 had a 90% chance of earning more than their parents. For children born in 1984, the odds were 50-50.

The 50-50 odds are exactly what I would expect from a nation in some sort of societial equilibrium.

https://www.marketplace.org/2009/10/06/how-gi-bill-changed-e...

If you think you're being clever, you really need to read up on the legacy of the GI Bill. Perhaps, you could start by reading the article I linked to.

If it's going to college that fuels social mobility, then more people going to college today than in 1940s and 50s should mean more social mobility today. Since allegedly the opposite is true, there must have been something else different between 1940s and 50s and now, that has nothing to do with GI Bill funding more people going to college.

If you think you're being clever

There's no need for snark.

you really need to read up on the legacy of the GI Bill. Perhaps, you could start by reading the article I linked to

If you have a point, please make it explicitly, instead of having me guess it.

Straight entrance numbers are not the best comparison.