And the article ignores the dramatic cultural shift that occurred when millions of women went to work to replace the men who were deployed overseas.I believe your article--which you were so kind as to post twice, incorrect.
After reading it, I was struck by how often the writer...was moved to ignore the simple facts and bloviate on about how more people employed...bringing more money into the economy--was not progress at all.
This guy has an obvious axe to grind..I don't buy his assumptions or conclusions. BTW, neither do most reputable economists and historians.
From the Link:
True, unemployment did decline at the start of World War II. But that was a statistical residue of sending millions of young American men to fight and die in the war. There are better ways to reduce unemployment, as was shown after the war.
Statistics showed a rise in GDP during the war. But that just reflects misdefined statistical analysis. The military guns, tanks, ships, and planes produced and counted as showing rising GDP did not reflect improved standards of living for working people, or anyone else.
A paycheck is a paycheck.....and more people got one during lend-lease and WWII. More women got one. More Blacks got one.