There was a lot fewer people back then, in most places the ratio of people to available housing was much lower. The network effects were also far weaker, expensive air travel and worse communications meant that people didn't move to big cities as often.
But that's the point - workers mostly didn't lose their jobs.
Some computer companies - DEC especially - made it a point of honour not to lay off or fire employees unless the circumstances were exceptional.
I don't think people "moved around the company a lot" either. Certainly not any more than they do today.
Mobility has gone down because only exceptional jobs pay relocation expenses, and the areas that offer the highest income also have the least affordable housing.
So there's less disposable income around than there was in the 50s-70s, and that makes people much warier of starting a family.
The proportion of people who work corporate jobs vs the assembly line has surely changed though. The latter work their hours, go home and forget about work until next morning.
The percentage of single-earner households was also higher back then. Having a wife who handled the domestic front lessened the load on the people working demanding corporate jobs. Nowadays it's common for both of the couple to have that type of job.
And like, with all due respect, there were also a lot of mentally undemanding desk jobs back then. People got hired into them with just high school degrees. There are no "paper-pushers" anymore because there is no paper.
Subsistence farmers have never been prolific producers of art or literature. That kind of proves my point.
Of course the economy was much smaller then, especially on a per capita basis, and modern capitalism hadn’t had time to create the safe, abundant, filled-with-medical-marvels lifestyle we enjoy today.
It's not that it wasn't significant at that time. It's just that in the long-term, it looks small compared to making the value of the labor of the entire population 100x more valuable.
Only some blue collar jobs, specially union jobs in select industries provided that opportunity. It’s also worth noting that it was lower material standard of living than people generally enjoy today in the US.
You’re referring to a slice of the whole pie globally, However the pie is much larger now. Every industrial nation other than the US was basically leveled in WWII so we had a huge slice from the jump.
More dangerous and less comfy jobs were paid much more and/or given extra benefits.
Apartments queues were much shorter in small purpose-built industrial towns in the middle of nowhere
Dangerous jobs in bumfucknowhere (far north etc) were paid $$$$$
One couldn't be a writer or artist without attending university. And spots at university were limited. State needs X writers or artists in 5 years so that's how many spots are available this year. On top of that, being jobless was a crime. So you couldn't just pursue artsy stuff and leech off society either.
Same for the rest of the labour market. Central planning wants to kickstart XYZ factory in 5 years? Suddenly related universities get spots in XYZ next fall. You want to do ABC instead? Tough luck. Either study XYZ or do some unskilled job for years till few spots in ABC become available.
They don't pay anything like jobs of the past used to. There used to be a large middle class that could afford things like housing, new vehicles, vacations, and hobbies on a regular basis. Service jobs generally don't provide that quality of life.
reply