> How were they supposed to predict things would change and agitate for something different without the hindsight you enjoy?

By comparing themselves to their counterparts in other countries. By 1955 there should have been alarm bells ringing as Europe re-industrialized. Same with 70s oil crisis but the best that US could do was to cripple Japan with Plaza Accords.

Americans even now have a mindset that nothing exists beyond their borders, one could assume it was worse back then.

> Exactly why do you think it is it unnatural?

Because only two industrialized countries were left standing after WW2 and those two countries enjoyed unnatural growth until others caught up - first the historical powers in Europe then Asia.

> By comparing themselves to their counterparts in other countries. ... Americans even now have a mindset that nothing exists beyond their borders, one could assume it was worse back then.

That's not realistic, except in hindsight. Most people everywhere pay more attention to their immediate environment and living their lives. Not speculating about what is the global economy is going to look like in 50 years, and how would those changes affect them personally.

You're talking about stuff only some PhD at RAND would be doing (or would have the ability to do) in the 1960s.

Without the democratic pressure of common people either 1) having a need or 2) seeing things get worse, no changes like you describe would happen.

> Because only two industrialized countries were left standing after WW2 and those two countries enjoyed unnatural growth until others caught up - first the historical powers in Europe then Asia.

What's natural?

And more importantly: how do you think things should be for families.