Good News: US Startups Still Create Many Jobs (!!!)

I’ve always been a sceptic about the many claims that entrepreneurs, startup firms and venture capital are the “most” important drivers of improved quality of life in the US in my lifetime. I remain a sceptic. I believe that large firms deliver even more added value (driven by self-interest). I believe that the government and not-for-profit sectors play an equally important role. I believe that the government’s definition of the “rules of the game” and our culture’s influence on how people live their everyday lives are also very important. I’ll come back to the role of small firms in a separate blog post. I’ll try to tie together all of the strands of our amazing US labor market in another blog post.

But today, I want to tip my hat to the truly amazing role that startup firms play in driving the US economy and labor market.

https://www.bls.gov/bdm/us_age_naics_00_table1.txt

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) tracks new jobs added (gains) and jobs lost (losses) each year in detail by firm and establishment (branch), including links to the year the firm was first created. At the total country level, we see that job creation and destruction follows the business cycle. The Great Recession, subsequent expansion and pandemic periods are obvious above. In the Clinton years, job gains averaged a great 15 million per year. The Bush, Jr. years showed still solid 13-14 million annual new jobs added. The Obama recovery increased new jobs from 10 to 13 million per year and Trump maintained this positive level at the end of a very long period of economic growth.

Job losses generally followed the pattern of job growth. Job losses are even more volatile. They peaked in the recessions of 2002, 2009 and 2021.

In the last 3 decades, the US economy added 2 million new jobs each year during periods of expansion.

Many economists, journalists and politicians claim that startups account for ALL new job growth. This is an “amazing” claim that deserves deeper analysis, investigation and description. I’ll chase this separately. The claim is “largely true”.

Startup firms delivered 4-5 million new jobs each year in the 1990’s. This declined to 2.5 million jobs during the “oughts”. It increased back to 3 million new jobs per year in the teens. In non-recessionary periods during the nineties and “oughts”, existing firms destroyed 2 million jobs each year. In the teens, the job destruction rates were much lower, roughly 1 million jobs per year. The startup jobs minus existing firm jobs number was typically 2 million net new jobs per year in positive economic years.

The BLS separates job gains from job losses and categorizes them by the firm’s first year of existence. Job gains at existing firms were roughly flat at 10 million per year. Startup firm new jobs declined from 4.5M in the nineties to 2.5 M in the “oughts”, recovering to 3M per year afterwards. Startup job creation declined from 45% to 31% of existing firm job creation, a one-third reduction.

The BLS provides data on the subtotal of all firms founded before 1993. These “mature” firms display a similar pattern. Annual job gains fell a bit from 4.5M in the “oughts” to 3M in the teens. Annual job losses fell even faster, from 6M in the “oughts” to 3.5M in the teens. Net job losses averaged 1.5M annually in the “oughts”, but just 0.5M in the teens.

The number of new jobs created by startups declined by one-third during this period, from 4.5 to 3 million per year.

The BLS data allows us to track the gains, losses and net jobs added by first year of existence for firms. First year startup jobs declined from 4.5M to 2.5M. The cumulative jobs created measured 10 years after startup is more positive. Cumulative new jobs, measured 10 years after startup, increased from 3M to 3.5M then dropped back to 3M in 2001. The startup classes of 2009-12, despite the Great Recession, report 2.5M net jobs added each year, as measured after 10 years.

Job losses have fallen much faster than job gains in the last 20 years, measured by a full decade of performance. The ratio of job gains to job losses has improved markedly. This ratio averaged 83% in the nineties, indicating that 1/6 new jobs was destroyed within a decade. This ratio has greatly recovered to the mid-90’s. indicating that new startups, in total, essentially maintain their initial jobs count a decade later. Other data shows that one-third of startups don’t exist after 10 years. Hence, this means that the successful remaining one-third have roughly tripled their employment in their first decade.

Firms die much faster than employment. There are many studies that claim that one-half, three-quarters, fourth-fifths or nine-tenths of employees at startup firms are eliminated in 10-20-30 years. These are mostly exaggerations.

Ten years after their founding, startups still employ 80-90-95% of their initial year hires. Job losses fell during the teens. Job gains grew rapidly after the Great Recession.

For the 18-year period where we have ten years of data on startup firms, we have a clear pattern of net employment decline at the end of the decade, on average. The ten-year retained employment level at almost 80% of the initial level is far higher than the 50% claimed by some commentators.

The years since 2009 show a clear pattern of startups maintaining 90-95% of their initial employment levels after 10 years.

Summary

The US economy typically added 2M net new jobs each year during periods of economic expansion. Historically, startups added 4M jobs annually to offset the 2M jobs eliminated by existing firms. The job destruction rate of existing firms has slowed. The jobs retention rate of startups has improved. Net, net, the US economy still generates 3M+ new jobs each year which essentially still remain a decade later. One-third of the firms are gone, but the winners employ 3 times as many as when they started.

DeSantis’ Revolutionary Board Appointments

During 2021-22, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis appointed 29 people to various Florida state college and university boards.

They included 8 business leaders, 3 real estate professionals, 5 doctors, 3 lawyers, 2 accountants, 3 educators, a banker, a farmer, a government leader, a not-for-profit leader and a public relations leader.

The 11 news articles emphasized the nominees’ professional and civic achievements. None mentioned any strategic agenda or revolution desired by the governor.

22 men and 7 women.

Every nominee was a Florida resident, with most highlighting their long ties to the state. One was touted as a “fifth generation” Okeechobee resident. Most highlighted their Florida college degrees. A handful listed experience with national US firms or military experience. Many listed their other board of director experience. Only 3 had obvious political roles in their biographies. Dr. Madhu Sasidhar, president of Cleveland Clinic, Port St. Lucie is the only nominee with limited Florida ties.

A Revolution Only at New College of Florida

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ron-desantis-shakes-liberal-university-appoints-six-new-members-new-college-florida

The governor’s office, board nominees, journalists and advocates from both parties highlight that the 6 recent 2023 appointments to New College of Florida’s board are intended to “revolutionize” the small (700 student) college in Florida.

The governor is only revolutionizing one institution. This appears to be for national political purposes. Florida voters, visitors, alumni and politicians need to consider what their response would be if the governor, of his own accord, decided that it was time to “revolutionize” an institution that they attended or supported.

https://www.seminolestate.edu/newsroom/article/6361/governor-desantis-appoints-two-to-seminole-state-s-board-of-trustees

https://news.ufl.edu/2021/02/governor-appointed-bot-members/

https://irsc.edu/news/articles/governor_appoiints_six_to_the_irsc_district_board_of_trustees_121622.html

https://www.sjrstate.edu/press2021/21-buchanan-board.html

https://ssrnews.com/governor-desantis-appoints-three-to-the-university-of-west-florida-board-of-trustees/
https://www.gulfshorebusiness.com/gb_daily/desantis-appoints-four-to-fgcu-board-of-trustees/

https://floridant.com/dfl/governor-ron-desantis-appoints-lauran-monbarren-to-the-university-of-south-florida-board-of-trustees-floridant-10138371

New College of Florida, Founded 1956-64

https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/local/sarasota/2019/05/17/im-pei-left-his-mark-on-sarasotas-new-college/5142336007/

A Very “New” Educational Program for 1964

The “contract system” replaces distribution requirements. Students cooperate/negotiate with a faculty sponsor to define their “program of study”, term by term. Foreign language requirements gone. Western civilization gone. Religion gone. Humanities gone. Science gone. Each student will have a “major” in order to graduate, but the first 1-2 years can be very flexible. The student-faculty relation/interaction is essential. Starting with just 100 “high potential” 18-year-olds in 1964.

Narrative evaluations replace letter grades. Pass, fail or incomplete. Faculty try to clearly define “mastery” up front for each course, tutorial or project. Real feedback is provided in person and in writing regarding progress and “opportunities for improvement”. Faculty and students are fellow learners, but standards are high; basically elite graduate school level.

Many independent study projects are required for all students. Tutorials with significant “independent study” components are offered by faculty to cover subjects not frequently offered. Students are encouraged to ” define their program of study, including the creation of interdisciplinary majors.

A senior “honors thesis” is required for graduation. The ability to research and write at a high level is required. Students must pass an oral examination of their thesis and related “major” program of study. Quasi-graduate school for undergraduates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_College_of_Florida

http://www.sarasotahistoryalive.com/index.php?src=directory&srctype=detail&refno=1488&category=Articles&view=history&back=history

Economic Context Circa 1960

The US is leaving behind the pains of the 1930’s and 1940’s, enjoying more than a decade of solid economic growth. The business cycle is still very relevant. Rapid and extended post-war growth was unexpected once the economic demand of the war fell off. General economic growth into the future is now generally expected by 1964. The Keynesian economic model and policy prescriptions appear to be working. But true poverty continues in both urban and rural areas, especially among the elderly. Union-management relations remain tense, with strikes and labor actions frequently in the news.

Social Context

This is a conformist period where most individuals are willing to “go along to get along” in a world that is generally deemed positive by most. Religious attendance increases and conformist symbols on money “in God we trust” and the pledge of allegiance are adopted in the context of the Cold War. There is no 4th religious “Great Awakening”, but Pentecostal and fundamentalist churches see rapid growth. The Roman Catholic Church works through the second Vatican Conference to reform, update, reorganize and modernize the church. Mainstream Protestant churches are at the peak of their membership and influence. Liberal Paul Tillich is the representative theologian, emphasizing “matters of ultimate concern” and “the courage to be”. “Rock and Roll” music grows as an expression of teenage independence, but the “British Invasion” is yet to come. Racial justice is growing as a major topic, south and north. National and regional politicians take small steps forward on race as liberal judges take controversial larger steps ahead.

Global Context

The Cold War is topic A, B and C. The threat of nuclear war is omnipresent with students learning to “duck and cover” and citizens and communities building “bomb shelters”. Oppenheimer and other scientists who wish to “limit” further development are sidelined by the military and national leaders. Eisenhower warns about the power of the military-industrialist complex as he retires. The United Nations fills some global functions and Europe begins its long journey of integration. The US builds NATO into a strong alliance and supports the recovery of Germany, Japan and Europe through the Marshall Plan. Imperial/colonial holdings are released around the world within the context of the Cold War. Military technology continues to advance. The US is shocked by Soviet rocket, nuclear and satellite advances and invests in programs to recapture the lead. Displaced people and immigrants are resettled. Limited food production, oil availability and unlimited population growth are highlighted as a new Malthusian challenge. The pain is mostly felt in the “less developed” world, but policy elites highlight the risks. The Peace Corps is founded.

Political Context

Truman rode FDR’s goodwill to victory in 1948. Eisenhower accepted the New Deal and governed in a low-key, centrist manner for two terms. Populism and McCarthyism (nationalism) were largely eliminated in the 1950’s, but the existential threat of “Red” communism in Russia, China and its allies remained as a major political debate. Modern conservativism began with the academic scribblings of Russel Kirk (1953), the voice of William Buckley (1955) and the political moxie of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. However, John Kennedy squeaked out a narrow win over Richard Nixon in 1960 and provided that time with an idealistic, progressive, academically supported New Frontier and Camelot.

Intellectual Context

Some academics were walking away from the party line Marxism of China and the USSR by 1960 as the shortcomings of the economic, political and social systems were becoming apparent. They were very focused on the French existentialism of Sartre and Camus. In the shadow of “mutually assured destruction”, this was not surprising. The structuralism and post-modernist philosophies emerged at this time but did not quickly impact American cultural life. Universities were growing rapidly in this period, fueled by the GI Bill and the coming Baby Boom freshmen.

Public intellectuals were still a significant part of national debates about politics, technology, the economy and culture. The mainstream media provided print, radio and TV stages for public debate.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-happened-americas-public-intellectuals-180963668/

https://magazine.nd.edu/stories/where-have-all-the-thinkers-gone/

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/dilettantes-and-connoisseurs-the-public-intellectual-in-the-united-states/

The “popular” intellectual debate was largely focused on the eclipse of the individual versus the power of the group, whether that group was society, advertisers, corporations, neighbors, property developers or government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Elite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Organization_Man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_in_the_Gray_Flannel_Suit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lonely_Crowd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vance_Packard

Book

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catcher_in_the_Rye

The continued growth of science and technology as practical applied science and theory was also a major concern at this time. The split between scientists and the humanities scholars was emphasized. The changing view of “science” as a firm, fixed, objective body of work conducted by objective scientists was also called into question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/aug/19/thomas-kuhn-structure-scientific-revolutions

Birth of New College

The local (Sarasota and Florida) and national founders of the college were shaped by the context of the period. In hindsight, it is clear that they worried about growing “individuals” who could resist the power of the various social and organizational forces that demanded compliance. This was not a left- or right-wing political initiative. These were business, government and university elites doing their best in a patriotic American way to shape a new institution in a growing city, state and country.

60 years later, it’s not clear that these founding principles were “leaning left”. The focus was on the individual, not on the community, society, nation, state, religion, history or culture. The founders: well-minded business, religious and academic elites, emphasized this dimension of education because they believed that a simple, patriotic, conventional, practical, productive, well-defined, professional, feasible, traditional model of education was simply inadequate. It’s 1960. Two dozen successful people got together to form a new college in a resort town. They did a quick SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) of colleges and universities. They chose to innovate. Let’s “reach for the moon”. We want to attract the “best and the brightest”. (Ouch).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest

College freshmen today (1960) are unduly shaped by society’s expectations. Let’s “turn them loose”. Young people are much more mature today due to their exposure to the “mass media”. They are very well educated in many high schools. Faculty and administrators are also much more highly qualified to lead the education process. Let’s fully engage them in the learning process.

This was an idealistic birth process only possible in a positive period of confident national growth.

I don’t see any incompatibility between New College’s historical educational program and associated learning environment with Florida Governor DeSantis’s stated desire to improve the critical thinking skills of students, making them less influenced by “trendy” philosophies. I believe that New College already provides a solid base in those skills. The burden of proof is on new trustees or new programs of study to better deliver the desired results.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Really Didn’t Even Exist in 1972 for Most of America

The TV show Emergency! premiered in 1972, highlighting the paramedic services provided in Los Angeles for exciting situations. In the “rest of the world” (ROW), you dialed the operator or called the police. They dispatched an ambulance, typically from a funeral home or a police car or a hospital. The ambulance was staffed by largely untrained personnel or volunteers. They focused on transportation, which they were legally allowed to do, not medical care which they were not allowed to do. These unlicensed individuals typically did have basic first aid training, but no medical equipment, procedures, drugs or right to administer any immediate medical care. Their only job was to rush you to the nearest hospital.

Some Emergency Medical Services (EMS) progress was made in the 1950’s, 1960’s and early 1970’s.

1916 powered ambulances and signal boxes to summon care widely used in WWI.

1950 Air ambulance services available in Los Angeles and the Korean War.

1957 Portable defibrillator available. Mouth to mouth CPR techniques used.

1959 Bell Huey helicopters used in Vietnam Conflict.

1966 Medicare coverage for ambulance services. Federal ambulance design standards.

1967 AMA outlines first ambulance training. EMT’s trained to serve Black neighborhoods in Pittsburgh.

1969 911 calls first made in Alabama. Mobile coronary care units in New York City. Nationally recognized curriculum for EMT-ambulance.

1970 Legal rights for paramedics in California. Emergency cardiac training in Portland. First paramedic training program. Mobile intensive care training in LA. Miami and Seattle start paramedic programs.

1971 National standardized EMT exam taken by 1,500 students.

1972 Emergency room physician training begun at University of Cincinnati. Emergency! TV program begins. Citizen CPR training in Seattle. LifeFlight helicopters start in Baltimore, Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, Seattle and Denver. US Dept of HEW assumes control of EMS from DOT. US Dept of HEW provides funding for 5 EMS demonstration programs.

50 years ago, if you had a life-threatening emergency, you could call the operator, police, fire, hospital or local funeral home and get a ride to the nearest hospital. You could not expect to receive ANY immediate medical care.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramedics_in_the_United_States

https://time.com/6215072/first-paramedics-black-men-history/

https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/emsworld/article/219388/timeline-modern-american-ems

https://wvde.state.wv.us/abe/Public%20Service%20Personnel/HistoryofEMS.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-03/pittsburgh-the-birthplace-of-america-s-emt-services
https://www.emsmemorial.org/ems-history

Good News: More Leisure Time for Gaming

https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/video-games-united-states/

In current dollars, we have a $90 billion gaming industry in the US today.

Economists generally adopt a utilitarian view of value and conclude that if individuals choose to consume more of a good or service it is because they more highly value that good or service versus other options that they could consume. Economists try not to “second guess” consumption choices as being better or worse for people, even though they may have personal preferences that are quite different. “Games”, like “alcoholic beverages” have been second guessed by society and restricted at various times and places, but economists conclude that free individuals’ consumption choices are very relevant.

In my 1960’s and 1970’s childhood and young adulthood, video games were just emerging. We were an analog generation, lured into spending our dimes and quarters on pinball games. The pinball world peaked in 1979, with 200,000 new game devices sold that year to be played in bars, community centers, restaurants, student unions, pool halls, VFW’s and Lions’ Clubs. At less than $1,000 per machine, the total wholesale market was about $200M. The new electronic video arcade games grew very rapidly from 1975 to 1980. Estimated total coin operated pinball/video games sales were estimated to have grown from $300M in 1978 to almost $1B in 1979, an amazing 3-fold increase in one year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games#:~:text=According%20to%20trade%20publication%20Vending,to%20%242.8%20billion%20in%201980.

https://pastimepinball.com/a-brief-history-of-the-silver-ball#:~:text=Pinball%20in%20its%20modern%20form,and%20didn’t%20involve%20skill.

That $300M in 1978 was a tiny fraction of the current dollars $2.5T GDP that year. One out of every $8,250 of GDP (.012%) was devoted to pinball machines and elementary video games.

Pinball machines were clearly the predecessors of video games.

https://pastimepinball.com/a-brief-history-of-the-silver-ball#:~:text=Pinball%20in%20its%20modern%20form,and%20didn’t%20involve%20skill.

https://www.betson.com/history-of-pinball/

https://www.polygon.com/2014/4/4/5570814/how-pinball-and-boardwalk-amusements-gave-rise-to-video-games

Video games grew rapidly from 1978 to 1983 before encountering a crash in 1983 and then resuming their heroic climb in claiming the attention of youths, mostly males at first, but eventually everyone.

https://www.gamedesigning.org/gaming/history/

https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/history-of-video-games

https://www.si.edu/spotlight/the-father-of-the-video-game-the-ralph-baer-prototypes-and-electronic-games/video-game-history

https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/video-game2.htm

The most detailed history of the emergence of video gaming as the computer industry evolved.

The $90B consumed by the gaming industry in 2022 was a much larger fraction of the current dollar $20T US economy than in 1978. The population grew by 50% from 1978 to 2022. Real, inflation adjusted, GDP grew three times from 1978 to 2022. The $300M market in 1978 is worth almost $1.2B in 2022 dollars. Hence, the gaming market today consumes 75 times as much time and GDP today as it did in 1978 ($90B).

For economists, with neutral utilitarian values, this is an incredible increase in community well-being. Consumers now choose to consume 75 times as much gaming entertainment services as they did in 1978.

The global gaming entertainment market is more than twice as large as the US market, an estimated $214B.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/gaming-pandemic-lockdowns-pwc-growth/

https://www.insiderintelligence.com/insights/us-gaming-industry-ecosystem/

About one-half of Americans are considered active gamers.

https://www.ey.com/en_us/tmt/what-s-possible-for-the-gaming-industry-in-the-next-dimension

Consumers game on various platforms.

https://www.bain.com/insights/level-up-the-future-of-video-games-is-bright/

The global market for gaming entertainment is expected to double in the next 5-7 years.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/07/gaming-pandemic-lockdowns-pwc-growth/

https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-statistics/market-size/video-games-united-states/

https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/global-gaming-market

https://www.bain.com/insights/level-up-the-future-of-video-games-is-bright/

https://www.yahoo.com/now/gaming-market-size-worth-usd-113000927.html

Summary

Humans with extra time have always sought “amusements” through entertainment, sports, travel and personal services. The “games” category has grown rapidly in the last 50 years and appears ready to keep growing for the next quarter-century at least. This is fundamentally “good news” because people are consuming more of what they desire. It is especially “good news” because “games” are available at relatively low costs, so they are available to most of the population as an improvement to their lives.

Good News: Great American Wine Regions

Napa/Sonoma Wines Beat French Wines in 1976

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_(wine)

7 More California Wine Regions

https://www.santaluciahighlands.com/

https://www.lvwine.org/wineries.php

https://www.staritahills.com/our-vineyards

https://www.cawineclub.com/california-wine-regions

https://thepointsguy.com/guide/californias-coolest-wine-regions/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hudsonlindenberger/2021/12/23/off-the-beaten-path-six-wine-regions-in-california-to-search-out-that-are-not-napa-or-sonoma/?sh=3a0ecd785847

Pacific Northwest Wineries

https://winefolly.com/deep-dive/columbia-valley-washingtons-biggest-wine-region/

https://visitidaho.org/things-to-do/wineries-wine-tours/

Great Lakes Wineries

https://www.michigan.org/wineries

https://www.bigrivermagazine.com/wineries.html

https://www.lakeeriewinecountry.org/

https://www.visitniagaracanada.com/taste/wineries/

Southwestern Wineries

https://www.colorado.com/activities/wine-wineries

https://www.visitarizona.com/experiences/eat-drink/wineries/

https://www.newmexico.org/things-to-do/cuisine/wineries-vineyards/

Southern Wineries

https://www.virginiawine.org/

https://missouriwine.org/

https://www.visitnc.com/wine

https://www.exploregeorgia.org/things-to-do/article/georgia-wineries-with-breathtaking-views

Articles

https://www.pastemagazine.com/travel/wine/8-great-american-wine-regions-outside-of-californi/

https://www.tastingtable.com/692597/sommelier-secrets-wine-directors/

Summary

Napa and Sonoma wines command premium prices (deservedly). North Coast and Central Coast wines are great everyday wines at much lower prices. A half dozen other California appellations today produce wines that compete well with Napa/Sonoma, with a shrinking price advantage as wine buyers become increasingly sophisticated. The Willamette Valley and Columbia River Valley regions are also becoming direct competitors with California wines, with significant discounts for most comparable Columbia River Valley labels.

Wine is grown across North America today. The best regions include the New York Finger Lakes, Lake Erie, Northern Michigan, Texas Hill Country and Northern Virginia. Canada’s British Columbian Okanagan Valley wines are becoming more competitive, and the Niagara ice wines fill a sweet niche.

1967: The Pop Music Doors Opened

The majority of “top 40” hits or “top 100” annual hits in 1967 were melodic and similar to the last 5 years of music. But a subset of 50 less popular songs pointed towards a very different future.

Most of these songs could not be created 5 years earlier or played on the radio in 1962. It’s very hard to explain the break from traditional music and views that began in 1967. Here goes …

“Folk music” was clearly becoming countercultural in 1967, questioning societal norms.

Classic R&B was adopting a sharper edge.

R&B/Soul/Jazz was starting to become much more funky.

The Beatles continued to crank out singles. Less pop, more questions.

The “rockers” were becoming much more “edgy”.

The Stones were adapting …

Jimi Hendrix offered a once in a lifetime music lesson.

Countercultural rock emerged as a major force in 1967, for good or for bad.

Summary

50 edgy new singles in 1967. 1967. 1967. The British invasion continued, with the Beatles, Stones and others making their music and lyrics more current, dynamic and experimental. Core US R&B/Motown/Soul groups adopted a more experimental and critical tone. Folk music poked at societal norms. Rock ‘n Roll leveraged the sharper, electronic riffs. The San Francisco sound wailed. The Doors “broke on through” to the other side. Jimi Hendrix emerged.

The world would never be the same. Music belonged to the young. The sound would be somewhat discordant. The message would be challenging. Musical standards would forever be so much higher.