6 Jobs From the 1950s That Are Practically Obsolete Today
The American workforce looked very different in the 1950s. Some jobs were so common, you couldn't imagine a world without them. But once technology improved and daily life sped up, many of those roles quietly faded out.
Here are six jobs that were once a regular part of American life but are now nearly obsolete.
Check Out:
Read Next:
While some dairies still drop milk at the doorstep, it's the exception, not the norm. But in the 1950s, home delivery was how most families got their milk. Over half of all milk sold in the U.S. came straight to people's homes by way of the milkman.
By the mid-1970s, home delivery had greatly declined, making up only a small share of sales. It continued to decrease over the next several decades, and by 2005, hardly any families were relying on the milkman.
See More:
Back in the day, people would pull in to a gas station, remain in their car and wait for the attendant to pump their gas. It wasn't just about fuel though. The attendants checked the oil, cleaned the windshield and gauged tire pressure. Full service was expected.
And although self-service gas stations first appeared in the late 1940s, they didn't catch on until the 1970s when higher labor costs and rising gas prices pushed stations to make the change. Today, you'll be hard pressed to find a full-service gas station in the U.S. unless you're in New Jersey.
In the days of paper memos and carbon copies, businesses relied on trained typists to keep things moving. Some companies had entire typing pools filled with workers handling documents all day. Most were women, and many had gone to typing school just to land the job.
Once computers and word processing software became standard, businesses no longer needed someone to handle typing as a standalone task, and they no longer needed typewriters.
The idea of needing a person just to run an elevator sounds odd, but for decades, it was the norm. Riders didn't press the buttons. Instead, they told the operator the floor they wanted to go to, and the operators used hand cranks to control the car's movement.
While automated elevators were a thing by 1900, by 1950, most new elevators still weren't automatic. However by 1959, nearly all new installations were self-operating, and the need for elevator operators has become practically obsolete today.
Motion picture projectionists played a much more active role in the films America watched than most people today realize. They didn't just start the movie and leave. They handled highly flammable nitrate film, completed reel changeovers about every 20 minutes, and monitored the projection equipment during the film.
In 1950, more than 26,000 people worked in this role. Once theaters made the switch to digital, most of that hands-on work disappeared. By 2023, only about 10% of projectionists remained on the job.
Kids today would have a hard time believing that, decades ago, another human being had to physically connect a phone call. But that's exactly how it worked. You picked up the receiver, an operator answered and she patched you through by plugging a cord into the right slot.
In the 1950s, hundreds of thousands of people worked the job. However, automated dialing and digital telecommunications have now rendered old-fashioned telephone switchboard operators obsolete.
More From GOBankingRates
The New Retirement Problem Boomers Are Facing
This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: 6 Jobs From the 1950s That Are Practically Obsolete Today
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Memo: Risks loom as Trump moves toward direct participation in Israel's attack on Iran
President Trump is becoming ever more emphatic in his backing of Israel's attack on Iran, with the chances rising by the hour that he will green-light direct U.S. involvement. The president discussed the crisis in the White House Situation Room with his closest advisors on Tuesday afternoon. Afterward, according to the Israeli news organization Haaretz, he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The road ahead is complicated, not least because there are stark differences within Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) support base over the merits of getting involved in foreign conflicts in Iran or anywhere else. Then there is the vexing question of what, precisely, the goal would be if the U.S. joined military operations – and how it would be achieved. Would it be limited to destroying the Iranian uranium enrichment facility at Fordow, which is literally built inside a mountain? Or would it be regime change in Tehran? Then there are questions of economics and logistics, such as the effect of an all-out war on oil prices and on crucial mercantile traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. On Tuesday, Trump adopted his most belligerent stance yet on Iran in a series of social media posts. Most blatant of all was an all-caps posting that demanded 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!' It was not clear what exactly Trump meant by surrender. The message from the president came shortly after one that had warned, 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but he is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!) at least not for now.' Trump's words were directed at Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and it was notable in part because of media reports in recent days that Trump had kiboshed an Israeli plan to kill Khamenei at the start of the latest phase of the conflict. Trump's use of the word 'we' in seeming reference to a direct alliance between the U.S. and Israel when it comes to the attack on Iran, was not lost on anyone either. He had written on social media about an hour before, 'We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.' It's a far cry from the beginning of the Israeli strikes on Iran, just five days previously, which were met by a quick statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio seeking to maintain at least some distance between the U.S. and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government. 'Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' Rubio said. But as Trump seems to be moving closer to a joint U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran, he is encountering pushback even from within his own base. A range of prominent figures in MAGA World have expressed skepticism, and sometimes outright indignation, at the idea of the U.S. entangling itself in another conflict in the Middle East. Figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, commentator Tucker Carlson and several online influencers are part of a populist conservative movement that has grown far more dubious of military involvements in the two decades since President George W. Bush and his coterie of neoconservative advisors launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Monday, Greene took aim on social media at 'fakes' who were 'slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war.' On Tuesday, she emphasized the need to cater to Americans who want their leaders to work on kitchen-table issues, like 'cheap gas, groceries, bills, and housing,' rather than having the government's energy and resources 'going into another foreign war.' Carlson has become one of the main right-wing media voices expressing opposition to foreign military adventuring, and skepticism about the assumption that the U.S. should back Israel in almost any endeavor. On Monday, he published a long on-camera interview with Bannon in which the erstwhile strategist began by saying that one of the main pillars of the MAGA coalition from the start of Trump's rise was to 'stop the forever wars.' 'I'm a big supporter of Israel,' Bannon said, 'and I'm telling people, hey, if we get sucked into this war…it's going to not just blow up the [MAGA] coalition, it's also going to thwart what we're doing' on the domestic front — specifically in terms of Trump's hardline policies on immigration. It bears emphasizing that the risks for Trump in directly joining the Israeli assault are not limited to the split in his political base. For a start, there is the perennial problem with military operations that the late secretary of State Colin Powell dubbed 'mission creep.' Powell was referring to the tendency for objectives to become more and more expansive over time, to a point where it becomes politically difficult to either withdraw troops or declare victory At the same time, there are voices within the GOP coalition loudly insisting that Trump should give Israel the utmost backing. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said that the U.S. should go 'all-in' behind Israel if Iran does not come to an agreement over its uranium enrichment program. If Trump were to confound current expectations, he would keep the U.S. out of the direct conflict. But he would also be open to criticism from the most vehement supporters of Israel, within his own party and beyond, that he had blinked at a crucial time, passing up on what they see as a potentially transformative moment. Either way, the risks and rewards are profound — especially for a president who has previously expressed pride in his ability to keep the U.S. out of new wars. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Lawmakers call for more safety measures after Minnesota shooting
Lawmakers call for more safety measures after Minnesota shooting Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are pressing for more detailed security briefings and calling on leadership to do more to protect their members. Show Caption Hide Caption Killed, wounded Minnesota state lawmakers honored at vigil Neighbors gathered to honor state Rep. Melissa Hortman and state Sen. John Hoffman. Hortman was killed and Hoffman was wounded in separate shootings. WASHINGTON - Lawmakers are clamoring for more security funding and around-the-clock safety measures after the assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband has left Democrats and Republicans on edge. State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were shot and killed in their suburban Minneapolis home on June 14. The man accused of carrying out the crime, Vance Boelter, was reportedly targeting other lawmakers, including Reps. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, and Hillary Scholten, D-Michigan. The incident is the latest in a string of political violence aimed at public officials and their families, including a hammer-wielding assailant who broke into former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's house and attacked her spouse, and fire set at Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's home. Back in Washington, lawmakers on the Hill are pressing for more detailed security briefings and calling on leadership to do more to protect their members. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and New York Democrat Rep. Joe Morelle urged House Speaker Mike Johnson in a June 16 letter to increase lawmakers' office budgets to 'support additional safety and security measures.' That allowance is meant to pay for costs incurred as part of a member's "official and representational duties," which may include travel, rent, printing or supplies. The amount each member receives varies. The Democrats also called on Johnson to direct the House's chief law enforcement officer to 'take all necessary steps' to protect members across the country. "Too many other patriotic public servants have left Congress because they no longer felt safe carrying out their duty as elected officials," they wrote. "We must act to protect each other and preserve this great American institution." The Minnesota shooting has led some lawmakers to change their daily schedules. Scholten, for example, canceled a June 16 town hall meeting in her western Michigan district 'out of an abundance of caution,' according to a statement. Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee is planning to send to a letter later this week to a critical House panel responsible for authorizing lawmakers' security spending that says he and his colleagues are "publicly identifiable at all times" and need 'around-the-clock security services,' according to a draft obtained by USA TODAY. Data from the U.S. Capitol Police shows that threats against members of Congress, their family and staff have significantly risen in the past few years, with 3,939 'concerning statements and direct threats' in 2017 to 9,474 in 2024. On June 16, a 25-year-old man was arraigned on federal charges after sending messages threatening sexual violence against Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer. House Administration Committee Chairman Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wisconsin, and Morelle, the committee's ranking member, noted the escalation of threats in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi on June 17. They requested Bondi assign federal prosecutors across the country who would work on at least a part-time basis to investigate and prosecute threats against members of Congress. 'We are concerned that the current lack of prosecutorial capacity will allow threat behavior to persist unabated,' they wrote. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the lawmakers' request.


Politico
22 minutes ago
- Politico
Cities sue DHS over frozen anti-terrorism funds
Five major U.S. cities are suing the Trump administration over funding to prevent nuclear attacks and terrorism that they argue has been illegally withheld by the Department of Homeland Security. The lawsuit filed by Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver and Boston alleges that the administration has not reimbursed cities for relevant security expenses since February and has failed to award funding for 2025. 'Even by Trump standards, this action is astonishing,' Denver Mayor Mike Johnston told POLITICO on Tuesday. 'You are willfully putting Americans at risk of terror attacks.' The Securing the Cities program was created to help cities prepare for the possibility of nuclear or terrorist attacks. It began first as a pilot program in the New York City region in 2006 and expanded over time to 13 cities. In 2018, the program was formally authorized by Congress. 'DHS cannot override Congress's judgment by freezing congressionally appropriated funding,' the lawsuit argues. The lawsuit was initially filed by Chicago in May; the other four cities signed on Tuesday. DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit. 'There's a pretty big irony between the rhetoric we're hearing from D.C. on the need to have safe and secure cities,' Seattle Deputy Mayor Greg Wong told POLITICO Tuesday, 'and what's happening here — where the actual dollars that go to support that at the city level are being held up.' It's the latest in a series of lawsuits brought against the Trump administration by cities and states since January over the withholding or freezing of federal funds. Some of those lawsuits have already found success: A federal judge in Boston on Monday ruled that the elimination of certain NIH grants was illegal — calling their termination 'government racial discrimination.' The lawsuit alleges that, since February, DHS has not reimbursed cities, even for security expenses that were already approved. Denver, for example, is still waiting on more than $300,000, according to Johnston's office. Securing the Cities funds in Denver have been used in the past for security for visits by both President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden, as well as for major sporting and music events that could be targets. 'It's one thing to say you're going to disagree about the use of FEMA funds for migrant services, or to say you disagree about transportation contracting with DEI priorities,' Johnston said. 'But to say you're going to cut anti-terrorist protections in American cities, I think, is way beyond the pale of debates about social policy.' In the lawsuit, plaintiffs said they intend to use the money to help protect major sporting events taking place next year, like the Super Bowl in San Francisco and FIFA World Cup events in multiple cities. In Seattle, for example, the city planned to spend this year's grant on 1,000 radiation detection devices that can catch terrorism devices like dirty bombs which could be detonated in a crowd. The equipment is expected to be part of the city's preparation to host World Cup matches in 2026, Wong told POLITICO. 'The Trump administration ordered us to pause on that purchase of equipment,' Wong said. $300 million was distributed to cities in the program between 2007 and 2023, according to the Government Accountability Office, and annual funding for the program is estimated to be around $29 million. San Francisco and Chicago both said Tuesday they expected to receive about $1 million from the grant program. The program has received scrutiny from lawmakers in the past. A bipartisan bill introduced by Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.) in 2024 would have required the program to establish performance metrics and reach specific milestones. The bill passed the House in March 2024 and made it through one Senate committee but failed to make it over the finish line. The GAO in 2024 also made five recommendations for DHS to make the program more effective. GAO eventually found the Biden administration either partially or fully addressed all five. 'This is one where all of our regional leaders, Republican and Democrat alike, are shocked that this is where we are,' Johnston said. 'We think this is a perfect reason why you go to court.' Shia Kapos contributed to this report