“[The American Dream] is not a dream of motor cars and
high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman
shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately
capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the
fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”
-- James Truslow Adams, The
Epic of America, 1931
Earlier this
week, Pew Research once again noted that Millennials (corresponding roughly to those
born between the early 1980s and 2000) “are at risk of
becoming the first generation in American history to have a lower standard of
living than their parents.” This subject has been of great consternation to many
writers in recent years, as Millennials continue to grapple with being the
generation who came of age during the worst economic collapse since the Great
Depression (see here
or here
or here).
When the subject came up in my own workplace this week (a
place full of Millennials lucky enough to be in gainful employment), it raised
a number of issues:
·
How do we measure
“standard of living”?
·
Depending on the
definition, is it even a problem that our generation may have a lower standard
than our parents?
·
Is the standard of
living calculation inappropriately disassociated with indicators of happiness?
On this third point, I highly recommend taking a gander at the 2012 World Happiness Report, in which Columbia University Professor Jeffrey
Sachs stated:
In
an impoverished society, the focused quest for material gain as conventionally
measured typically makes a lot of sense…[because] [e]ven small gains in a
household’s income can result in a child’s survival, the end of hunger pangs,
improved nutrition, better learning opportunities, safe childbirth, and
prospects for ongoing improvements and opportunities in schooling, job
training, and gainful employment.
However, as Sachs notes, the same calculus is
not true at the other end of the income spectrum—in developed nations like our
own where the majority of Americans do not worry about the “basic necessities”
of food, clothing, medicine, and shelter. In
these societies, not only do increases in living standards not lead to the same
rise in happiness, but they also lead to “disorders of development” like
obesity, diabetes, addictions, and the decline in social trust/community
institutions.
Perhaps more importantly, in a world in which
wealth is often extracted—directly or indirectly—from the consumption of the
planet’s natural resources, these gains often
come at the expense of the
world’s poor, both by siphoning off the wealth of developing nations and by
increasing the risks of climate change, which hits the poor the hardest.
All of these concepts are topics for future
posts, but today I want to focus specifically on how we measure “standard of
living” and whether the measurement that has emerged in Post-War America—which
is grounded in “disposable income”—has led us away from the things that truly
matter to happiness.
In A
Consumers' Republic: The Politics of Mass
Consumption in. Postwar America, Lizabeth Cohen, Harvard Professor and Dean of the Radcliffe Institute (disclosure: I am her former research assistant),
wrote that consumerism became such a powerful force in mid-20th
Century America that people began to equate “free choice as consumers with political freedom.”
Indeed, from the Kitchen
Debate between President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita
Khrushchev, to President George W. Bush imploring
Americans to continue to consume in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the
vision of the American Dream laid out by James Truslow Adams in the midst of
the Great Depression seems to have slipped further and further from our grasp.
As I noted in a piece for the Harvard
Law Record in 2008:
The conspicuous consumption of the post-war consumer age has
replaced a fulfilling vision of the American Dream with a vacuous conception of
liberty and success. No longer is the rallying cry to make it in the New World
in a new way-your way-but rather to make it in the New World via the tired,
trodden path of swiping credit cards and compiling symbols of status.
That conception of the Dream deadens the soul
of a Nation. It stands in contrast to our most venerated modern conception of
the Dream—that issued
by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial over 50
years ago. The Dream listed the following factors: that all men are created
equal, that people of different backgrounds will sit together at the “table of
brotherhood,” that freedom and justice will reign across our land, and that our
children will not be “judged by the color of their skin but by the
content of their character.”
That
gets me to Millennials—that generation simultaneously chided as lazy and lauded
as idealistic. If indeed we are not to match the standard of living of our
parents, what are we to do? Here’s an idea: destroy, once and for all, the
perversion of the American Dream that arose with the consumerism of the 20th
century and restore the Dream to its historic roots.
That
doesn’t mean shirking from the challenge of poverty and injustice. To the
contrary, it means addressing the scourge of poverty in America—even as it
entails sacrifices by the middle and upper classes—so that all people have the
opportunity to pursue happiness in accordance with the lives they have imagined
for themselves.
We
may not be the richest generation;
but if we end up the happiest, the freest, the most tolerant, we will have accomplished
something far greater for our world and ourselves.
Isn't this largely the optimism of youth, and won't the increasingly computer/algorithm driven business world bring them to their knees. I hope not, but is not the business system ruthless in it's quest efficiency and progress, whatever that means.
ReplyDeleteNic Greene