Is the American Dream Dead?
ft.com
ft.com
Come on. The generation which was born in 1940 was born after (or arguably during) the Great Depression, and then got to live their lives in the world after the hugest world war, from which the US emerged as a victor, and mostly intact. In their adult lives they encountered the period of American economical and technological hegemony, while Europe and Japan scrambled to restore themselves after the devastation of the war.
It was really hard for that generation to not live better than their parents whose adult life went through the times of the Prohibition and the Great Depression. A contrast like this cannot occur "naturally", during times of peaceful life and regular progress. So the 1980s were a regression to the mean, when the US started to face some real competition. As the generation of 1940 (and even more so, of 1950) got a lot of wealth very quickly, it became really hard to compete with them, as assets like land and realty had appreciated a lot by 2000s when the generation of 1980 came of age.
But on topic: the American Dream is defined as «life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement». IDK about "better" and "fuller", but 2000s with their continued technological explosion offered a huge amounts of opportunity, admittedly with a crash in the end; 2010s seemed to be totally not devoid of opportunity, too. The "richer" part was hit hardest; while opportunities to go from rags to riches demonstrably existed, they hardly affected "everyone". As of "fuller", well, the society, to my mind, have become more tolerant and open; I suppose that living a "fuller" life as a woman was/is easier for a person born in 1980 than born in 1940.
For a more informative comparison, I'd like to compare generations of 1890, 1900, and 1920, for instance.
Thanks for the definition. As a non-American I've always wondered what that idiom really ment, and I didn't even imagine that it had a definition. I honestly assumed it was just referring to the opportunities for the few to get ultra-rich. Not as something for the masses.
To me, the American Dream also was always more about making it big, becoming a self-made man, in a way which is nigh impossible in more traditional, stratified societies.
It might extend a little beyond the immigrant story though. The GI who came home, went to City College or one of the U.C. schools, and bought a three-bedroom ranch on a teacher's salary -- he was living the American Dream too.
The Black man who went north in the Great Migration, who got a steady job in Detroit, whose children or grandchildren, despite the prejudices of their eras, maybe were able to afford small homes and families -- his family's story was also understood as another instance of the American Dream. It stemmed from a different history, but, for a time, it was thought that it would follow the same model, "moving on up" also.
And sure, maybe you could even say that some earlier characters of extreme wealth, like Andrew Carnegie, did live the American Dream -- Carnegie having been a nobody, a Scottish immigrant kid who taught himself in public libraries. (Did he also become something of a villain? Perhaps.)
But for the most part I'd say that the phrase referred to upward mobility for ordinary people, sometimes over two generations. It wasn't about the 1%.
In the graph you link to, I would love to see that with the top 10%, perhaps even 20% removed. I really wonder how a few hundred people like Elon or Bezos skew the median, plus the thousands of CIOs making 400X what I make.
And the parent link is median. You could remove every billionaire and the number wouldn’t change.
In terms of income inequality, the US is #61 out of 168 countries by 2020 World Bank numbers. (2) Hardly seems shocking to me. Anyways, just trying to inject some facts into what's usually a quite emotional subject. I hear a lot of comparing how the US is doing now to say 40 or 50 years ago, but less comparing objective stats on the US to other developed countries
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_we... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
I was on a contract in Stockholm for a bit. There, I worked with some support line people. Working on a support line, they were able to rent a flat, afford to study at a university (debt free!), have access to medical system, party pretty much regularly and relatively good food. They would not be saving much after all this, but that probably was because they were young people and were not thinking much about saving anyway.
Now, do tell me what does an entry job on a support phone line buy you in the US?
One reason for wealth inequality numbers is high immigration in Scandinavia. For example, in Sweden, 20% of all residents are foreign born immigrants, compared to 14% in US.
There's a reason call center jobs in the US have moved to the South and Midwest (think Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky). You can pay $3-4k a month in those areas and still afford an "American Dream" style life.
The downside is it isn't "sexy" to live in Middle America and some people don't want to live there for ideological reasons.
"Sexiness" and "ideological" are just dismissive ways to frame two very legitimate reasons not to want to live in those parts of the country. "Sexiness" is access to various amenities, access to particular job opportunities, access to cultural diversity, and so on. These are legitimate things to want and go far beyond "sexiness," which sounds to me like an implication that people live in metropolises for the Instagram.
"Ideological reasons" is again a dismissive way to describe, for example, not wanting to be discriminated against for preferring the wrong genitals or having the wrong skin color. I grew up in Arizona and had "a family friend" threaten to kidnap my brother and me as children to have us baptized against our will. I had friends who came out as gay and were literally thrown out of their house and immediately cut from all contact with 100% of their family and church support network.
It is 100% legitimate to want the opportunities and liberties that coastal metropolises afford. "Sexy" and "ideological" are extremely dismissive of the facts on the ground. I only hear this sort of dismissiveness from people who have never lived in any of these areas, or who simply prefer their way of life.
San Francisco. But I have lived in extremely conservative areas (think evangelical MAGA types) growing up.
I am also a Brown PoC who always gets confused as either Arab or Hispanic. Yet I've never been accosted or dealt with negativity and I've been fairly successful in shutting down any hint of racism fairly quickly.
I agree if you are LGBTQ+ it's going to suck, but at the end of the day, most people aren't.
On top of that, the metropolitan areas in those regions are fairly liberal. You aren't as likely to face Gay hate in Nashville, Tulsa, or STL. They are all very blue leaning and fairly liberal.
And trust me, the kind of racists and kooks you see in Missouri or Oklahoma can't hold a candle compared to those in Spokane, Bakersfield, or Medford.
That's all real wealth that's not calculated in your links.
Or put another way: the Nordic model does not reduce inequality, it reduces the consequences of inequality.
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2...
It's irrelevant.
Each Nordic country is different.
Sweden and Denmark's national pension pays out largely similar to American Social Security ($1k-$3k/month)
Finland's appears to cap at around $1.5k/month and the rest is on you.
Norway's is very generous (114% of monthly income), but it's easy to be generous when you are also a petro-state and your pension is backed by the National Oil Fund.
In all these pensions, you have to contribute to the state pension fund in order to receive more than the bare mimimim ($1k/month) at a level largely comparable to Social Security deductions.
It honestly isn't that different than the US SSA, especially factoring in CoL which is California or MA level but average wages are around $30-$50k nominal
The "Nordic Model" that became vogue in American political discourse is the Norwegian model, which is almost entirely subsidized by oil. We may as well copy Saudi's social welfare program then (on a separate note it is actually pretty generous after massive concessions were given after the Arab Spring).
Unironically yes. The US is the largest producer of oil and the fourth largest exporter. Use the oil money to fund healthcare.
:/
I see it this way- a poor guy and a rich guy both get cancer. If they can get the same medicine and the same/similar doctors, then I am fine. The poor guy might be sharing the cabin with three other people, and he is going to go home on public transit. I am okay with the rich guy having a room to himself, 8k UHD TV on the wall, and driving home using a Porsche.
I am okay with inequality, as long as all the people have the basics fulfilled.
I don't want everyone to be equally wealthy. What am I? A Communist?
To an extent this system has existed in the UK, but is being dismantled by those who assert that the rich should not pay in taxes for things that they do not benefit from because if the poor wanted those things badly enough they would become wealthy enough to pay for them. In a weird way, you therefore are a Communist - since that is what this logic demands: that everyone achieves the wealth necessary to pay for everything while the state steps back from this role.
#8 Netherlands
#14 Denmark
#23 Sweden
#108 USA
It's been dead for 70+ years.
A better subtitle, several decades past its prime, is: was it ever even real?
That put Trump in the White House last time. Re-read the Wikipedia summary of the 2016 campaign season.[1]
It will be worse next time. Read "Project 2025", the conservative master plan from the Heritage Foundation.[2] Last time around, Trump took office with no plan. This time, there's a plan. 900 pages. Important enough to read. Wikipedia has a summary.[3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2016_presidential...
For instance, there were some polls that came out a couple weeks ago that showed Trump pulling ahead of Biden and some of the commentators I read from time to time just sort of dismissed them.
Eerily reminiscent of the run-up in 2016 where a lot of folks were just assuming Trump couldn't win "because come on..."
In America there seems to be a strong since of desperation and general malaise in my generation. A lot of people on drugs or have mental issues. The average person does not seem happy. I’m worried that the opportunities and dream have been offshored. It is too costly to hire, be hired, or build a life here.
The American Dream is interesting because it's not just "Can I make it if I try hard as an American", it's also "would I want to go to America, as a foreigner?". To the rest of the world it is as much an ideal as it is to Americans.
Now of course there are many people who still try to gain entrance to America. Undoubtedly, some of them are leaving places with worse opportunities.
But I'm going to take it from my family perspective. My parents' generation basically got kicked out of the old country in the late 1970s, and ended up spread around various countries. Denmark, France, UK, Canada (Vancouver/Toronto), and a large contingent in the US (CA, CO, DC). Big family, more cousins than I can count. Even more people and countries if we start counting family friends and distant relations.
Now and again people meet up. When someone is traveling, whoever is around tries to hang out with them. Luckily we have no alcohol tolerance so it is cheap to get us drunk.
Inevitably, people end up asking each other what it was like to grow up in whatever country it was.
Above everything, two things stick out. University costs a bunch of money in America, and health insurance costs a bunch of money. Not only that, your chances at secondary school depend a lot on where you started out. There is systematic racial bias built into the admission system. With the cost being so high, you'd better hope nothing bad happens while you're studying.
The health insurance thing is a big deal as well. Get sick, go broke. Don't lose your job either.
And what does your day-to-day look like? Well, you walk out on the street in SF and there are people using the public streets as toilets. There are people in obvious need of psychiatric help wandering around cursing their invisible enemies. There are tent camps of people who live in the middle of one of the most prosperous cities on earth. There are videos of large groups of people completely messed up on drugs, just sitting in the middle of the street. There are people who loot stores en masse.
The question of "can someone make it if they work hard?" is also a question of fairness. What rules have they got in place in America, so that people who did well previously do not simply use their winnings to keep "winning"? Well, it seems like there are a lot of rules that favor the already rich. We hear they can arrange their taxes favorably. We hear they can lobby Washington. They can get their kids into those universities, something that is not so straightforward in other countries.
This is all on top of an electoral system that is not proportional representation, for various reasons. It seems to favor stasis, with two large parties that have kept everything the same for a long while.
Anyway, that's enough for now, getting late here, but there are other thoughts to gather on the subject.