Pop Politico: “Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Four Years Ago?”
Tuesday, April 29th, 2008 by Py KorryRonald Reagan asked that question when he was running against Jimmy Carter in 1980. It’s a question that goes to the heart of what many of us believe is the American Dream: to live a materially richer life than the generation before. It’s a progressive dream that measures “happiness” in terms of wealth. For example, for your parent’s generation, their wealth is measured based on one segment of a line (T1). Your generation’s wealth is then measured on its own line segment (T2) and compared to T1. How does your current wealth compare? Are you living a monetarily richer life than your parent’s generation at the same age? Are you better off? Are you “making it?” Are you living the American Dream?
Maybe you can point to certain material comforts as indicators that, yes, you have more than your mom and dad had when they were your age. However, if you’re like many Americans, the “Dream” has been realized through a highly addictive drug called “easy credit.” Easy credit is only one factor in achieving the current incarnation of the American Dream. One can also factor in the housing bubble, and the ease of which people were able to get home loans — no matter their credit score — relatively cheap oil prices, and a consumer economy that thrives when a nice combo of these factors are going at full throttle. If the things are humming along with nary a care for how shaky this house of cards is, one can easily delude themselves into thinking that the good times are here to stay.
At the political level, it’s not any better. Low taxation coupled with deficit spending on credit lines from foreign creditors keeps popular government social programs solvent in the short term, but the center cannot hold if the we continue with these policies. The distractions on the political stage continue, but sometimes you can’t ignore what’s right in front of you: the declining standard of living for middle class people. Every now and then, you’ll see newspaper stories, books, and even the occasional “talking head” on TV showing us how rich folks are getting richer, while the middle and lower classes are making less money, or their wages are stagnant. I don’t know how long I’ve been hearing a variation of this message, but it’s finally starting to sink in. Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle devoted the “above the fold” story to the economic realities for many middle-class Americans who live in a part of the country that is considered quite wealthy (i.e., the San Francisco Bay Area); a place where the American Dream can happen because of the high number of so-called “good paying jobs.” Because it makes for an eye-catching graphic, the Chronicle put the following on the front page:
It’s not a pretty picture, but it’s not dire, either. Things can turn around as long as people are willing to see that the American Dream in an age of global capitalism has been funded on a credit binge that has reached toxic levels. Things can also turn around if our current crop of presidential candidates can stop with the petty nothingness that has come to dominate the political discourse. And things can turn around if we can not only accept a kind of “new frugality” when it comes to consumption, but also a new responsibility when it comes to taxing ourselves for the governments services we expect.
None of this is new, but maybe it will help to see how the petty nothingness of what I wrote about last week (i.e., The Freak Show) has gone from the fringe to the center. In 1992, Phil Donahue (hardly a political fringe host, but one who could see how the media culture was changing and embraced it — much to the chagrin of his audience) decided to focus on the personal and not the political:
Alas, 16 years later, and we’re still watching a variation of the same show while the American Dream built on a cardboard foundation of easy credit/low taxation crumbles.
Popularity: 10% [?]
Tags: easy credit, new frugality, Pop Politico, Py Korry
Popdose represents the coming together of a veritable Who's Who of music bloggers and and an ever-expanding roster of writers who have made it their mission to experience the best and worst in pop culture — from music to movies to books, with a dash of current events thrown in for good measure — so you don't have to. Popdose delivers coverage both in-depth (the all-encompassing 
In 1980 the country was in horrid shape AND had both a Dem president AND a Dem Congress. Right now, we have a Dem congress who refuses to ok any alternatives to the energy and gas crisis. We could drill ANWAR which would lessen demand on foreign oil lowering prices, we could also invest more in nuclear power.
Thank God for the tax cuts that economists have proven helped (and Dems were against). Imagine where we'd be without that!
You can blame W., its what silly liberals do about everything - but I prefer to look at real facts and policies which have resulted in what we're experiencing.
Your support of ANWR strongly suggests that you and "real facts" haven't spent a lot of time in the same room, Cap, but I appreciate your enthusiasm anyway.
Bingo, Jeff. All the realistic estimates suggest that the first oil from ANWR wouldn't reach the lower 48 for 10 years, and that the influx of homegrown oil that came from it would potentially save Americans 1 penny at the pump. ONE PENNY!!!
10 years from now, if the right folks get elected this November, we should be beyond worrying where extra oil is going to come from.
By the way, Cap--"economists have proven" that the tax cuts helped? Prove it--without using the words "Heritage Foundation" or "American Enterprise Institute." Then tell it to your children and grandchildren.
Let's see. For years ago I was managing a bar at the beach, surfing twice a day, and European women who were in "vacation mode" would show up on my doorstep just about every day. Plus, I was four years younger. So, in answer to Py's question, I'd have to say no, I'm not better off.
Plus, these days I can't even seem to spell the word "four" without f***ing it up.
I remember well listening to NPR, and hearing Robert Reich (sp?) say that the problem with the US economy is that it depends on us always doing 'better' than our parents...we always have to spend more, make more, do more. Statistically, that's a limited proposition (also, by the way, part of the problem with 'No Child Left Behind'). He said that the only way to stay solvent and economically healthy is to be like the American Dream commenter, above. Live debt free. But if we all do that, the economy in general is in trouble, because let's face it, we can't ALL be in the top 10% of our companies, no matter how hard we work. It's statistically impossible. So unless a lot of folks are willing to carry a lot of debt that they can't afford, there isn't enough 'consumer confidence', and thus our economy stops growing. Then we have recession, or depression, or whatever the economists call it when the center ceases to hold, and things fall apart.
I suspect that the only good answer is a complete restructuring of our economy. If we can find a way to do it willingly, it could perhaps be as painless as the changes we have made since WWII (not always painless, but not revolutionary, to be sure.) If we have such change thrust upon us unwillingly, I suspect we're in for a world of hurt, and I don't mean things like not being able to afford a new car when you need one. I mean food, gas, and shelter. And that brings war, as people try to defend and support their families.
I define "better than my parents" this way: my parents had to deal with a futile, endless war (Vietnam), an oil crisis, inflation through the roof, diminished respect from the world and allies for our bull-headedness as a nation, an inability to even have a savings account much less regularly supplementing it, and the lack of even minor disposable income - sure, buy that movie ticket, and try to enjoy the film while you're thinking about where you had to take that money from...
The 2000s by that account are, for many people, nothing less than a re-visitation of all the mistakes of the 1970s. Nope, in many cases, we definitely aren't better off than our parents. We are exactly like them.
Well said.
I am better off today then I was 4 years ago - not because of my government, but because of my tenacity to succeed in my career.. and life in general. I'm making more money then the national average. I have been with the same company (a large company - advertises during the super bowl) for the last 7 years; got 3 promotions in the last 4 years and have been acknowledged as being one of the top 10% of employees. I am 33 years old and in the last 4 years I have reconnected with my college best friend - we are getting married in November. I found a great church and just took a leadership position as a lay member. I am succeeding spiritually, mentally, emotionally and financially. I love my life, and if feels so good to say that!
Oh yeah... and I'm debt free. :)
Do you also need to be at the gym in 26 minutes?
Yeah, what are you unAmerican? Living debt free, getting promotions at work, making more money than you can spend, having spiritual balance ... When are you going to have your "Behind the Music" drug-fueled crash? :-)
Commie.
;-)
It's sad to say, but what this nation could really use is a good international credit crisis--say, a deep recession in China or the Middle East oil states that forced them to "call in" some of the huge amount of money that they've loaned to the US government and our biggest financial-services firms. We Americans need to be taught some sort of lesson that refutes Cheney's famous quote from the beginning of the Bush administration, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."
Americans will retain their anti-tax ways through all perpetuity--it's part of the national character. Therefore, increasing government services or entitlements always will involve either pissing off the rich (as Bill Clinton did it) or kicking the financial can down the road (as W. has done it).
Big deficits fit neatly into the conservative mindset of rampant self-interest -- who cares if we pass down massive debts to our children, as long as I get to pile up as much money and power as I can while I live? However, the price will be paid not just by our children, but by our nation as an entity on the world stage. At some point in the next 50 years, we're going to notice that China is overtaking us as the world's biggest/only superpower, because we'll owe them so much money that they can begin to make political, economic, even military demands that we will no longer be in a position to refuse.
Of course, try to tell that to your average rural Pennsylvania, and they'll just cling tighter to guns and religion and anti-immigrant sentiment...but they still will punish you if they think you're going to raise their taxes to get us out of this mess.
Republicans rely on the "Freak Show," as you've been putting it, because they don't want to have this conversation, and they don't want folks to notice the enormous damage their no-tax-and-spend policies have been wreaking on our economy and our position in the world. This is how all the world's great societies have been laid low: over-expansion, complacency, financial crisis, then implosion, often accompanied by military defeat that would never have happened during the glory days. We're well on our way in that direction.
I''m in agreement with everything you said except blaming it on a "conservative mindset." Bush, Cheney, the GOP leadership, are not conservative. I knew that in 2000.
Where conservatism went off the track was their failure to pass a balanced budget amendment, which would go hand in hand with a limitation on tax increases. That was the most important part of Gingrich's contract with America, and they fudged on it. The recently much-maligned Ben Stein made the same point about the GOP and it's insane ideas about deficits not mattering. The trouble we're seeing is because conservatives did not stick to their principles.
I agree, no one wants to talk honestly about this most basic of issues. Truth hurts, and no one wants to be the bearer of bad news.
Oh...come...on. Could we PLEASE dispense with the bullshit dismissal that "Bush isn't really a conservative?" You can go on all you want about your conservative "principles," but let's face it, for two generations Republicans have proven they don't give a rat's ass about spending levels as long as they can cut taxes on the wealthy as low as possible.
Reagan cut taxes to the bone in '81, then--through his administration and Bush 41's--the GOP never tried to make any significant spending cuts (or at least didn't ever fight for them). By '91-'92 we were into huge deficits and recession.
Then Clinton balanced the budget and even left it in projected surplus. Enter another Bush, demanding and getting huge tax cuts for the wealthy but once again disregarding the supposed other half of conservative orthodoxy--all of this with a Republican Congress giving him a rim job and cheering him all the way.
All Republican politicians care about is cutting taxes for themselves and their rich friends down at the club, jacking up military spending to keep Halliburton and McDonnell-Douglas happy, and manipulating the electoral process so that they remain in power. They'll spend all the money it takes to keep the middle-class voters they've tricked happy, as long as they can game the system to simultaneously juice the oil and pharma companies, kill the labor movement, and install judges who will codify their power grabs (voter ID), look the other way on their torture and wiretapping, and rubber-stamp their bigotry against everybody who isn't a straight white male Christian.
Bush is the ULTIMATE conservative Republican.
"All Republican politicians care about is cutting taxes for themselves and their rich friends down at the club, jacking up military spending to keep Halliburton and McDonnell-Douglas happy, and manipulating the electoral process so that they remain in power."
Ain't it funny that the two things Bush / Cheney brought to America, record oil profits and war, directly correspond to their former working relationships? Hmmm, they said. Wonder if these horrors are just them paving the way for their cushy civilian futures...
As the SF Chron article stated: we live in a multipolar financial world where the U.S. isn't in the center anymore. If brand "America" looks like a losing investment, there are many other places to put money.
Interestingly enough, many of the issues raised in your reply were woven into the novel "Deadly Election" that I reviewed a couple of weeks ago.
"Of course, try to tell that to your average rural Pennsylvania, and they'll just cling tighter to guns and religion and anti-immigrant sentiment..."
Hey, hey now. Talk like that could lose you some key states, bucko. No one is bitter. Everyone is very, very happy. Repeat after me, VERY, VERY, HA-PEE.
Except when they are mad as hell at liberals.