Americans
maintain a tremendous optimism about their economic futures – most likely a
product of the cultural and political emphases on equal opportunity and the
rewards of hard work under our system. This optimism, most would agree, is a
positive component of our “national viewpoint.” Some, however, argue that this
optimism needs to adjust to the more dismal reality of our economic future. One
prominent journalist who would be in this group is Robert J. Samuelson, who
recently published “The Withering of the Affluent Society” in the Summer 2012
edition of The Wilson Quarterly. Samuelson’s
article, although by no means the most cheerful piece of writing, raises
important questions about how Americans should adjust to a future that might
not deliver the levels of economic mobility that we are inclined to anticipate.
Samuelson
shows that the mid-twentieth century bolstered our confidence in bright
economic futures. The “Affluent Society” that arose during the 1950s saw the
expansion of a strong middle class. There are two primary types of income
mobility: “relative mobility,” which refers to an individual’s change in
economic position relative to their parents’, and “national mobility,” which
refers to a change in standard of living of an entire nation. In the
mid-twentieth century, we grew accustomed to increases in both forms of income
mobility.
Recently,
however, promises that the future will be brighter and that we will have more
than our parents has become more and more hollow. Vice-President Joe Biden
infamously remarked recently that middle-class Americans have “been buried”
recently (even, as Republicans point out, during Mr. Biden’s party’s time in
office). Since 2007, median household income has declined. It was also declining from 2000-2004. America’s
characteristic economic optimism must confront this reality, and it may already
be doing so. According to Gallup, in 1996, 34% of Americans who did not already
consider themselves “rich” believed they would become rich someday. In 2003,
that number fell to 31%, and in 2012, it is at 28%. Thus, as time continues,
more Americans are realizing that their future and, importantly, their
children’s futures, might not bring more affluence. This has led to movements
like Occupy Wall Street, which reflect a frustration and pessimism about the
economic future.
Samuelson
recently produced another article that relates his concern about the withering
of affluence to the current election. In Samuelson’s opinion (and I checked, he
opts not to vote in elections in order to maintain a level of journalistic
neutrality), both candidates are avoiding informing the American people about
the reality of times ahead: Obama is neglecting to answer serious questions
about the future of Medicare and Social Security while Romney is refusing to
provide details as to how his plan to reduce tax rates will affect programs and
the budget.
I
don’t find this situation surprising. Americans are used to optimistic times. They
prefer to hear that it is “Morning in America,” as Reagan framed it, than to
hear that difficult economic times are inevitable. This American optimism is a
valuable characteristic when it fuels drive and advancement. It is not
valuable, however, when it prevents us from confronting the real challenges
before us. Candor about future difficulties is the first step necessary in
order to confront and overcome problems. And then we can enjoy dreaming about future
progress while simultaneously experiencing
prosperity in the present-day.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment