Waking Up From the American Dream
As Father’s Day approaches, a troubling question is raised by a new study: Will our children and grandchildren have a better life than our own?
The “American Mobility Report†shows young men today worse off financially than their fathers were at the same age, a reversal of the generational progress that has made the “Land of Opportunity†a reality for two centuries.
In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s, a reliable predictor of lifetime earnings, was $35,010, 12% less than for men of the same age in 1974, their fathers’ income adjusted for inflation. A decade ago, median income for men in their 30s was $32,901, 5% higher than 30 years earlier.
This undercuts, the study suggests, the optimism that has “served as a powerful engine of growth and social cohesion†since pioneer days. In March, according to a Pew Research Center poll, almost three out of four Americans believed that “the rich just get richer while the poor just get poorer.â€
This sagging confidence in the American Dream explains much of what is roiling our public life today. The debate over immigration reflects a clash between the hopes for a better life of those coming here and the fears of a worsening life they arouse in those whose ancestors came generations ago. Will there be enough for everybody?
The Bush years, by widening the gap between rich and poor, have exacerbated what the Report calls “a concern about the fairness of the game.â€
Underlying many of the issues to be debated by the ’08 Presidential candidates is the question all this raises: If the nation’s up escalator has stopped, how do we get it going again or do we just keep arguing about who gets thrown off?
Cross posted on my own blog
7 Responses to “Waking Up From the American Dream”
Did you read the report, Robert? I don’t think it says quite what you’re suggesting with this post. For example
Is not what the data in the report suggest. What the data in the report suggest is that median incomes of men in their 30′s in this country now are less than incomes of men in their 30′s thirty years previously who were in this counry then.
During that period there were two enormous, society-shaking changes. The first is that women entered the workplace in enormous numbers. The second is that we’ve had the largest sustained immigration into this country since the 1890′s.
When considering mobility the proper thing to do is to compare the incomes of men (for example) to their own fathers at the same age. Very, very hard to do.
However, the explanation for the optimism the report notes isn’t that Americans are deluded or stupid. It’s that it’s well-founded and many, many of today’s Americans have incomes that are substantially better than their fathers’ were 30 years ago but 30 years ago their fathers were in Mexico, India, China, or Ethiopia.
Dave you are nitpicking a little aren’t you? I think most people who read Robert’s description got the general idea just fine.
I agree that the report presents a flawed view because it misses societal changes, some that Dave outlined. Another is the way period of “male immaturity” has increaded. Far larger numbers of men 30 years had multiple children by the time they reached 30 years of age compared to today. A far greater percentage of young men today can look for and value other things besides their pay rate. Men in their 20′s today simply to not put roots down, or invest the time and effort into careers, to the same degree they did so in previous generations. This represents partly a change in the way our economy is structured, I’ll agree, (i.e. the job market changes more quickly today, making it a trickier task to settle down to a single career), but societal values and individual choices also have had a lot to do with it.
The problem with reports like this is they need to assume “all other things being equal,” which in a lot of cases is simply impossible. They are interesting to look at, if only to see the ways in which we have dramatically changed.
I apologize to anyone who just tried to read what I posted without proof reading.
All I can say is: Me fail English? That’s unpossible!
The second paragraph should of course read:
I agree that the report presents a flawed view because it misses societal changes, some that Dave outlined. Another is the way THE period of “male immaturity†has increaded. Far larger numbers of men 30 years AGO had multiple children by the time they reached 30 years of age compared to today. A far greater percentage of young men today can look for and value other things besides their pay rate. Men in their 20’s today simply DO not put roots down, or invest the time and effort into careers, to the same degree they did so in previous generations. This represents partly a change in the way our economy is structured, I’ll agree, (i.e. the job market changes more quickly today, making it a trickier task to settle down to a single career), but societal values and individual choices also have had a lot to do with it.
All one has to do is look at the demographic differences between 35 y/o males and 65 y/o males. 65 y/o males are a much whiter demographic, were much more likely to be raised in a two parent family, to have served in the military, and to be married.
Also, the 35 y.o male in in 1974 was at the beginning of the baby boomers and was in a much smaller cohort than the males today.
I also think the argument that the way to increase wages for 35 y/o males it to increase taxes on the rich.
Or is it that fewer 35 Y.o. males can afford to be married and have children?
If you are going to make up imaginary scenrios, the possibilities are endless. Since it’s impossible to present a case where all factors are equal, it’s as important to be cautious about listing mitigating factors as it is to accept any single statistic at face falue.
Listing blanket ‘societal factors’ is also questionable. Is the difference in earning power due to changes in values, or did values change because of a diference in earning power?
I have read, for example, that college tuition debt leads many graduates to move back in with parents to save on housing costs. Speaking of housing costs, that would also be a factor in determining life styles. It goes on and on.
I think there is a tendency to ‘nationalize’ one’s own personal experience. From my experience, I can testify that it was a lot easier for me and my peers to pass into adulthood and start a ‘middle class’ life than it is for my children and their peers. The most striking difference is the increased gap between what only some can expect to accomplish and what most can expect.
If you’re concerned about the withering of the American Dream, mobilize against the Kennedy-McCain love child of an immigration bill. This is the second act in a rolling wave of amnesties that will permanently depress the wages of the American working class.
Actually, don’t you see that amnesty raises wages by regularizing illegals, thus forcing employers to pay legal minimum wages for all? It thus eliminates an exploited underclass, and attracts non-immigrants to those jobs as well.