The American Dream

So how might we have arrived at this difficult juncture?  Note the change over time.

For generations, we've worked to make a place for everyone and to provide a way forward for every family to rise up and achieve the American Dream.  We've talked about it a lot.  What happened?

So when I was a kid, there was a class of folks that didn't really have a place in an otherwise viable culture.  For regular folks, the way forward and up was just a matter of hard work and time.  Savings and equity, skills and promotions, all those built up over time; slow but sure.  For some there at the bottom of the economic ladder, however, the door was closed from the start, and it has become progressively more difficult to escape over the years.

Today, inequality has returned to the horrific levels we last saw almost a century ago.

Is it racial?  Our early awareness of immobility and inequality was racially focused.  Blacks were paid less, hired less, offered less, promoted less, welcomed less.  Despite decades of simplistic explanation, there has always been more to the problem.  "It takes money to make money," we were told, and it turned out to be surprisingly true; if you aren't rich, you aren't welcome.

For the lower economic third of Americans, the collapse of marriage, the rise of divorce, the prevalence of single parenthood, and the increases in child poverty and deprivation, all point to a larger context,  and racial categorization is just one aspect of discrimination.  Disappointing news.  We thought we were fair minded and culturally noble.

The issue is dramatically less pronounced in Sweden, in Australia, even in Canada and Japan.  So what of the American Dream?  It is less accessible, a farther horizon than it used to be, and denied to many for no legitimate reason.  The dissatisfaction expressed by those of the bottom 90% is not acknowledged by the wealthy.  Those top 10% of wealthy Americans, by the way; they're living comfortably in isolation from the real world.  They spend none of their time or energy on things which 99.96% of humanity deal with all day, every day, for a lifetime.  And, they don't understand what they've become.





Time for change, perhaps.

NSA Scandal: Update -- Obama administration issues unaddressed

Why did Snowden go public?  Why didn't he follow the available whistleblower channels up to the Inspector General's office?  Isn't that the path any reasonable employee would have taken?

“Name one whistleblower from the intelligence community whose disclosures led to real change – overturning laws, ending policies – who didn’t face retaliation as a result. The protections just aren’t there,” Snowden told the Guardian this week (22MAY16). 


"The sad reality is that going to the inspector general with evidence of truly serious wrongdoing is often a mistake." -- Edward Snowden

If you want to know why Snowden did it, you have to know the stories of two other men.

The first is Thomas Drake, who blew the whistle on the very same NSA activities 10 years before Snowden did. Drake was a high-ranking NSA official, and he followed the whistleblower rules.  Forwarding his concerns through official channels, he got crushed.

Drake was fired, arrested at dawn by gun-wielding FBI agents, stripped of his security clearance, charged with crimes that could have sent him to prison for the rest of his life, and all but ruined financially and professionally. The only job he could find afterwards was working in an Apple store in suburban Washington. His warnings were valid but were largely ignored.

“The government spent many years trying to break me, and the more I resisted, the nastier they got,” Drake says of the ordeal.

Drake’s story has since been told – and it had an impact on Snowden.  He told an interviewer in 2015, “It’s fair to say that if there hadn’t been a Thomas Drake, there wouldn’t have been an Edward Snowden.”

Next is John Crane, a senior official in the Department of Defense who fought to provide fair treatment for whistleblowers such as Thomas Drake – until Crane himself was forced out of his job and became a whistleblower as well.

Crane's testimony reveals a chapter in the Snowden story – and Crane’s failed battle to protect earlier whistleblowers makes it clear that Snowden had good reasons to go public.

During dozens of hours of interviews, Crane narrated how senior Defense Department officials repeatedly broke the law to persecute Drake. First, he alleged, they revealed Drake’s identity to the Justice Department; then they withheld (and perhaps destroyed) evidence after Drake was indicted; finally, they lied about all this to a federal judge.

Snowden was unaware of the machinations inside the Pentagon, but Drake’s arrest, indictment and persecution promised trouble for any whistleblower.

“Name one whistleblower from the intelligence community whose disclosures led to real change – overturning laws, ending policies – who didn’t face retaliation as a result. The protections just aren’t there,” Snowden told the Guardian this week. “The sad reality of today’s policies is that going to the inspector general with evidence of truly serious wrongdoing is often a mistake. Going to the press involves serious risks, but at least you’ve got a chance.”

According to Thomas Devine, the legal director of the Government Accountability Project (GAP), was that he practised “civil disobedience” rather than “lawful” whistleblowing. (GAP, a non-profit group in Washington, DC, that defends whistleblowers, has represented Snowden, Drake and Crane.)

“None of the lawful whistleblowers who tried to expose the government’s warrantless surveillance – and Drake was far from the only one who tried – had any success,” Devine says. “They came forward and made their charges, but the government just said, ‘They’re lying, they’re paranoid, we’re not doing those things.’ And the whistleblowers couldn’t prove their case because the government had classified all the evidence. Snowden took the evidence with him, so when the government issued its usual denials, he produced document after document showing that they were lying.

The story of Snowden is much more complex and perhaps not worth too much attention, but the critical issue is the unlawful and unwarranted government surveillance of citizens.

The illegal activity continues generally unabated despite the administration's promise to establish oversight and appropriate constraints.

Who did this?

Census.gov (1)(2)

So things have become more difficult. Not for everyone, but certainly for those at the margin of economic viability.  Between 2006 and 2010, another ten million Americans dropped below the poverty line.  Who did this?

2014 Income

• Household income over the past seven years is 6.5 percent lower than in 2007, the year before the nation entered the most recent economic recession. (ref)

Among those affected the worst, none chose to lose their jobs or to have their hours reduced.  None chose to have their job exported overseas.  None chose to have their cost of living raised while wages remained stagnant. It was done to them, and the question on the table ... who did this?

The Great Recession was the result of twenty years or so of regulatory reform purchased by big business.  The triggers were corrupt practices by the finance industry and Wall Street.  Predatory lending, fraudulent securities, and failed government oversight, all on top of Greenspan's assurances that no one would lose so much as one dollar.  Crooked from start to finish, from Congress and the Fed, to S&P, to AIG and JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, and the revolving door at the SEC, all crooked, and the cost worldwide in human lives has been devastating.


Workers have 30% less buying power today than in 1968. If the minimum wage had kept up with employee productivity, it would be $16.54 per hour instead of $7.25.

Conditions for workers have gotten worse since the recession. While 21 percent of job losses since 2008 were considered low-wage positions, 58 percent of jobs added during the recovery were considered low-wage.

The U.S. is the world's wealthiest country yet one in five of our children live in poverty.  Thirty-one OECD countries have less child poverty than we do, and we're 35th down the list for total population poverty. There are so many things about that that are just wrong.  Morally, ethically, logically wrong.

As we make our way toward yet another presidential election and the cascade of lesser political positions that ride in on the attached coattails, it would be interesting if the public debate had something helpful to say on the subject.  Only Bernie Sanders has made the attempt so far.  The rest of the candidates have passed over the issues rather pointedly.

Despite minor improvements since the 1960s, America's poverty-fighting efforts remain an international embarrassment.

Other developed countries do far more to reduce deprivation in absolute and relative terms, while coincidentally enjoying far greater family stability.

Our current national economy is the product of conservative constraints. We resist government involvement and regulation in business, we oppose taxation on business transactions, and we support the free market determination of trade practices. All are rationally defensible, and the results are impressive if only for the wealthiest ten percent.  The last half-century has in fact left the bottom 90% behind in virtually every category of benefit, and the GAP has become deadly.  So how might we mitigate the harm we've done with such freedoms?

“The idea that so many children are born into poverty in the wealthiest nation on Earth is heartbreaking enough,” the president said. “But the idea that a child may never be able to escape that poverty because she lacks a decent education or health care, or a community that views her future as their own, that should offend all of us.” 

The Measurement of Success

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and its nearly identical twin, GNP (Gross National Product)

They're irrelevant when the discussion is about the health of our nation.

"Our gross national product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors, and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods, and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm, nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."  ~Robert F. Kennedy

GDP, or the money that businesses transact, has for years been the measure of how good or bad things might be. It's the yardstick used in describing how well we've done, how good our lives might be, and how we're doing in the world of marketplace competition.  It has little to do with the well-being of the citizenry, however, and will be unchanged by social crisis and injustice or during social advancement.

The US is the world's wealthiest country, but not perhaps
the best when it comes to empowering its citizens.
  How might that be?

An alternative measurement called Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) has been constructed in an attempt to more directly address the questions of progress in quality of life, stability, etc.

Tracking changes in a long list of factors, the proposed 'progress' index gives us a broader view that's perhaps more relevant.

Trends for educational attainment, income inequality, and employment levels are relevant as are environment concerns like water and air pollution. Adding social factors like crime and accident rates adds breadth to the index.

The result is perhaps surprising.  For most countries, both progress and wages have been flat since the 70's.  While the US fits the common world trends for lack of progress, some countries do stand out.  The common analysis, however, is that the process of globalization and world-wide competition has provided little improvement for the bottom 90%.

In our efforts to make a better world, we'll need a better yardstick than GDP to gauge our progress.

"I’m heartened to see the many efforts under way to develop alternatives to the GDP that take into account the health of our lives, the strength of our communities, and the sustainability of the environment. And yet it is no simple task to develop a monetized system that can measure the real determinants of happiness and well-being and do justice to the vast complexities of modern economic life. It may be that no single alternative index will emerge to entirely replace the GDP, and we will come to rely on a variety of indexes, each with its own perspectives, to provide us with as complete a picture as possible of the real state of our economic affairs and our societal well-being. And then perhaps we will be able to develop policies that lead to our ultimate goal—a sustainable prosperity shared by all." ~John Robbins

As we've noted elsewhere, the GDP rise in recent decades benefited the wealthy exclusively.
What would a thoughtful Christian consider important to the discussion of progress?

Happynomics - things that matter, Pt. II

Happiness Economics:  in Pt. I, we said it's economics and psychology, and we looked at wealth.  Here's the psych part.   

So in this graphic, dark red is the world's worst; lighter red and yellow are better.  It's the prevalence of neurological disabilities across national populations.  That's the psychological reality today, or at least a part of it.

It perhaps suggests that the sane folks in the world aren't the rich ones; that there's maybe a correlation between wealth and mental illnesses.  Why might that be?

It's possible that a dog can contribute more to your

 satisfaction with life than any excess of wealth

or luxury.  It's also quite possible that children

 are mentally healthier than adults in the
developed world.  Perhaps because
they spend more time with dogs.

It's just entertaining speculation, but what if a simpler existence were the mentally healthier one.

For most of developing world, there are no checking accounts to balance, no student loans to pay, no choices among schools for your kids, no car insurance or cars for that matter; not one in twenty owns a car.  No retirement plans, no health insurance, no reverse mortgages, no home equity loans, no tax shelters, no charitable deductions, no heating or air conditioning system to get serviced, and no grocery stores to search for your kids favorite cereal.  Prayers are simple and real, "Give us this day, bread, and deliver us from the evil we see."

This index is rather controversial and perhaps exaggerates some factors of disputed significance.

Included in criticisms are questions of relevance for things like ecological impact.  This index
appears to favor tropical regions with beach and palm trees, with which I agree, of course.

Do rich people spend too much of their time thinking about valueless things? Does it matter what we wear tomorrow or what we might have in the pantry or whether our car and house and dinner table appropriately represent the stature of the person we intend to become?

So then, are there any adjustments needed for those who live in the dark red zones?  You can't help but wonder.

This one will probably get me in trouble with my wife.  :)  That happens. 

everything except that which makes life worthwhile

Fun additions to the American life and household ...        

Happiness Economics:  It is actually a popular subject, and the questions raised are intriguing. We have categories of things that seem to make folks happy, but with limits.

Merging the perspectives of economics and psychology, we can sort through the pieces of life that perhaps make us happy or sad.  What we find is that almost all of us share a similar context for basic happiness.  Mapping that to wealth is enlightening.

1. The first discovery from the inquiry -- money can buy happiness, sort of, but perhaps only at an introductory level.
   
   Food, shelter, clothing, freedom to move about, to socialize and interact -- those are the things that wealth might provide that are linked to our happiness.
2. The second discovery turns out to be about the limits of wealth.  The more you have above that first threshold, the less happy you are.
   
   Wealth intrudes in relationships, on life choices, and on our ability to appreciate normalcy.  It assaults individual values and character; e.g., why work to understand them when you don't need them in your life?  Why notice the peons when you're a player?  Why shouldn't you have everything the way you want it?   Extra wealth is an impediment to happiness.
3. The third discovery is the one and only exception to the second.  Wealth above the first threshold is an impediment to your happiness unless you give it away.  Apparently, being generous and helping others strips away the burden of great wealth that would otherwise snuff out your enjoyment of life.  Doing something for the benefit of someone besides yourself actually satisfies the heart. There are no known exceptions to these three facts, at least not among the eleven people I talked to about it.

Differences among individuals, cultures, and economies give us a wide variance in terms of how much wealth comprises that first threshold.  

Wealth is perhaps a part, but
it's absolutely NOT all that
happiness requires.  We

can do so much better

than just having more

stuff.  True? Of
course, true.

• An acceptable home in one culture might be too much in another.  That happens a lot.
• Quality of clothing or some other factor might vary similarly.  A nice handbag in one culture might be a nonsensical luxury in another.  Luxury is nonsensical most of the time.

An odd note about our neighborhood: we will spend time with our neighbors in inverse proportion to our income.  I.e., the richer we are, the less connected we'll be to folks who live nearby. Our kids are similarly affected/afflicted by our wealth.

What might the other results of such an inquiry show us -- anything good?  Or bad?

If we're going to do well by our children, where are the important parts we should be careful to include in their lives?  And can we make a difference in the lives of others too?

NOTE: A question raised in international discussion:: is the pursuit of wealth and profit likely to give citizens the quality of life they really want?  Are there higher and perhaps more noble goals a country might have besides just wealth and conquest?  There are.  Are governments likely to get on board?  Some will, but likely not all.  You can imagine why.

For a provocative presentation from a personal perspective, see The Economics of Happiness by John Robbins, the heir apparent to the Baskin-Robbins fortune.  He left it all behind for something better.  :)
An excerpt...

Pointing us in the wrong direction   For the past 75 years, the GDP has been the fundamental measure of a nation’s economic progress. The reason the United States is considered the world’s most prosperous nation is because it has the largest GDP. Economists, politicians, and other leaders take for granted that the higher a nation’s GDP, the better off are its people. 

Unfortunately, using the GDP (and its nearly identical twin, the GNP) to measure well-being and genuine progress makes about as much sense as using a fork to eat soup: It’s the wrong tool for the job.

Two months before he was assassinated, Robert F. Kennedy explained why:   "Our gross national product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors, and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods, and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm, nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."