The blog entry makes a lot of interesting points, but this one is really, really lame:

We aren't any better off than we were in the '70's... in fact, we're worse off now than ever before.

The current economy sucks, and the dream looks bleak. But things are a lot better now in America than they were in, say, 1932.

The thing is that we have several different American dreams. The one presented describes a simple formula: if you get a college degree, you will have a bourgeoise, middle-class lifestyle, the same as everyone. The more education you get, the better rewarded you will be.

This is simply impossible, even if we guarantee this as a matter of law.

On the other hand, we have a lot more room for advancement and opportunity here in the States than in a lot of other places. The key is to understand where the opportunities lie and to be able to seize upon them.

(Reply) (Thread)

On the other hand, we have a lot more room for advancement and opportunity here in the States than in a lot of other places. The key is to understand where the opportunities lie and to be able to seize upon them.

Perhaps, if one is white and had parents who could afford good schools for their children. Also, these opportunities also include the opportunity to starve in the street, which is not the case in actual civilized states like Canada or the EU. The US has (by a goodly margin) the greatest disparity between rich and poor of any First World nation, and I see that as a sign that there are very serious and long-term social and economic problems here. I also see providing room for advancement and opportunity as relatively irrelevant concerns compared to providing for the basic needs of all citizens.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Perhaps, if one is white and had parents who could afford good schools for their children.

I think I was the *only* white kid in my neighborhood, other than my brother, to obtain a graduate education. The rest were non-whites, particularly Arabs, Indians, Vietnamese and Chinese. Most grew up broke. Most paid for college and grad school with scholarship money. Most, including me, are doing well by themselves. A couple have businesses of their own. The last few years have been hard, but we're doing a lot better than other folks.

Now, it's true that my parents are well-off, but the ethic is the same for all of these guys: work hard, save money, avoid conspicuous consumption. Bad for getting laid, good for long-term financial success -- which means, roughly defined, not having to worry much about money when you hit 50.

White culture -- which IMO is what people really mean when they talk about the white race -- deliberately undermines this ethic by encouraging conspicuous consumption and accepting the accumulation of debts. The exception is with the business class. They understand that economic and political power starts with self-control.

(more later)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

White culture -- which IMO is what people really mean when they talk about the white race

Actually, I mean people who look white to the average American. The situation with asia-americans is considerably more equal, but the hard data on hispanic and african-americans is very clear. On average, across all age brackets, white americans have 5-6 times more wealth than hispanic-americans and 8 times more wealth than african-americans. I'm not just talking about income here (the disparity there is real but less, IIRC african-americans earn 67% of what white americans do. However, when you factor in all assets (house, cars, savings, investments...) the difference are far larger (I can provide links to detailed data on this if you are interested). Given that this wealth is what helps provide for college and other benefits, it's also easy to see how the cycle perpetuates itself.

On average, economic opportunity and mobility is a joke for hispanic and african-americans. Then again, it's mostly a lie for white americans too, but far to many of us live on false hopes and so avoid doing anything to rip down the whole rotten plutocratic system and replace it with the sort of European social democracy that actually serves the needs of all citizens and doesn't just pander to the wealthy.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

It depends on your definition of "better". In 1932 it was still possible to homestead property, farm it, and eke out a living without too much interference from anyone. In 1932 the manufacturing base in the United States was growing, so was the oil industry, despite the Depression. In 1932 people were also more willing to help their neighbors, or even complete strangers, knowing that things were tough on everyone. The same cannot be said for most parts of the U.S. today.

BTW, I'm the author of that blog and essay. Nice to see it got so many comments here at LJ, and that the link is being passed around.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

On the surface, everything we encounter in popular culture seems to point towards the fact that "life is getting better," but a deeper analysis tells me that that is not so. In the fifties, a family could survive off the income of one member of the house, but now it seems to take two or more, and even then, they often become overwhelmed by debt. However, people seem to have a lot more stuff now than they had in the fifties. Most of them seem nessicary, however: things like cell phones which have become almost standard over the course of the past five years, and computers, and internet. It is hard to get by in this world without these things that cost a relatively large ammount of money.

I seriously considdered moving to Canada, but from what I have heard, their weapons laws have gotten really strict recently. My ex-roommate now lives in Great Brittain and has told me about the cost of living there . . . atrocious! . . . If you find a better place, do tell me. . . .

(Reply) (Thread)

Canada looks good to me, and I've absolutely no problems with serious gun control. However, some of their laws about blades bother me. Taking my athame away from me is definitely "out of my cold dead hands" territory.

I'd love to move to the EU, but I'm not to keen on living in Britain (both high cost of living and the fact that there is one camera for every six people is creepy). Since I deeply suck at learning languages, none of the rest of the countries there look any better (although I'd love to try Sweden or Denmark if someone could manage to download the appropriate languages into my brain). My other guess as to a good place to flee to is New Zealand, everything I've read about it is very positive.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Hmm, I'll look at some stuff on New Zeland and see if that looks livable. I was thinking . . . I don't know how Japan is as far as living conditions, but I heard that they pay english-speaking people well to sit in their cafes and converse in english with people who are learning english. Everyone wanted to employ my roommate when she visited there. What do you think?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'd love to visit Japan, but I've repeatedly heard that while most Japanese people are extremely polite to tourists, they are far less friendly to foreigners who come to stay. Also, I've heard some fairly scary things about gender attitudes and the way women can get treated.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

*nods* The major problem my roommate had was a cultural differance reguarding what is considdered humane treatment of animals. (We Americans appear much more concerned with how animals experience the world. I had no idea Japan still had a limiting view of women. It's really too bad.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)