Here is the real dichotomy the new right has to face. While its proponents rightfully want to talk about economic issues that have been ignored by both parties, the political “leaders” of the right only appeal to voters on cultural, not economic grounds. This has been the case for years, and Don/JD are ratcheting it up. If you doubt it, look at what they say. Daily. On video. In the last days of the election.
Once again I find that you have parsed some of the fundamental yet overly vague notions in our American society, into meaningful discussion. Thank you.
It reminds me of the recurring discussions I have experienced, as to the philosophical underpinnings of how the American economy should function. More often than not these evolve to the perceived sanctity of Adam Smith’s writings, offered as the “bible” so to speak, of our free enterprise system.
When questioned further, the speaker invariably acknowledges that they 1) do not understand the historical context of Smith’s writings, 2) have not even read Adam Smith, nor 3) can substantiate that we truly have an economy one could characterize as “enterprise that is free”.
The disconnects in our perceptions of American economic policy and governance, deserve to be revealed in a thoughtful way.
"Which of the following is more important to you: (a) financial stability, or (b) moving up the income ladder? ...It’s so simply worded, easy to understand, and something that every individual is fully qualified to answer.”
Dead wrong. That is categorically NOT “easy to understand, and something that every individual is fully qualified to answer.” It is at least ambiguous, or even extremely vague. What is meant by “financial stability”? For the individual? For the nation’s economy? How do you define financial stability for the national economy—by what metrics? And doesn’t financial stability have an effect on one’s income? Doesn’t instability threaten your well-being even if you are moving up the ladder?
Devising questions or experiments that accurately assessed human responses and perceptions is devilishly difficult.
You’re correct, what does “financial stability” mean? If you were to ask that question of 50 people, you’d get 50 different answers. But 50 (or 2000) different answers to that simple question is really hard to slot into percentages. More probing questions are likely to lead to responses that are either contradictory or incomprehensible. So, the survey writers develop questions that have an either/or response. Those questions will, of course, reflect the biases of the people who write them, as will the interpretation of the results.
Interesting. I disagree. Think it is a straightforward question with easily interpretable answers. With the exception of young people, I think it means is it more important to continuing as well as you're doing now (assuming you have a decent job) or finding a decent job if you have don't have one or to have the opportunity to make a lot more than you make today.
To put it another way, if you were on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, do you stick at $64k if you've made it that far or take a chance on going to $128k or higher?
We can disagree on whether it’s a straightforward question, and I still contend that it isn’t (“stability” of external issues like the price of oil and eggs, the economy at large, or one’s own income?) but there’s another problem with the question. Obviously those at the bottom of the income ladder, already struggling to get by, would place a high value moving up the income ladder, and “stability” to them means staying stuck where they are. Those already at the top don’t need to move up, and of course want things to remain stable. So the question is extremely biased from the start.
Robert: Your last point actually illustrates why the results to the "stability vs moving up" question are so interesting. To your point, one would expect that people at the top would value "stability" more, while people at the bottom would value "moving up" more. And since there are a lot more people near the bottom rather than near the top, that would suggest that "moving up" would be favored.
But it turns out that "stability" was more favored. And not only more favored but by a 12-1 margin! That counter intuitive result is what makes the results so powerful and interesting.
Why not? Plenty of people felt like they were moving up before the financial crisis, and then the rug got pulled from under them. The feeling that the rug can get pulled at any time because of a new trade deal or some dumb bets on Wall Street is exactly what “instability” and “insecurity” means to me. Present income, and even income trends, are pretty irrelevant to stability and confidence in the future
As a workers' material interests oriented progressive I have been arguing much of what Oren argues here...workers, average Americans, want financial security most of all. I use security rather than stability. Security allows the possibility of moving up in income where stability suggests stasis. There is a zeitgeist shift away from the rags to riches justification for dysregulation. People understand that even in an ideal world not everyone, indeed, very few people can become millionaires or more. Policy that rewards those few will leave most people out. That has been primarily the libertarian/republican theme of the the last 6 decades at least. Democrats after Reagan have largely gone along with the Libertarian/Neoliberal agenda. Fuck Clinton for that.
The Musks of the world need to be taken down a couple of pegs. Along with the gravitational power of massive wealth by itself, the domination of politics is fundamentally anti-worker. Arguably one of the most fundamentally pro-worker policies that could ever be implemented right now is a reversal of Citizens United and all the related corporate personhood SCOTUS rulings. Getting Big Money out of politics is foundational to pro-worker democracy.
It's too bad that this important discussion isn't being had in the presidential race. Instead, we're fresh off a weekend freak show at MSG full of blatant racism and misogyny (watch the tape don't take it from me) and JD on the Sunday shows saying their political opponents are more of a threat than Russia or China while defending Don's threat to use the military on fellow Americans. Oh, almost forgot Rudy being forced to disgorge assets after defaming election workers with the Don/JD election lie. Nice closing argument on behalf of the "working class". Especially so since it's fresh on the heels of gaslighting poor hurricane victims who have lost everything, and the pet eating fiasco. These people keep telling us what they care about, and it ain't workin stiffs. Believe John Kelly, believe JD's predecessor (the one with the character to tell the truth), believe the legion of Don's former high command. They aren't the Don/JD "deep state", they're Don's top appointments. They are warning us. Yes, Don and JD's despicable actions can find political purchase. But they sure as hell don't move the ball in addressing the long term economic trends impacting middle America. Country over party.
In Notes Toward a New Way of Life in America, Luke Lea has penned a populist manifesto in behalf of the tens of millions of ordinary working- and middle-class men and women in this country for whom happiness would be an abundance of well-paying part-time employment opportunities in rural areas where land is inexpensive and families would have time to build their own houses, have gardens, properly care for their children and grandchildren, and pursue hobbies and other outside interests.
To turn this dream into a living reality, he explores the idea of factories in the countryside that run on part-time jobs, looking not only at the new lifestyle such factories would make possible, but at the new kinds of neighborhood communities and country towns that might develop around them. The result is an American Eutopia for the 21st century.
Crucially, the author devotes an entire chapter to spelling out just why, with the right kind of wage bargain between labor and management, such factories—above all those that are most labor intensive—can be expected to run faster and more efficiently than conventional factories manned by a full-time workforce, generating both higher hourly wages and higher rates of return on investment at one and the same time.
Even so, Lea acknowledges that we are unlikely to see many factories of this new kind anytime soon unless Congress passes new trade legislation that will force American manufacturers to begin locating their most labor-intensive facilities in the US once again if they plan to stay in business.
To this end he advocates the founding of a revolutionary new type of national membership organization to serve the interests of every dues-paying American hoping to live this new way, a major goal of which will be to pressure Congress to enact the necessary legislation to make it all possible.
This pragmatic, shrewdly realistic guidebook is meant to appeal to a new generation of social activists from across the US who would like nothing better than to launch such a democratic mass movement for change.
"[Luke Lea] is an excellent amateur economist."
Milton Friedman
Eutopia (<Greek eu = good + topos = place, hence "good place") differs from Utopia ("no place") in being a possible as opposed to an impossible ideal, given the existing state of a society's political, economic, and technological development.
Apparently the majority of Americans think they would prefer living in a place that sounds like post-communist Eastern Europe. I do too until my Czech wife sets me straight.
"It’s fairly trivial to demonstrate that responses to questions about particular policies are dependent mainly on wording and framing."
Indeed. That's why providing only two options to each question gets you the result you want. Try presenting a third option that falls somewhere between the two you present (e.g., "Basic security and stability, within an economy that provides opportunities for getting ahead and providing a better life for yourself and future generations.") Setting it up as an either-or choice, rather than a balance between different objectives, is like a dumbed-down multiple-choice test.
Thank you. Very interesting piece. Will definitely read the full report carefully. Think this is really important stuff.
And I say that as someone who I suspect comes with very different priors than many of your readers, since I'm someone who believes that bringing back Donald Trump would be a catastrophic mistake.
People and issues are rarely mostly one way or the other. What is needed is balance and tension between the various alternatives, issues and extremes. In a free society a wide variety of lifestyles and opinions can be tolerated and encouraged. And rigidly enforced uniformity is not present.
Had our democracy been functioning properly both of these questions & constituencies would have been served by our public policies.
Unfortunately the neoliberal macroeconomic policies promoted by Milton Friedman displaced the democratic sensibilities of our political leaders.
For anyone who is deeply dismayed by Trump’s authoritarian intentions, the road to ruin was paved by Friedman & company, who applauded authoritarian “expertise” and were openly hostile to democratic principles and processes.
If the politics of resentment, revenge, and hatred prevail the greatest tragedy will be the scapegoating of desperate immigrants for our troubles. The rest of us will get what we deserve.
I always look at the crosstabs and the one by age is interesting. When I was younger I would have answered opportunity. Now that I am retired, I would answer stability. The generational breakdown seems to affirm this except for millennials which I attribute to the snowflake factor. So I would say the real answer is both.
As for public policy, we need to remember the bell curve. Half the population is below average and 2/3 are within one standard deviation of average. Yet all these people deserve dignity so public policy should be oriented toward building a decent life where you grew up. But at the same time, we cannot stifle the right tail of the distribution because that is where innovation comes from. And I am fine with the inequality this causes since the masses have a decent life. So again both.
Yep. Otherwise you get a static society which will eventually destroy the decent life for the bulk of the people. Reading the survey results, I conclude that people aren't driven by envy as much as they are by having enough to have a decent life in a viable community. "In the place where I grew up" is code for having family and friends close.
To me at least, moving up the income ladder is an essential part of financial stability (though not the whole of it). It certainly beats moving down the consumption ladder. Moving up the subsidy ladder would be nice but not something I can influence as directly.
Here is the real dichotomy the new right has to face. While its proponents rightfully want to talk about economic issues that have been ignored by both parties, the political “leaders” of the right only appeal to voters on cultural, not economic grounds. This has been the case for years, and Don/JD are ratcheting it up. If you doubt it, look at what they say. Daily. On video. In the last days of the election.
Just like the Dem establishment wants to talk about how great DEI is.
Owen,
Once again I find that you have parsed some of the fundamental yet overly vague notions in our American society, into meaningful discussion. Thank you.
It reminds me of the recurring discussions I have experienced, as to the philosophical underpinnings of how the American economy should function. More often than not these evolve to the perceived sanctity of Adam Smith’s writings, offered as the “bible” so to speak, of our free enterprise system.
When questioned further, the speaker invariably acknowledges that they 1) do not understand the historical context of Smith’s writings, 2) have not even read Adam Smith, nor 3) can substantiate that we truly have an economy one could characterize as “enterprise that is free”.
The disconnects in our perceptions of American economic policy and governance, deserve to be revealed in a thoughtful way.
Again thanks for your conversation.
Mark
"Which of the following is more important to you: (a) financial stability, or (b) moving up the income ladder? ...It’s so simply worded, easy to understand, and something that every individual is fully qualified to answer.”
Dead wrong. That is categorically NOT “easy to understand, and something that every individual is fully qualified to answer.” It is at least ambiguous, or even extremely vague. What is meant by “financial stability”? For the individual? For the nation’s economy? How do you define financial stability for the national economy—by what metrics? And doesn’t financial stability have an effect on one’s income? Doesn’t instability threaten your well-being even if you are moving up the ladder?
Devising questions or experiments that accurately assessed human responses and perceptions is devilishly difficult.
You’re correct, what does “financial stability” mean? If you were to ask that question of 50 people, you’d get 50 different answers. But 50 (or 2000) different answers to that simple question is really hard to slot into percentages. More probing questions are likely to lead to responses that are either contradictory or incomprehensible. So, the survey writers develop questions that have an either/or response. Those questions will, of course, reflect the biases of the people who write them, as will the interpretation of the results.
Interesting. I disagree. Think it is a straightforward question with easily interpretable answers. With the exception of young people, I think it means is it more important to continuing as well as you're doing now (assuming you have a decent job) or finding a decent job if you have don't have one or to have the opportunity to make a lot more than you make today.
To put it another way, if you were on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, do you stick at $64k if you've made it that far or take a chance on going to $128k or higher?
We can disagree on whether it’s a straightforward question, and I still contend that it isn’t (“stability” of external issues like the price of oil and eggs, the economy at large, or one’s own income?) but there’s another problem with the question. Obviously those at the bottom of the income ladder, already struggling to get by, would place a high value moving up the income ladder, and “stability” to them means staying stuck where they are. Those already at the top don’t need to move up, and of course want things to remain stable. So the question is extremely biased from the start.
Robert: Your last point actually illustrates why the results to the "stability vs moving up" question are so interesting. To your point, one would expect that people at the top would value "stability" more, while people at the bottom would value "moving up" more. And since there are a lot more people near the bottom rather than near the top, that would suggest that "moving up" would be favored.
But it turns out that "stability" was more favored. And not only more favored but by a 12-1 margin! That counter intuitive result is what makes the results so powerful and interesting.
They could be experiencing other types of instability:
Emotional, relational, etc
A person who is “moving up the income ladder” is not experiencing financial instability
They are experiencing financial instability, but in a positive direction. I would use financial "security" rather than "stability".
Good point. Security is perhaps a better word choice.
Defining a baseline of security for every American is perhaps a direction I would like to see explored.
The way Cass is coming at these issues from a policy perspective is helpful for all of us to think these topics through.
Why not? Plenty of people felt like they were moving up before the financial crisis, and then the rug got pulled from under them. The feeling that the rug can get pulled at any time because of a new trade deal or some dumb bets on Wall Street is exactly what “instability” and “insecurity” means to me. Present income, and even income trends, are pretty irrelevant to stability and confidence in the future
Absolutely, but then they’re no longer moving UP the ladder — they got sidelined.
In my view, this is precisely the point. Would Americans rather have (income) OPPORTUNITY or SECURITY?
Of course we want both.
The American Dream has been about OPPORTUNITY.
Anyone can rise to the top, but not everyone can have a DECENT life.
Where is the SECURITY, so that the proverbial “rug” cannot be pulled out from under us so abruptly and so easily.
As a workers' material interests oriented progressive I have been arguing much of what Oren argues here...workers, average Americans, want financial security most of all. I use security rather than stability. Security allows the possibility of moving up in income where stability suggests stasis. There is a zeitgeist shift away from the rags to riches justification for dysregulation. People understand that even in an ideal world not everyone, indeed, very few people can become millionaires or more. Policy that rewards those few will leave most people out. That has been primarily the libertarian/republican theme of the the last 6 decades at least. Democrats after Reagan have largely gone along with the Libertarian/Neoliberal agenda. Fuck Clinton for that.
The Musks of the world need to be taken down a couple of pegs. Along with the gravitational power of massive wealth by itself, the domination of politics is fundamentally anti-worker. Arguably one of the most fundamentally pro-worker policies that could ever be implemented right now is a reversal of Citizens United and all the related corporate personhood SCOTUS rulings. Getting Big Money out of politics is foundational to pro-worker democracy.
Rip ‘em to shreds Oren. We’ve got your back
It's too bad that this important discussion isn't being had in the presidential race. Instead, we're fresh off a weekend freak show at MSG full of blatant racism and misogyny (watch the tape don't take it from me) and JD on the Sunday shows saying their political opponents are more of a threat than Russia or China while defending Don's threat to use the military on fellow Americans. Oh, almost forgot Rudy being forced to disgorge assets after defaming election workers with the Don/JD election lie. Nice closing argument on behalf of the "working class". Especially so since it's fresh on the heels of gaslighting poor hurricane victims who have lost everything, and the pet eating fiasco. These people keep telling us what they care about, and it ain't workin stiffs. Believe John Kelly, believe JD's predecessor (the one with the character to tell the truth), believe the legion of Don's former high command. They aren't the Don/JD "deep state", they're Don's top appointments. They are warning us. Yes, Don and JD's despicable actions can find political purchase. But they sure as hell don't move the ball in addressing the long term economic trends impacting middle America. Country over party.
How is Russia a threat to us?
Here is a possibility:
In Notes Toward a New Way of Life in America, Luke Lea has penned a populist manifesto in behalf of the tens of millions of ordinary working- and middle-class men and women in this country for whom happiness would be an abundance of well-paying part-time employment opportunities in rural areas where land is inexpensive and families would have time to build their own houses, have gardens, properly care for their children and grandchildren, and pursue hobbies and other outside interests.
To turn this dream into a living reality, he explores the idea of factories in the countryside that run on part-time jobs, looking not only at the new lifestyle such factories would make possible, but at the new kinds of neighborhood communities and country towns that might develop around them. The result is an American Eutopia for the 21st century.
Crucially, the author devotes an entire chapter to spelling out just why, with the right kind of wage bargain between labor and management, such factories—above all those that are most labor intensive—can be expected to run faster and more efficiently than conventional factories manned by a full-time workforce, generating both higher hourly wages and higher rates of return on investment at one and the same time.
Even so, Lea acknowledges that we are unlikely to see many factories of this new kind anytime soon unless Congress passes new trade legislation that will force American manufacturers to begin locating their most labor-intensive facilities in the US once again if they plan to stay in business.
To this end he advocates the founding of a revolutionary new type of national membership organization to serve the interests of every dues-paying American hoping to live this new way, a major goal of which will be to pressure Congress to enact the necessary legislation to make it all possible.
This pragmatic, shrewdly realistic guidebook is meant to appeal to a new generation of social activists from across the US who would like nothing better than to launch such a democratic mass movement for change.
"[Luke Lea] is an excellent amateur economist."
Milton Friedman
Eutopia (<Greek eu = good + topos = place, hence "good place") differs from Utopia ("no place") in being a possible as opposed to an impossible ideal, given the existing state of a society's political, economic, and technological development.
Apparently the majority of Americans think they would prefer living in a place that sounds like post-communist Eastern Europe. I do too until my Czech wife sets me straight.
Interesting. But of little value without age qualifiers.
"It’s fairly trivial to demonstrate that responses to questions about particular policies are dependent mainly on wording and framing."
Indeed. That's why providing only two options to each question gets you the result you want. Try presenting a third option that falls somewhere between the two you present (e.g., "Basic security and stability, within an economy that provides opportunities for getting ahead and providing a better life for yourself and future generations.") Setting it up as an either-or choice, rather than a balance between different objectives, is like a dumbed-down multiple-choice test.
Thank you. Very interesting piece. Will definitely read the full report carefully. Think this is really important stuff.
And I say that as someone who I suspect comes with very different priors than many of your readers, since I'm someone who believes that bringing back Donald Trump would be a catastrophic mistake.
People and issues are rarely mostly one way or the other. What is needed is balance and tension between the various alternatives, issues and extremes. In a free society a wide variety of lifestyles and opinions can be tolerated and encouraged. And rigidly enforced uniformity is not present.
Had our democracy been functioning properly both of these questions & constituencies would have been served by our public policies.
Unfortunately the neoliberal macroeconomic policies promoted by Milton Friedman displaced the democratic sensibilities of our political leaders.
For anyone who is deeply dismayed by Trump’s authoritarian intentions, the road to ruin was paved by Friedman & company, who applauded authoritarian “expertise” and were openly hostile to democratic principles and processes.
If the politics of resentment, revenge, and hatred prevail the greatest tragedy will be the scapegoating of desperate immigrants for our troubles. The rest of us will get what we deserve.
I always look at the crosstabs and the one by age is interesting. When I was younger I would have answered opportunity. Now that I am retired, I would answer stability. The generational breakdown seems to affirm this except for millennials which I attribute to the snowflake factor. So I would say the real answer is both.
As for public policy, we need to remember the bell curve. Half the population is below average and 2/3 are within one standard deviation of average. Yet all these people deserve dignity so public policy should be oriented toward building a decent life where you grew up. But at the same time, we cannot stifle the right tail of the distribution because that is where innovation comes from. And I am fine with the inequality this causes since the masses have a decent life. So again both.
“And I am fine with the inequality this causes since the masses have a decent life.”
Really? Hmmm
Yep. Otherwise you get a static society which will eventually destroy the decent life for the bulk of the people. Reading the survey results, I conclude that people aren't driven by envy as much as they are by having enough to have a decent life in a viable community. "In the place where I grew up" is code for having family and friends close.
To me at least, moving up the income ladder is an essential part of financial stability (though not the whole of it). It certainly beats moving down the consumption ladder. Moving up the subsidy ladder would be nice but not something I can influence as directly.