The (Impossible) American Dream

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: ah7903 @ 11/29/2007 7:38:42 AM

    The biggest misconception in all of this is that I think it is assumed that everyone lives with someone else. I feel it has been forgotten that not all households have two incomes. Mine doesn't. How we make it on $34k a year?... well we don't really, we just make sacrifices. Cost of living has far overshot salaries in today's America. Black this, white that,... blah! The true discrimination in this country financially is against single people. I think alot of correction needs to be made to whatever formula is used to decide what ONE person needs to support theirselves and it isn't $7.25 per hour. As they say ... the rich get richer. The rest of us... we are just worker bees.

    • Posted By: Shankardada2 @ 11/29/2007 8:07:23 AM

      What, now you're blaming your divorce on the American economy? All civilizations throughout the world have been biased towards two parent families. It's atleast 50% your fault you're a single parent, unless you've been widowed, which is very rare. Now accept responsibility and get your alimony/child support.

      • Posted By: ah7903 @ 11/29/2007 8:40:43 AM

        No one is blaming divorce on the economy, although I suppose you could since 70% of divorces are about money. I am in fact married and trying to support my disabled wife and daughter on one income. Even though I only make half of what your typical dual income families make,.. I apparently make "too much" to qualify for any of the benefits that we deparately need. Which again leads to what I said... families should not need two incomes. It is not possible for all families to have two incomes and even when it is, what about the children? Children are out of control because America's Mothers and Fathers are imprisoned in the race for survival. Read my original post again and pay special attention to the word "we". The American dream is died a long time ago, it's just now the reality is beginning to set in as feminism is waning and mothers are beginning to want to be home with their children again as the world becomes a more dangerous place,... and discovering they can't. But you are right about one thing,... we do need more child support, not from dead beat dads, but from cheapskate companies that don't pay real Dads enough to support their families.

  • Posted By: ploughman @ 11/29/2007 2:33:57 AM

    Statistics for blacks aside (as they're some 13% of the population), the real inflation-adjusted incomes for all males, averaged out, have barely moved in 30 years. As others point out, gains in family incomes are entirely due to more second earners in the workforce. Income inequality also has grown, even as average hours worked is at a modern-day record. That leaves us with the old Well-the-Gadgets-Do-A-Lot-More argument, marveling at DVD players and all that wasn't around before. Fine, but on the other side of the ledger you've got minor things like health care and education as MUCH less affordable, and you've also got family life suffering under lack of time. I think we're also recently seeing the European model doing well.

  • Posted By: RebeccaYung @ 11/29/2007 1:57:58 AM

    it seems American youngsters become more and more anxious fot their futurs. Decause it is not easy to find a long-term salaried job and keep their ncome stably increasing.

  • Posted By: david @ 11/29/2007 1:41:14 AM

    I wonder if you included that most households have two parents working. In the 1960's it was rare for a women to work outside the home. If you factor that in the gains you tout as being great will make you cry.

  • Posted By: dhermeling @ 11/29/2007 1:22:02 AM

    Some I agree with, some not. May want to discuss the continuing future downward trend for the average American's income. As more and more jobs and positions are moved oversees, more middle class households can expect lower income. This is due to having to start again at the bottom of the "totem pole" with a new firm and/or in part of having to retrain in a new career/position. Some companies are also paying less in salary than before due to higher overhead costs. Yes, the "American Dream" phrase needs to be reconsidered or maybe even tossed into file thirteen.

  • Posted By: Bob Lennon @ 11/28/2007 11:30:23 PM

    Perhaps Mr.Samuelson you should include an explanation why you think that our system really supports what you define as "upward mobility".

  • Posted By: JustHarry @ 11/28/2007 9:17:50 PM

    Then, Mr. Samuelson, dream on!

  • Posted By: JustHarry @ 11/28/2007 9:17:05 PM

    Then, Mr. Samuelson, dream on!

  • Posted By: paki_basher @ 11/28/2007 9:06:25 PM

    then go back to india, sumithar, we don't want you here anyway, you stupid paki, shut the *** up

  • Posted By: paki_basher @ 11/28/2007 9:05:42 PM

    then go back to india, sumithar, we don't want you here anyway, u stupid paki, so shut the *** up

  • Posted By: sumithar @ 11/28/2007 7:45:02 PM

    I moved to the US from India in search of "The American Dream", After 10 years I have awoken to the nightmare of spiralling health costs (in India my company picked up everything), feel pretty sure I can't afford college for my kids (my annual tuition was less than a month's pay for my dad), and worry for my job every time my company suffers a bad quarter! Power and water 24x7 at what cost?

  • Posted By: galabar @ 11/28/2007 7:32:07 PM

    If a school increases in cost from $3,800 per year to $38,000 per year in 30 years, it has increased by 8% per year (not 33%). If the cost of your school had increase by 33% per year, it would now cost about $20,000,000 per year.

    What was the name of this school?

  • Posted By: galabar @ 11/28/2007 7:30:09 PM

    Going from $3,800 to $38,000 in 30 years is an 8% increase per year. If the cost of your school had increased by 33% per year, it would now cost about $20,000,000 per year.

  • Posted By: galabar @ 11/28/2007 7:30:05 PM

    Going from $3,800 to $38,000 in 30 years is an 8% increase per year. If the cost of your school had increased by 33% per year, it would now cost about $20,000,000 per year.

  • Posted By: galabar @ 11/28/2007 7:30:05 PM

    Going from $3,800 to $38,000 in 30 years is an 8% increase per year. If the cost of your school had increased by 33% per year, it would now cost about $20,000,000 per year.

  • Posted By: galabar @ 11/28/2007 7:29:37 PM

    Going from $3,800 to $38,000 in 30 years is an 8% increase per year. If the cost of your school had increased by 33% per year, it would now cost about $20,000,000 per year.

  • Posted By: Charles E Whittlesey @ 11/28/2007 6:46:58 PM

    I also distrust the statistics. Here are some of my own: My wife was recently laid off. The cost of paying for healthcare through COBRA: $1800 per month--or half the median income of the average American. The college I went to 30 years ago cost $3,800 a year for tuition, room, and board. Today it's $38,000--up ten times or a whopping 33% PER YEAR. Do I even need to go into home ownership? Starter houses in my city are a quarter of a million dollars.

    How can anyone talk about the American dream without mentioning education, healthcare, and home ownership?

    What we can afford are lots of cheap electronic gadgets and flimsy clothing made in foreign sweatshops. Does this mean we're living the American dream?

    The dream is already dead for half of America. The middle is either moving up or moving down. Soon we will be a two-tier society, like an hour glass. Not the most stable configuration to my mind.

    http://www.amazon.com/Islander-Charles-Whittlesey/dp/1430311630

  • Posted By: zinc1000 @ 11/28/2007 6:37:52 PM

    This author discounts that $75000 in urban areas (where more black families live) is hardly middle class. I'm continually amazed that people live on that sum in areas where a starter home is over $400,000. In most of our countries urban areas $75000 for a family of three is about 2 steps from poverty.

  • Posted By: TravelinMike @ 11/28/2007 6:12:16 PM

    . While the author shapes a reasonable argument based on creative number crunching, I tend to discount any argument that relies exclusively on statistical data. As far as the "American Dream" goes, many of us more "evolved" American's who appreciate the advantages that being born American brings, do not submit to the use of raw income data as an absolute measure of achievement. Many of us equate success with a more general measure of happiness. Are we enjoying our jobs... are we allowed opportunity toi enrich our society by means outside of our primary employment...are we getting enough leisure time and enjoying the time we have? Those of us who choose more flexibility over higher compensation so that we may pursue our own individual "American Dream" will tend to skew the statistics. Perhaps there are more of us out there than the author and the statisticians think!

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse