this post was submitted on 17 May 2024

45 points (90.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7612 readers

303 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why You'll Never Achieve The American Dream (www.youtube.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/15760475

Why You'll Never Achieve The American Dream

all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] sugar_in_your_tea -6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Wow, that video is full of scare tactics and misleading information. Sources are few, and the ones that exist are misleading at best. I'm not going to go through and rebut everything, but I'll pick out a few parts I think are particularly misleading to make my point.

I put parts into spoiler tags because this got really long. I hope this helps make the post feel less imposing.

Nobody can afford houses

Looking at the home ownership rate, it looks like things are generally getting better. About 2/3 of households own the house they're living in.

Things have been spiraling since Reagan

Let's look at real wages, which are about where they were 40 years ago. That means wages have roughly kept up with inflation. That's a good thing, and it looks like we're on a slow increase.

What this shows is that the rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting richer, but everyone is at least staying consistently rich, if not increasing.

fascism

First of all, all of the examples the author quoted are from the same time period: Germany, Italy, and Spain. There was even a fascist movement in the US, and people wanted FDR to take even more power than he did. In fact, I think there's an argument to say some of the things FDR did were fascist.

The video author claims fascism started because of capitalism, but that's not quite true. Let's look at what caused fascism in the 1930s:

economic depression

The Great Depression hit more than just the US; when things get bad, they want their leaders to do something, even if it doesn't actually fix anything. FDR's policies didn't actually fix the economy, but they were popular because he was doing something. In Germany, Italy, and Spain, "doing something" meant grabbing power and subjugating minorities, which is way worse than the US policy of creating BS jobs (arguably bad) and creating a social safety net (arguably good).

In fact, fascism is anti-capitalist. In fascism, the government takes direct control of essential industries "for the good of the nation." In Germany, that meant using car manufacturers to build tanks and airplanes. I don't know how people somehow combine the two, their diametrically opposed

fear of communism

The whole "red scare." When people don't understand something, the want to make it go away, and what better way to do that than empower your government to do that for you.

That's why FDR interned the Japanese, and why Trump wants to limit immigration. It's just letting fear of the unknown take over.

rise of Nazi Germany

In other words, bandwagoning. Other leaders saw Hitler's success and followed suit. They found a recipe that got them what they wanted, and sold it to their people.

Things getting worse

What is changing is people's access to technology and what we consider "average standard of living."

When I was a kid, we had a family land line and a family computer, and if we wanted to use the Internet, we needed to take over the phone line. We were very much a middle class family, and I had plenty of friends who didn't even have that at home. [Today, almost everyone has a smart phone, fast Internet, and many have additional devices at home. What used to be "for the wealthy" is now available for all. Likewise, if we look at cars, a car in 1970 costs about as much as a car today, when adjusting for inflation.

In short, things are pretty okay. Could they be better? Sure, but we're hardly in the death spiral this video claims we're in.

But since people are more connected, we're seeing the problems more clearly. It's easy to ignore the lobbying when your main source of news is that evening program, which is more for entertainment than anything.

conclusion: help each other out

I 100% agree with this. The important thing is to focus on what you can control, and for most people, helping out their neighbors is absolutely in their control.

Also, contact your representatives and tell them what's important to you. You probably won't get it, but if enough people reach out, they'll be motivated to act on it to keep their constituents voting for them.

Positives of today

There's a lot of good in the US, and I think the American Dream is alive and well, it's just very different from the American Dream sold to people in the 50s. Here are some really good things that have happened in my lifetime WRT the American Dream:

investing is more accessible than ever - it used to be only the rich could invest, but now everyone can, and without trading fees
modern conveniences are cheaper than ever - cell phones, VR, ebikes, etc are all within each even for the poor; you probably can't afford all of them, but you can certainly afford some of them; if you showed what the average person today can afford to someone in the 50s, they'd think we're all mega millionaires
almost everyone has a car - car ownership keeps getting more common

So why do I feel so poor?

Simple: comparison is the thief of joy. When we use social media, we see what others have. But what we don't seem to take into account is:

most people are in debt - they're trying to keep up with the Jones's too
you're seeing a self-selected group - you're seeing multiple peoples' hobbies; some people like cars, some like travel, and some like tech, but few do all three
most of it is fake anyway - people rent cars, pretend to be happy in pictures, etc

So if you want the American Dream, ignore all the status crap, stay out of debt, and invest while you're young. If you can manage that, you can buy a house even on a median salary or lower. My cousin is a social worker making below median income, and they own a house and have 4 kids. They cut way back on other luxuries, and they're very wise with spending money.

To me, the American Dream is:

having a well-funded retirement
having time to spend with family and friends, without having to work 2-3 jobs
having the flexibility to start a business if you have the passion to - I'm in a middle class neighborhood, and lots of people start small businesses - some kids spray-painted house numbers on the curb, two families own a landscaping business, and one repairs door dents at dealerships

You're not going to get there by being pessimistic, you'll get there by evaluating your options and making good choices. Yeah, this kinda sounds like the "work harder" mindset that the author is discussing, but I'm not saying that, I'm saying "work smarter." For example:

if you go to school, get an in-demand degree
consider going into the trades, they pay well and don't require an expensive degree
working two jobs isn't the way to get ahead; instead, live frugally so you can just work one job, and use the time to improve your skills to get a better job; it's better to have one job paying $30 than two jobs paying $18, even if the dollar amount is lower
seriously consider starting a side hustle - if it works out, you can grow it into a full-time job, and potentially hire help to reduce your own workload

But at the same time, help those around you.

I'm happy to discuss any part of this with anyone who is interested, I just ask to keep things positive. I like talking about solutions, not complaining about things out of our control.

If there's something I failed to provide a source for, or you'd just like more information, please mention it and I'll do my best.

[–] 31337 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

you can buy a house even on a median salary or lower.

I think think this very regionally dependant. Median household income and house cost in Austin, for example, is ~$70k and ~$650k, respectively. I grew up in a very small rural town, very far from any cities, and even though houses were much cheaper, they were still unaffordable to most people unless they could land one of the few available union jobs (most jobs available were in manufacturing and paid near minimum wage).

Things may be getting better, slightly, for the median person, but inequality is soaring, and a more dangerous problem IMO. Money is power, so inequality is a direct threat to democracy. It's also inequality, not poverty, that has the largest effect on crime rates, and social decohesion in general.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 9 months ago

But crime is actually on a downward trend:

In 23 of 27 Gallup surveys conducted since 1993, at least 60% of U.S. adults have said there is more crime nationally than there was the year before, despite the downward trend in crime rates during most of that period.

If income inequality is, in fact, a driver for crime, there must be an explanation for what's pushing crime down.

That's certainly possible, but I think a simpler and more likely explanation is that we're getting more exposed to media, and media sells the rare events harder than the common ones, because that's what attracts eyeballs.

Median household income and house cost in Austin, for example, is ~$70k and ~$650k, respectively.

Yeah, and that totally sucks, but you're also probably not going to buy the median house for your first home. Here's one in Austin for $325k, which is still expensive, but half the price you quoted. I didn't do a ton of research here (literally 30s search for 3+ beds, 1.5+ baths), but it seems like a decent starter home.

The bigger issue is interest rates, because a $650k house is way more affordable at 3% than 7%. If we assume that $325k house is available and we put 5% down, that house would cost:

$17k down
$2,607.77/month @ 7% interest

On a $70k salary, that's ~45% of really income, which is pretty high for a housing expense (ideally housing is more like 30%). But it's not unapproachable.

I'm not going to do a full budget breakdown, but hopefully my point is that if you look for a way, you can probably find a way. It's probably not going to with if you're making minimum wage, but if you're at the median income, it's a possibility, especially if rates come down a bit.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I almost up voted you reflexively because Second Thought often trends towards Marxist Leninist propaganda. But I didn't have to read far before the ignorance started to gleam through.

In fact, fascism is anti-capitalist

That's false on the face of it. Fascism is definitionally capitalist. Go check Wikipedia or an encyclopedia of your choice. Any reputable one will tell you that. If you don't understand that, it's likely you don't actually understand what capitalism is. Which would be very on brand for most people educated in America. The indoctrination and propaganda has been very heavy here.

The rest of your "critique" could best be described as disingenuous misrepresentation or flat out misunderstanding if one was generous. I'm not going to rebut it line by line as I generally have no desire to defend Second Thought. But despite them often being misleading and even propagandic. They get far more correct than this critique.

[+] sugar_in_your_tea -10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Fascism is definitionally capitalist

That really depends on how you define fascist and capitalist I guess.

Here's a definition of facism from Webster:

severe economic and social regimentation

And Cambridge dictionary:

state control of social and economic life

And the definition of capitalism in those same dictionaries. Webster:

an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

And Cambridge:

an economic and political system in which property, business, and industry are controlled by private owners rather than by the state, with the purpose of making a profit

Both definitions of facism say it involves strict, top-down control of the economy, and both definitions of capitalism say it involves private (non-government) control. When you get too much government control, it stops being capitalism and starts being mercantilism:

Fascism and totalitarianism adopted mercantilism in the 1930s and 1940s. After the stock market crash of 1929, many nations turned toward trade protectionism to save industry and jobs. They responded to the Great Depression with tariffs and trade restrictions.

In fact:

Both Russia and China continue to promote a form of mercantilism.

The article goes on to say:

In response, leaders like U.S. President Donald Trump advocated expansionary fiscal policies, such as tax cuts, to help businesses. He also argued for bilateral trade agreements between two countries, rather than multilateral agreements between many countries. Mercantilism opposes immigration because it takes jobs away from domestic workers. Trump's immigration policies followed this mindset.

And just not just Trump, look at Biden's tariffs against China, those have the goal of increasing domestic production of EVs in a protectionist move, which is very much mercantilist.

When people say "capitalism is the problem" or "capitalism leads to fascism," what they are usually talking about is mercantilism. That's the marriage of government and capital, where government interests are served by steering the economy in a certain way, and capital benefits from the strong arm of the government protecting their profits.

So the problem here isn't capitalism, it's government control over the economy. Governments should largely restrict themselves to welfare, consumer protection, etc. The more regulations and whatnot start to look like mercantilism, the easier it will be for a strong individual to steer the country toward facism.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

That really depends on how you define fascist and capitalist I guess.

Here's a definition of facism from Webster:

severe economic and social regimentation

That's not the complete definition. And your ignoring a lot of the disambiguation that comes along with the full definitions. The small piece you quoted is so ambiguous it could apply to any authoritarian group under any economic system. It really seems you're not engaging in good faith.

both definitions of capitalism say it involves private (non-government) control. When you get too much government control, it stops being capitalism

That's just absurd. Whether it's private or public it's still government. Capitalism as you said is about private non democratic control.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea -4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

small piece you quoted

As you can tell, my post was already quite long. I linked the original definitions to not hide anything.

The problem with fascism is that there isn't really a single definition that applies everywhere. It's not really based on any ideology, it's merely about growing the state for the benefit of the state. It's authoritarianism sold to the people as benefitting them in some way.

The economic system isn't really the point, though mercantilism seems to be the go-to, perhaps with a segment of the economy using capitalism until it no longer benefits the state.

Capitalism as you said is about private non democratic control.

Exactly. And facism is more about public, non-democratic control.