theatlantic | More than a half-century ago, Betty Friedan set out to call
attention to “the problem that has no name,” by which she meant the
dissatisfaction of millions of American housewives.
Today,
many are suffering from another problem that has no name, and it’s
manifested in the bleak financial situations of millions of
middle-class—and even upper-middle-class—American households.
Poverty
doesn’t describe the situation of middle-class Americans, who by
definition earn decent incomes and live in relative material comfort.
Yet they are in financial distress. For people earning between $40,000
and $100,000 (i.e. not the very poorest), 44 percent said they could not come up with $400 in an emergency
(either with cash or with a credit card whose bill they could pay off
within a month). Even more astonishing, 27 percent of those making more
than $100,000 also could not. This is not poverty. So what is it?
As
people move up the income ladder, they escape material shortages and
consume more. They have “things”—goods, houses, and, most importantly,
education—to show for their higher earnings, but they do not have
healthy finances. Having those “things” is of course an improvement over
not having them, but only for the very, very rich (or the very, very
unusual) is there any real escape from the pressure-cooker of American
household finances.
At its core, this relentless drive to spend any money available comes not from a desire to consume more lattes and own nicer cars,
but, largely, from the pressure people feel to provide their kids with
access to the best schools they can afford (purchased, in most cases,
not via tuition but via real estate in a specific public-school
district). Breaking the bank for your kids’ education is, to an extent,
perfectly reasonable: In a deeply unequal society, the gains to be made by being among the elite are enormous, and the consequences of not being among them are dire.
When understood mainly as a consequence of this rush to provide for
one’s children, the drive to maximize spending is not some bizarre
mystery, nor a sign of massive irresponsibility, but a predictable
consequence of severe inequality.
0 comments:
Post a Comment