In These Times is not immune to the Great Recession. Please donate now!
PrintDiscuss
Culture » August 14, 2007

The Kids Aren’t Alright

Daniel Brook’s The Trap reminds us that inequality is bad for everyone, rich and poor

By Brian Cook

Tags   

Toward the end of his must-read article about race and the U.S. incarceration epidemic in the July/August 2007 Boston Review, Brown University economics professor Glenn C. Loury argues that, when it comes to understanding criminals, we must “recognize a kind of social responsibility for the wrongful acts freely chosen by individual persons.” While not entailing a denial of personal responsibility, Loury writes:

Society at large is implicated in an individual person’s choices because we have acquiesced in—perhaps actively supported, through our taxes and votes, words and deeds—social arrangements that work to our benefit and his detriment, and which shape his consciousness and sense of self in such a way that the choices he makes, which we may condemn, are nevertheless compelling to him.

Unless one strictly adheres to the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s maxim that “property is theft,” the subjects of first-time author Daniel Brook’s new book, The Trap: Selling Out To Stay Afloat In Winner-Take-All America, could hardly be considered criminals. Indeed, they are the cream of this country’s crop—idealistic, upper-middle class twentysomething Ivy League graduates, who upon entering the world of employment hoping to do good, often find themselves sacrificing their ideals in order to do well. Brook’s focus on their “plight” has caused some critics, on both the left and the right, to rub their fingers and play a mournful solo on the World’s Smallest Violin for the poor, little rich kids. But The Trap makes a powerful argument that, in an era of profound inequality, even the choices of the immensely privileged have become—in a similar if obviously less brutalizing way—as narrowed and socially circumscribed as those of their fellow citizens locked behind bars.

Brook begins with a spirited and appropriately venomous recounting of the past 30 years of conservative and neoliberal economic policies (mindless deregulation, massive tax cuts for the rich, gutting of public subsidies, denaturing unions, etc.), the end result of which has been an Incredibly Shrinking Middle Class and an exploding cost of living in America’s urban meccas. One of the lesser examined consequences has been the increasing infeasiblility for those who aspire to the security of a middle-class income to work at a socially redeeming job. Artists who can’t afford to buy houses might be one thing—societies have in general seemed pretty okay with letting them wallow in Bohemia (and many artists have been content to do so). Brook, however, deftly combines statistics, anecdotal news stories and personal interviews to demonstrate that it’s not just the no-goodnik artists who are forced to get by without a house these days. In Boston, 90 percent of the city’s teachers have been priced out of the housing market. In Half Moon Bay, Calif., a city councilman had to resign because he could no longer afford to live in the town. And then there’s Claire, a 27-year-old employee at a New York City nonprofit that combats the global trafficking of sex slaves. Though she makes $35,000 a year, Claire has to work two weekend shifts waiting tables just to make the rent on her apartment in Long Island City—that she shares with a roommate.

Part of Claire’s problem is that, despite being accomplished enough to attain a Fulbright grant and a full ride to grad school, she, like so many in her age group, is still paying off her undergraduate loans. Some might wonder just how much longer Claire can keep up this frantic workload before she burns out and settles for one of the better-paying (but socially worthless) gigs that await in corporate America. Others might question whether, if that day comes, Claire should be castigated as a “sell out” for doing so. But Brook, much more profitably, asks, why, in a society as wealthy as ours, are gifted and intelligent young people impelled to make a choice between the socially valuable work that many of them want to do and the soul-deadening work that so many must do to obtain the modest trappings (a house, health care, a decent education for their children) of a middle-class family?

The question points toward Brook’s most central argument: For far too long progressives have accepted the “fundamentally antidemocratic belief” that “freedom and equality are competing values.” Citing the ideals of Thomas Jefferson, Brook writes, “Only equality [can] ensure freedom; only by guaranteeing a base level of equality [can] each individual be given the freedom to blossom—to pursue happiness.”

Too many of the “best minds” of our generation have been forced to forgo the pursuit of their own happiness just to keep up (in some cases, barely) with the Joneses. That many have been granted access to the middle class for that sacrifice is a thin bandage to place over that initial injury. The Trap serves as an eloquent reminder that an injury to one (even one relatively rich) is an injury to all.

  • Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
  • Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
Brian Cook is an associate editor at In These Times.

More information about Brian Cook
Tags   
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Wow. Utterly foolish. From start to finish. Wish i had back the few minutes i wasted reading this crap.

    Posted by wolf on Aug 14, 2007 at 5:43 PM

    Excellent. On target.

    Inequity extremes are the cause for much of violence in the world’s history.

    Remember Watts and other cities around America.

    Hope-Dreams=a future which cannot be attained by millions for many reasons.

    Darwin’s the Strongest survive is for non-thinking animals.

    I want to do my share helping those below me to catch up and pass me.

    Chrisitian America! Dream on.

    Conservatism—anti-christ—anti- america anti- world.

    Democrats—the all (100%) american party.
    Republicans-the (20%)—only the rich party

    clarence swinney
    political research historian

    Posted by clarence swinney on Aug 15, 2007 at 12:28 PM

    Excellent notes: Loury’s piece was trenchant, and Brooks’ book is dead-on. All of this relates to the failed state that is America - its wholesale abdication of responsibility by its elites, the headlong rush by the supersystem to advance the rights of the rich. And so what do you want to do about it - be met with derision by idiots? Issue complaints from the ivory tower? Let’s be honest - the resort to drug war crime by outcastes, the insane pilfering of capital by finance traders, the feeble murmurings of the blogging cranks - they all relate only to the reality of our socially determined failure. There is only futility in contending with such a massively supported absurdity.  Are we stopping our emissions? Have we rolled up the asphalt for our GPS clusterbombing drones in any of our client states? Have we limited heedless profit-taking anywhere? Are we talking about how stupid this all is? Hey, have a nice day.

    Posted by notabilia on Aug 18, 2007 at 10:21 AM

    I’m not so sure that a guarantee of “equality” is democratic at all, but it depends on what sort of equality you have in mind. If all citizens were regarded as equally valuable members of the society, and could count on equal protection from the law (and yes, I realize that these measures already fall short for too many), that’s one thing. But to say that guaranteeing economic or “lifestyle” equality is democratic, that’s going too far. I recall a remark from Jefferson in which the best government is said to be the one that “governs least”. How do you guarantee that latter kind of equality while still governing least, or even less?

    Now, if the case had been for harm prevention by way of social investment, i.e. If the author had made the case that guaranteeing some form of social safety net to forestall squalorous poverty would improve the chances of everyone being able to pursue his own happiness,  he’d be on firmer ground. It’s still debatable just how democratic that would be, but it would go down with me much easier than mandatory (“guaranteed”) equality, which I think is impossible.

    Personally, I think investment in a social safety net by the citizenry (rich and not-so-rich ones) is a perfectly reasonable ask. Institutionalized neighborliness doesn’t offend me, imperfect as its attempts may have been up to now. It seems a lot less harmful than either guaranteed equality or “don’t give a damn” ignoring of other people’s suffering.

    Maybe the word “equality” is being used too loosely here, too broadly and not clearly enough.

    We could argue how far that safety net ought to extend (health? food? shelter? cable TV?), if you think there ought to be one at all, but that’s not really equality, it’s social investment in mitigating real poverty. Harm reduction (prevention?)

    It’s also a little hard for me to get too worked up over people having to “sell out” and take a corporate gig just because it’s the only way they can “keep up with the Joneses”. Not all corporations are created “equal” in terms of their objectionability quotient; broad-brushing only ignores corporations that actually do good things for their employees, customers, and neighbors, while also trivializing real abuses in a fog of generality. If the big-money lifestyle is something you don’t want to feed, good on you, but then it’s unreasonable to expect to “keep up” with a lot of luxuries.

    Health support wouldn’t be a luxury in my view, but a house is. I mean a free-standing house with a yard and all, not necessarily an apt or a flat. After living in Asia for more than 10 years, I’ve come to think that having a big space all to yourself is indeed an expensive luxury. Most Americans don’t think so, because so many of them are so well off, compared to most of the world. I have no problem with people wanting to earn luxuries, as long as they do so ethically, and even in a benighted corporation, that’s still possible.

    If you really want to undermine corporations, stop buying what they sell. No one said it would be easy. Democracy isn’t.

    Posted by Kuya on Aug 24, 2007 at 4:18 AM
  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
Appeared in the September 2007 Issue
Also by Brian Cook
  • Watching The Watchers
    Mass Observation returns for the Obama inauguration. Posted on February 20, 2009
  • Won’t Get Fooled Again
    (Well … maybe just one more time.) Posted on February 13, 2009
  • Ban the Cluster Bomb
    More than 100 countries have agreed to stop using them. Guess which one hasn'tPosted on December 1, 2008
  • Sleepwalking Through Seattle
    Battle in Seattle is a well-intentioned effort that ultimately misses the markPosted on September 19, 2008
  • Unholy Allies
    In March 2007, Al Gore triumphantly returned to the Senate to testify before… morePosted on August 12, 2008
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS