Please welcome author Daniel Brook and reviewer Rick Perlstein for our book chat, and keep the conversation on topic. Thanks! Other open discussion can go on for the fresh topic thread just below this one. The original version of this review ran here: be sure to bookmark Rick's blog! Also, to buy the book, one option for you is here.
Brook's got guts. Because frankly, his topic - the fate of the best and brightest graduates of our top-flight universities - sounds like a subject for whiners. Who cares about them, right? They'll do fine on their own. What do the lifestyle and career choices they make after college have to do with the well-being, moral and material, of the rest of us?
A whole lot, Brook has me convinced. Their plight is a window onto the fate of nothing less than American liberty itself - and how the right has run it into the ground.
The book begins, provocatively enough, by quoting Barry Goldwater's 1964 nomination speech - the one in which he proclaimed, "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." What he also said was, "The tide has been running against freedom.... In our vision of a good and decent future, free and peaceful, there must be room for the liberation of the energy and talent of the individual... Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our own time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."
What's the argument? That conservatives' tragic misunderstanding of freedom has produced exactly what Goldwater feared most: stifling the energy and talent of the individual, crushing creative differences, forcing conformity - and, yes, even leading us to despotism (and I'm not talking about habeas corpus or NSA spying). By methodically undermining the public's will and ability to underwrite the public good, systematically accelerating economic inequality, and making turning oneself into a commodity - "selling out" - the only possible route for young people who wish a reasonably secure middle class existence, conservatives killed liberty. The canary in the coal mine is the death of young people's "freedom to live adult lives typified by choice rather than economic compulsion."
And, despite all Goldwater's guff about honoring "our founding fathers," conservatives did it by dragging our founders through the mud.
Take the destruction of affordable public college education - a development for which Ronald Reagan was in the forefront, as the first governor of California to impose a tuition for students at state universities. WWTJD - What Would Thomas Jefferson Do? He expressly established the University of Virginia as a haven for bright students "Whose parents are too poor to given them further education," who Jefferson proposed could be "carried at public expense through the colleges and university." Now, at the University of Virginia, only 8 percent of the students come from the bottom half of Virginia families, and only 8 percent of the 2005 budget came from taxpayer funds. They should take down the statue of Jefferson. It's not his university any more.
It's not his nation any more, either. Jefferson argued that too much economic inequality violated "natural right," and proposed "to exempt from all taxation [property] below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." You and I know that as a progressive income tax, but Barry Goldwater, who claimed to revere Jefferson, must have missed that part of his oeuvre. In Conscience of a Conservative, he put it in italics: government has a right to claim an equal percentage of each man's wealth, and no more.
Brooks shows conservatives drag the classical thinkers they claim to revere through the mud as well. I love Brook's find that the first society with a progressive income tax was ancient Athens - "In its earlier tyrannical period, the Athenians had lived under an imposed flat tax" - and I love the way he uses it to demonstrate how an economically just society is for that reason the only truly free one: "Consequently, democratic Athens became the world's first society to fully unleash its most talented citizens. Among the free male population at least, Athenians were free to pursue their talents, writing plays and philosophical texts, not merely making money, the great preoccupation of both underdeveloped societies and dramatically unequal societies like our own." And he notes that "one of Athens' greatest unleashed talents, the philosopher Aristotle, discerned a connection between a society dominated by the middle class and political stability and justice. The rich and poor...were prone to criminality...while the middle class obeyed the laws. He concluded that a just and well-run state must be controlled by a middle-class majority."
Were conservatives better multiculturalists, they might be interested to learn that Confucius agreed. But they don't even listen to their own conservative forebears - for instance, Andrew Mellon, who said "the fairness of taxing more lightly incomes from wages [than] from investments is beyond question." It really is transcendent moral wisdom, echoing across the ages.
Instead, because investments are taxed so lightly, America has for all practical purposes adopted what only tyrannies had before - a flat tax: "Americans making $50,000 to $75,000 pay the same percentage of their incomes in taxes as the four hundred highest-income families in the country."
It hasn't given us Athens. It's given us a world that better resembles Thomas Hobbes's state of nature: "No Arts; no Letters," as Brook quotes him - or more broadly, no chance for us to flourish to the best of our abilities.
Brook's portrait of the generation that grew up with Reaganism and the choices they face graduating from college now is striking. They can't afford to go into public service, even though a 2005 survey showed that public service was the most desired profession at top universities; Washington-area real estate is so expensive, he points out, that people are commuting from as far away as West Virginia. (not a problem, by the way, for Heritage Foundation interns; they have subsidized room and board at a $12 million Capitol Hill dormitory.) It is, in fact, a vicious cycle: "only a return to more egalitarian economic policies could free talented young people to fight for the social change so many of them believe in. But without such a change, a broad-based movement for reform is much harder to build."
What with all that college debt, they can't afford to go into much of anything except for the fields that immediately dangle the biggest the biggest paycheck in front of them. He writes about the recruiter for a law firm who boasts that his firm allows for its associates to have one outside hobby (his is reading); the banker forced to cancel her honeymoon in favor of an office project. If a mad scientist tried to devise a system to best stifle "room for the liberation of the energy and talent of the individual," he couldn't do a better job than this.
Brook, citing the social critic Brendan Koerner, calls college debt America's new "ambition tax." Inspired by Brook, I coined some other new taxes bequeathed to us by the demons a triumphant Goldwaterism has set lose. There is, for instance, the "idealism tax." In 1980, a University of Chicago student paid a $5,100 tuition - and, if her heart called her to teach in a Chicago public school, earn two and a half times that: not impractical. Now the relevant numbers are $31,500 and $38,500. Brook's stuff on teachers and even mayors priced out of the cities they serve is devastating.
There is, too, the "public school" tax. Brook cites one of the most shattering public policy insights of our age, the fact that there is no longer any reasonable distinction between "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" when those who can't afford to live in the most expensive neighborhoods, whose high property taxes support the best "public" schools, can't provide a decent education for their children. In California, Proposition 13 has turned "public" schools into de facto private ones, where ordinary amenities are paid for by tax-deductible local foundations. "Funding to Navato Public Schools from the state of California will never be what it should be for a stimulating, quality education. Support your local public school and students by donating today!" Thus does Goldwaterism bequeath us the makings of a hereditary aristocracy.
Most damning for conservatives who actually think they've accomplished something for freedom these twenty-six-plus years since Ronald Reagan's inauguration is the "entrepreneur tax." Put simply, in a society where to fail in business is to make economic survival impossible, fewer and fewer are willing to take the chance. Where are entrepreneurs better off? Dreaded Old Europe, according to the quite conservative Financial Times: "With its low [real estate] costs and generous welfare net, Berlin is an entrepreneurs' heaven, where barriers to entry are low and failure rarely entails personal ruin." Brook claims, counter intuitively, that America's self-employment rate is lower than it has been in decades. What if you do give it a go? "[T]he holes in the American safety net, health care chief among them, make entrepreneurship and family life mutually exclusive." That's not freedom.
No, conservatives kill freedom. That's my message this Independence Day. They kill the possibility of future of economic dynamism, the flourishing of the human spirit, the family, diversity, the arts. They didn't mean to; grant them that. Barry Goldwater's words about a good and decent future, free and peaceful, with room for the liberation of the energy and talent of the individual - all that by gutting government and killing taxes!! - suggest a genuine nobility of intention.
But so what. Now they've gone and done it: killed our New Deal social democracy. It's left our young people nothing but traps. It leaves me wanting to quote Barry Goldwater's nomination speech again, against Barry Goldwater: "We must, and we shall, return to proven ways - not because they are old, but because they are true."
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
zip?
zed again
Thanks for that intro Rick. Glad to be here.
I wrote that as my Independence Day post on my blog–and it turned out to be the most-read post I’ve ever done.
There’s a huge hunger out there–though the establishment, which has ignored Dan’s book, has no idea–for work that speaks to the economic anxieties of college and post-college folk.
What’s been the reaction from your target audience, or perhaps more accurately, your target subject–folks in their 20s?
How do you change a culture of consumerism/greed/attachment without killing off a generation? We all are so dependent on the struture~and those that have to work inside the business culture~who was it who said its hard to se the truth when your paycheck depends on not seeing it?
I haven’t read the book yet, but it is a critical issue. I got my Ph.D. largely through student loans, which I was happy to pay back (because without them no degree). Now those fees are out of line for most. Also the G.I bill played a key role in reshaping the U.S.)(broadening the middle class. We are now on a downward curve and for-profit colleges are taking the place of many public universities. This is also a key issue because it dovetails with the Republican view (correct) that an uneducated electorate is better for them.
And your thoughts, please, on what to do now?
Yeah, there’s a sense out there that anyone not stuck at the very bottom of American society has no right to complain. But as I argue in the book, a generation of right-wing economic policies has made America work for just a handful at the top. You have to be truly loaded not to be freaked out about healthcare, education costs, figuring out childcare. And the “solution” to this, for many, sadly, is selling out: doing a job you don’t care about, don’t believe in, that makes America worse not better. It’s a vicious cycle–but it’s one we have to break!
Rick Perlstein @ 5
I’ve gotten great feedback from people in this age group. There are tons of people facing the predicament I’m writing about. If you feel “trapped” you’re not alone.
You’ve got a very angry, defensive, and downright bizarre reaction from “libertarians.” What do you make of that? A sign of ringing success?
Mr. Brook~Thank you. I saw this happening over the past 20 years. Hell- I did it- at least until life kicked me in the teeth and said-that ain’t the way for you.
And the only thing I have been able to find that has an impact is to continulaly, day after day, each stupid thng, point out the truth, the reality. Admit it. CSee it. Not in an acusing or confrontational manner~ bt to continually point out reality. What do you think?
Richmond @ 7
It’s crucial that we progressives re-start the debate on higher education funding. Free public higher education has been an ideal–and reality, at times–for progressives since the very beginning of this country (just look at Thomas Jefferson and the founding of UVA). In the book, I tell the little-remembered history of how Ronald Reagan overturned a hundred year tradition by instituting in-state tuition at the UC schools. Sadly, in recent years, the debate has become how much into debt should you need to go to get your degree (progressives say “a little”; conservatives “a lot”). That’s not the right debate. The debate has to be publicly-financed higher education versus the tuition/debt system. Freedom versus serfdom.
In my humble opinion, the candidate that most addresses this is John Edwards. If your message resonates with the 20-somethings, then he should be their over-whelming choice, especially since the nominal leader, Hillary, is the establishment candidate, and therefore, not likely to appeal to the next generation.
So, the two questions are, first, do you agree with the above analysis? and second, if so, is this going to be another election, where the enthusiastic 20-somethings forget to show up at the polls like they did for John Dean. John Kerry, and to some extent, Al Gore?
Rick Perlstein @ 11
I was hoping (naively I now realize) to spark a serious ideas-based debate with the right. But apparently they’d rather make fun of me and my sources.
Welcome, Daniel!
In spite of our hiccups in getting this done on time today, we’re extremely excited to have you here, and feel your book makes a great and badly needed contribution to the national conversation.
Thanks also to Rick for hosting the chat.
Dan, here’s the latest from today’s New York Times: state schools charging HIGHER tuitions for certain majors, like business. I’m no fan of the business major, but can you think of any more fiendish way to entrench the class system than pricing people out of the most “profitable” degree?
The truly sad part of this is that we are precisely at a juncture in history when we need to maximize human potential in every way possible if we’re going to survive with even some of the gains made thus far, and the system-especially higher education–is very nearly gutted, except at the flagship institutions.
If corporations aren’t paying taxes at the federal level, chances are very good that they aren’t paying any at the state level. There goes the land grant system. One could probably track the increases in tuition inversely with the decline in corporate taxation. *sigh*
BigMitch @ 14
If the election (Pennsylvania primary) were held today, I’d probably vote for Edwards. But what bugs me about him is that he speaks about these issues as if they only matter for people in poverty. They matter, as I argue in the book, for the middle class!
I think the problem may be that Edwards grew up poor and now he’s rich. He’s never been middle class so he doesn’t have that perspective. But it’s not make or break. He could totally correct course…
By the way, here’s another reason why people should buy this book, besides its brilliant social analysis: it’s witty as hell.
Here’s some of his riffs from my notes:
“‘Personal capital’ bespeaks a degrade notion of what a human being is, tantamount to calling Yosemite National Park ‘lumber.’”
“‘The McKinsey look’–what you’d get if you put a gawky grad studet through a Queer Eye for the Straight Guy makeover.”
“God and Mammon at Yale.”
Rick Perlstein @ 17
Yeah, I saw that NYT piece. Please take a look at my comment 13. The debate in this country has gone so far to the right–”of course it’s okay that private colleges have tuitions, but is it okay if some majors charge more than others?”–that we’re going to have to drag it back to a real debate on the whole tuition/debt system if we’re going to fix anything.
Yes, that’s a very salient point. Though rising insecurity is making the middle class look over its shoulder, the middle class will vote its own interests, and that helps when its interests are addressed directly and clearly, and not just in the form of altruism.
Daniel Brook @ 15
Of course. But they are in the category of those that CELEBRATE their selling-out, literally glorify in it. I’d not expect anything different toward someone that says “selling out” may be, um, a BAD thing.
montag @ 18
At the risk of sounding like a broken record–there’s a lot more in the book than a critique of higher education policy–other countries have figured out that education is more important than ever. So they’re making it easier, not harder, for kids to get their degrees. Just look at Ireland, “the Celtic tiger.” They recently made higher education tuition free. We’re doing the opposite.
It’s also great on cultural analysis–on how the world our kids are graduating into looks more like Victorian England than modern America. Ie, “As a highly paid female mergers and acquisitions lawyer on Wall Streeet proclaimed, ‘Now I can marry for love!’ She uttered it with the gusto one might expect of a peasant girl from Pakistan.”
Tell the folks about the novelist who writes about modern Manhattan like Trollope describing 19th century London.
Pachacutec @ 22
I think the social justice component of the Edwards campaign is important. But as an electoral strategy, his message can appeal to the vast majority of Americans if he would just direct it their way. Who’s not freaked out about getting sick in this society? It’s not just the 1 out of 6 of us who are uninsured. It’s everyone accept the super-rich.
Daniel, can you talk a little more about the reception you are getting to the book?
I’m not quite up to speed, but how are the reviewers dealing with this stuff, getting as it does to the heart of the post-Reagan national consensus the way it does?
Daniel, I would like to discuss a “flip side” of what you’re discussing: high tuition/high debt preventing kids from going into “sociallly conscious” professions like teaching.
I was a teacher for a short while. Both of my [still-in-college] kids are interested in teaching. Because my husband & I saved and denied ourselves things like new cars and nice furniture, our kids will be able to graduate from college debt-free.
So, at least there will be ONE monkey not on their back, in terms of paying off debt.
Still, how can today’s graduates — in debt or not — afford to become teachers, nurses, cops, etc. AND buy a house, save for their own kids’ college?
One of MY favorite answers is that we ought to be paying ALL of these professionals more, but, yeah, THAT’s gonna happen.
Anyway, my point was: not only are we locking a generation of kids INTO crappy but lucrative jobs, we’re also locking kids OUT of fulfilling jobs that NEED good people.
I will find, buy and read this book. Reminds my of the little video that Max Blumenthal just recently put out from sneaking into the college student republican convention and hearing what these class acts had to say about the future. Certainly horrifying when then intend on being the ‘ruling class’ and very body else has to scrub the floors and get killed in their little petty wars. Plus, the bonus of no law pertaining to them.
If what’s left of the people in this country cannot get it together to take back our country and our constitution and our laws that everyone are accountable to, then it will happen.
Straight up on that. I recently went on an African -American talk show and said that the kind of insecurties black folk take for granted are not being suffered by white middle class folk, and that this could really have political consequences because frankly, the problems of black people are ignored.
But in order for it to have political consequences, political leaders need to lead…
Have you heard from any politicians responding to the message of the book?
If not: they’re crazy.
Rick Perlstein @ 25
Was 19th century London a hotbed of materialism? Because that is part of the problem, don’t you think? What we feel we ought to be able to buy/own, in order to feel successful–and safe. As I watch what many people seem to feel they ‘need,’ I wonder: how much is enough?
Rick Perlstein @ 25
Wow, that’s a tall order Rick! I use this example of a novelist who writes about contemporary Manhattan in the way British novelists described Victorian London (the class-ossified society that Milton Friedman hailed as a “golden age.”). The point of the chapter on dating, marriage, and family is to show how the new inequality is turning back the clock–making our society follow Victorian social norms.
I can’t do justice to the whole chapter here, but this is the crux:
Reaganomics killed feminism.
This country is, and has for some time been, in a Dark Age. No fresh ideas. No art. The conservatives simply caught a good thermal. They’re riding the current.
This country needs bold, fresh ideas.
I’d take my chances with Edwards.
Rick Perlstein @ 25
Oh, another Anthony Trollope fan??? I LOVE him!!!
Ooh! Ooh! Me, too.
Hey, Rick, am I going to see you in Chicago this weekend?
Laura, with all due respect, Dan’s not writing about an excess of materialism. It’s not “materialistic” to want to be able to own a home and raise a family and also have meaningful work. THAT is the option being denied people under the current regime.
On Ireland as an example:
One of the real tragedies of the last 15 or so years is the destruction of the university systems in Africa through world bank and IMF policies (basically US supported). It used to be that places like Nigeria had universities they were proud of. Sparce funding has been moved from liberal arts universities to technical schools training vast numbers of radio repairmen, auto mechanics, etc. No jobs there and worse, without an educated elite there is even less hope for a future. I think globalization figures in this as well, dividing the world into haves, have nots, rich investors poor workers. It is back again to the 1890s without the benefit of the building of infrastructue (rails).
Yes, and when I see you, I’ll remind you to stay on topic, you flesh-eating dinosaur! ;-)
Rick Perlstein @ 37
*Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbt!!!*
Welcome Daniel and Rick. Glad someone is focusing on this problem.
TRex [although you didn’t ask], I’m not going to be able to come to Chicago this weekend: have to help move college daughter from one residence to another. Bummer.
I hope there will be several ‘write-ups’ [and/or videos] for those of us who can’t make it there.
TRex @ 39
TRex, go to your room.
And everyone else, please stay on topic!
Pachacutec @ 27
The mainstream media did, as Rick said, initially ignore the book. But the blogosphere is alive and kicking. It’s really broken down along left-right lines.
But we got some great endorsements from Rick and from Thom Hartmann at Air America:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/hartmann/017
Now the book’s getting some review attention. See The American Prospect:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/art.....m_to_ibank
Rick Perlstein @ 35
I absolutely agree Rick. My musing about the highly paid lawyer who now believes she can “marry for love” was probably misplaced here.
Those are good links, Dan. Thanks!
mauimom @ 28
I would say, we need to build a society where you don’t have to be rich just to send your kids to college.
It’s impossible to imagine anything as progressive as the G. I. Bill coming from the GOP regimes of the last 30 years.
The G. I. Bill practically created the modern middle class, what’s left of it, no?
As for the mainstream attention, I apportion the blame 33% towards the same kind of disdain for economic populism you see in the patronization of Edwards, 33% to the unfortunate coincidence that two (greatly inferior) books came out last year that superficially seem to be on subjects similar to Dan’s–and 33% to the very problem Dan’s talking about. One of the consequences of the way America’s bottom-line obsession starves cultural richness is that there is about only perhaps half the space in American newspapers for book reviews that there was only a year or two ago.
A well-educated, stable middle class is exactly what the Bushies don’t want: they tend to question authority, vote moderately, and think rationally.
Daniel, is there any way of your getting exposure via C-Span’s Book TV? Also Diane Rehm is usually good re books of this type. And of course there’s the Gold Standard: Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. He clearly reads the authors he has on.
It’s amazing how many arguments reduce to the health care equation. I had never thought of America’s stifled entrepreneurialism being connected, but of course it is. We would unbind so much that’s got our culture stuck — if we had universal health care and affordable education.
Thanks, Author Brook and Mr Perlstein as well. Much to think about here — and your book’s headed to my rapidly filling Amazon cart as well.
Have you thought about following the subjects of your book for sequels at five- or ten-year intervals?
Do you talk in the book about shrinking opportunities even when “selling out?”
I read a while back that in the `50s, the Fortune 500 employed 22% of the workforce. Now, that figure is something like 7%.
Is there a sense among 20-somethings that it won’t be too much longer before they’re training their overseas replacements, so even selling out isn’t going to keep them ahead?
Also the progressive politicals of homeownership from the New Deal through the G.I. friendly terms after World War II all the way through to the 1990s, until the federal government decided to rely on Wall Street speculation and a housing bubble to keep the middle class housed instead. With consequences of which we are all now aware.
The most dramatic part of the book is the public servants priced out of their communities. What’s the statistic? 99.7 percent of SF schoolteachers can’t afford to life in SF? Last time housing became unaffordable, during the Depression and then the postwar housing shortage, the government DID SOMETHING about it.
Ah, nostalgia.
What about the housing piece, Dan?
And if you think the Clintons are for the middle class, I find it interesting, not that I resent making money, that Chelsea was first with McKinzie, and now with a hedge fund portfolio. Don’t you think, with that education and connections, she would do something that benefits more than the top 1%?
Get Tough @ 48
I think it varies from conservative to conservative based on their intelligence if they appreciate how brilliant their system really is. As I show in the book, they’ve created a system where people who don’t believe in it end up serving it (through selling out–taking corporate jobs they don’t believe in to pay off their debts, taking political positions they don’t believe in–yes, Hillary, I’m talking to you!–to kiss up to campaign contributors).
Milton Friedman and Dick Cheney know exactly what they’re doing. I doubt Reagan or W. understands just how darkly brilliant it all is.
Daniel Brook @ 24
The young adults trying for placement at University in the Republic of Ireland sweat blood over their final (placement) exams. Theirs is a quest for excellence which carries them to University, not the aversion of excellence so ubiquitous in the States. Only in the last twenty or so years was secondary level schooling made free IIRC. The educational system in Ireland is supported by a population of ca. 4.5 million souls. The final product of the Irish educational system is definitely world class, and those not choosing academic careers, a fully funded, technical education is available as well, vocational training many times is still by apprenticeship, a good model for no-one left behind
mauimom @ 49
I’ll talk to anyone who wants to talk to me. If you know a booker at C-Span or Jon Stewart, please drop them a line on my behalf ;)
Daniel Brook @ 55
Thanks for the comment, Daniel. So how do we get the supply-sider mentality out of America–Reagan trickle-down economics, W’s rush-up economics-and get back to the vibrant and strong middle class this country needs for the long run (I am sure you cover it in your book)?
Rick sed: “…stifling the energy and talent of the individual, crushing creative differences, forcing conformity - and, yes, even leading us to despotism”.
This week I heard someone, somewhere discussing the “redistribution of wealth” that is a main goal of this con admin.
What do these two things have in common? They are both projections - accusations uttered in contempt - by Republicans about Democrats - sung most loudly in the 60’s and 70’s. They called us “The Me Generation”, another ironic projection.
Why do they hate us, hate our freedom?
Daniel Brook @ 15
Some of the people who seem to have the hardest time accepting that they are not in on the con are libertarians who have no hope of making it into the charmed circle.
They are the ones who oppose the obvious prescriptions for what this book is about, such as universal health care, improving lower education, subsidizing higher education and making taxes more progressive.
That said, we have become a consumer society in which happiness is equated with making money and having things. But that isn’t how hapiness works. Unfortunately, there’s no money to be made off of valuing non-material things, so little is heard of it these days. Even religion is a money-making enterprise for many.
Ironically, government service doesn’t pay as well as the top private sector jobs, but the benefits do make it a good career choice.
Rick Perlstein @ 52
Yeah, the housing part is terrifying. Teachers and other public servants are now priced out of entire regions of the country. Most damaging, these are the regions we need them most.
When you can’t raise a family on a public sector salary in DC, what do you do? You sell out. That’s where we get the revolving door. All of a sudden public service is a short-term gig, not a calling or a career. And everyone in DC is angling for a job with the industry they’re supposed to be regulating (5 of the 7 richest counties in America are now in the capital region).
It’s a disaster. But no one’s talking about it.
Now that I have read the refreshed comments, and coming to the shocking conclusion that just like organized religion, higher educational institutions are nothing but BIG business now. Wouldn’t surprise me at all that besides the ridiculous cost of tuition that each class a student attends will cost money to get in the class room door everyday.(Buy your tickets)
At best going for a higher education after high school will have a new and more demanding attention about what you want as in a degree and in which field you want that in, something I didn’t have, I got a B.S. in Business Administration and that was just to say I got a college education which helps believe me, but now I wish I could go back and get a degree in Geology but the money isn’t there and I am afraid my age would hamper my being able to learn. If it was free, I would like to give it a try.
Daniel - A neo-con economist at my univ and I have sparred over an issue you may have thoughts on. He is studying the changing M-F ratios of students (latter numbers way up) and seeing this as a sign of trouble for society (declining male univ education). In my view it is in part the legacy of the GI bill, the fact that men can get relatively good paying jobs without edu (police, fire, construction), and that women not only have fewer options, but also can go to school & care for kids at the same time.
Wow, I never thought about making that connection on a regional basis.
The trick is the progressives need to re-learn how to talk about freedom. This freedom rhetoric (if we just get the government off our backs and cut the taxes we’ll be “free”) is how conservatives punk’d America. And progressives have to ask:
Got Freedom?
If you’re feeling none to free (”trapped”) let’s figure out how we can fix this. (details in the book)
Daniel Brook @ 65
Thanks, again, keep up the good work!
Richmond @ 63
Your analysis makes sense to me. What does your neo-con prof say?
I want to alert people that Rick Perlstein won’t be able to stay much longer, and Daniel himself has given us a generous hour.
Daniel, if you have to take off at any point, we greatly appreciate the time you gave us so far. People may have some other comments or questions for you to read, and the thread will remain open for 24 hours if you want to stop by.
I’m not chasing you away! You’re more than welcome to stay as long as you like. But since you might in fact have a life and other obligations, I wanted to be sure to thank you again for joining us and answering so many questions so far.
Pachacutec @ 68
Thanks for your time Rick.
I’m happy to stay on for another hour and then drop in periodically for the rest of the 24.
Keep the questions coming…
It’s odd becuase i grew up in the midst of that, and as a girl in my late 20s, the killed feminism thing never stuck. I’m not hellbent on marriage and children the way media pushes it at us. Even though we DO have the option of working as well, it’s just not on the menu. But i can see where it did change things. Definitely a factor in that.
Of course, i’m still in debt just trying ot keep myself afloat becuase taxation alone for an single, unmarried woman is pretty harsh. I know the guys get it too. One factor of many preventing me (and many others) from leaving the working poor pit.
Mommybrain @ 59
Because they’ve seen what happens when you free young people. They don’t kiss up to corporate America in hope of landing a job. They question authority. They march on Washington. That’s why conservatives are so afraid of freedom.
He says it has to do with the educational system, boys being pushed out, alienated, in secondary education, whereas girls have benefitted by the additional attention on their being successful professionally. He says he is basically following his data, but insists he can’t track the GI bill impact along with the rest because data sets are dissimilar. Basically it sounds to me like the right wing position that gender differences in educaton with girls on top (pun intended) is bad for society. More likely, this may be somethin like a canary in the coal mine.
Daniel, on another note, how did you get involved in this line of research? Is there a story there? Let’s get to know you a little bit, or at least, about the evolution of your ideas and interests in this line.
aliasofwestgate @ 69
And having, traditionally, the strong likelihood of working for less than men in comparable jobs (which the Bush court has helpfully institutionalized recently).
Yeah, I point out in the book that we need to go back to progressive taxation (right now people making $50,000 to $75,000 a year pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the richest 400 families in America). But we also need to ask, what do our taxes pay for (or not pay for). In other developed countries, taxes pay for higher education, so students don’t emerge in debt. Here they pay for endless war.
Rick Perlstein @ 17
Thank you for your book and being here. If I may, I would just like to mention that college professors who teach fine arts, education English, etc. are paid much less than those who teach business. This is a disincentive to college students to enter these fields if they plan to go on and get advanced degrees - or even work in these fields. A loss to our society, I would say.
montag @ 74
Yeah, that decision really pissed me off. I’m no quitter but that is just one more thing turning me away from this country. I’m still here, i’m still fighting but i don’t know how much longer i can stand this scraping by thing. This ‘i go mine, you’re on your own!’ lifestyle totally screws those who have other ideas of what they want to do. I’ve tried higher education and ended up taking another path. I might go back to it one day, but it likely wont’ be stateside when i do. Unless things change, and i’ll do my part while i still can. For now? I’m doing my best to keep my own quality of life decent. It’s all i CAN do at the piddly wages i make.
Daniel, Would be nice to see you on Book TV. Book TV has had a big run this weekend on Conservative authors aka Fascisti propagandists.
Pachacutec @ 73
Part of it is seeing the transformation of my hometown and region. I grew up on a street on Long Island where a pair of teachers lived across the street from a Wall Street banker. Fair to say, that can’t happen anymore. Teacher couples have been totally priced out. So it got me to thinking about career choice and how, when a middle-class lifestyle is no longer available to middle-class income earners, what do people do.
Well, they sell out. It takes exactly the same amount of education to become a teacher or a banker–so, hey, become a banker! That’s what I saw bright members of my generation doing: selling out. And then I began to think bigger–that there’s a lost generation that could be making America better, but isn’t.
A fellowship in Sweden really showed how much of this is specific to America. Then I did some research into how we got to this point, interviewed several dozen people, and ta-da: THE TRAP!
Any chance that you see the tide turning away from Friedman, and back to Galbraith? Or is Galbraith hopelessly outdated (though I don’t think he is)?
Daniel, What do you think of a flat tax with only one deduction of 50,000 to 60,000 across the board. That means mid to lower middle class do not pay income tax. Of course we know that they pay more than their share all other taxes. It seems to me that it could help to promote savings and would be more progressive than what we have now.
Get Tough @ 80
Times are changing back. There was a great cover story in The Nation on this by Chris Hayes a few weeks back. Take a look:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070611/hayes
Pachacutec@47
The G. I. Bill practically created the modern middle class…
… unions are a big part of that calculus as well.
Daniel: I grew up in Baldwin.
You can see a lot of the transformation you describe on the block where I grew up.
JPL @ 81
I’m all for lifting the tax burden on working-class and middle-class people and I think the idea of not taxing below a certain level is a good one (they do it in Ireland to encourage people to work). But I really object to not having progressive taxation at the top. Money really is a different thing to someone like Warren Buffett than it is to me or you. You could take a very high percentage off their 20th million of the year and their lifestyle wouldn’t change one iota. I really think you’ve got to tax it higher than the last dollar a teacher or social worker makes.
smallg @ 83
Agreed. Labor law reform is a big part of the solution to rising economic inequality.
Don’t mourn. Organize!