Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents: Just Being Middle Class Is Becoming out of Reach

By Nan Mooney, Beacon Press. Posted May 20, 2008.


Why does it take two incomes to support a middle-class lifestyle that used to require one?
picture2
nan mooney
Advertisement

The following is an excerpt from "(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" by Nan Mooney (Beacon, 2007).

Since the 1950s, what we've considered the American experience -- be it sock-hopping, suburban living, or SUV buying -- has been largely dictated by the professional middle class. In her 1989 social critique, Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class, Barbara Ehrenreich defined this mainstream population in terms of education, occupation, lifestyle and tastes, but also in terms of income. "Middle class couples," she wrote, "earn enough for home ownership in a neighborhood inhabited by other members of their class; college educations for the children; and such enriching experiences as vacation trips, psychotherapy, fitness training, summer camp and the consumption of 'culture' in various forms."

This thriving middle class didn't develop by accident. It emerged with the introduction of government and social policies designed to lift the country out of the Great Depression and sustain economic health in the postwar era. By the 1950s, a combination of social programs including Social Security, unemployment insurance, the GI Bill, and federal housing loans helped middle class salaries stretch. Employers supplied health insurance and pensions. A surge in suburban building made housing widely accessible. You no longer had to be a doctor or a businessman to afford a two-story Colonial with a dishwasher and a color TV. For a white male supporting a family -- the typical middle class profile at the time -- it was possible to work in an array of professions whereby you didn't necessarily get rich, but you could count on being fairly comfortable. A house, a job, a car or two in the garage, a fun summer vacation, these were absolute indicators of middle class success.

Economic realities have undergone seismic shifts since our parents' and grandparents' generations. Education and housing cost more. Incomes have leveled off for all but a small minority. Employers and the government supply few social safety nets, cutting health insurance and pensions and replacing them with new "benefits" like 401(k)s and health savings plans that benefit only those with income to set aside. But many of those middle class expectations set in place back in the '50s still hold.

Alongside our schooling in philosophy and economics, today's college-educated professionals have been conditioned to see ourselves as among the financially stable, mainstream haves. Many of us attended what are considered strong academic institutions. Others come from families with comfortable financial backgrounds. Our childhood friends, our college roommates, the couple we met at that holiday party are those same lawyers and financiers who've hit the financial jackpot, driving multiple Mercedeses and buying $2 million starter homes. We know we aren't like them. We've aspired to different career and financial goals, those more rooted in education, the arts or public service. But, given our often-similar backgrounds and educations, it's clear we aren't entirely unlike them either. This rising and dramatic economic inequality among college-educated professionals, leaving so many of us to struggle while a select few enter the strata of the "super rich," was not supposed to be part of the package.

When we read about the middle class squeeze, we tend to think blue collar -- the machinist who used to make $25 an hour now making $15, the vocationally trained worker whose job just got cut. But what about the social worker who makes $30,000 a year, the environmental scientist who makes $40,000, the college professor who makes $50,000? The rules of the game have changed. The educated professional middle class experience no longer guarantees two cars in every driveway, or even the driveway itself. Instead we face relatively low-paying jobs in fields requiring a high-cost education, increasing mortgages, student-loan and credit card debt, less employer or government help with health care, retirement, education and child care, and an overall higher cost of living. As the gap between the rich and the middle class widens, a huge segment of that once-comfortable center section is finding that reality means plummeting financial and emotional security and lack of control over our lives.

Difficult times


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: nan mooney, (not keeping up with our

"(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" by Nan Mooney (Beacon, 2008). Read more about the book and her work at Nan Mooney.com.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Don't I know it
Posted by: taisamarie on May 20, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have an MA degree and my husband a BA. We struggle to make ends meet every month and we live with credit cards. The only 'credit' we have is one car loan on a Ford Focus and my student loan payments of $500 a month.
My parent's had a modest house and we had a comfortable but not extravagent lifestyle. Together we make just as much as they did, yet because the cost of living keeps rising we can only afford a house half the size of the one I grew up in (our house is only 800 sq ft).
So much for moving up in the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: warpspasm
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: Hovey
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: warpspasm
» RE: Don't I know it Posted by: taisamarie
» atleast you have a house... Posted by: rafaeltoral
» RE: atleast you have a house... Posted by: taisamarie
Simple ... Reaganomics and Fudged Stats
Posted by: mmckinl on May 20, 2008 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reagan broke the unions, began the outsourcing of jobs and the privatization of the public sector. The Democrats played along and all this went into hyperdrive once Bush was elected with a Republican Congress.

Less known, but just as important were the doctoring of all our economic measures. Both the inflation figures and the unemployment figures have been bogus for years. The Fed has stopped reporting several very important figures altogether including M3.

By some estimates inflation has been so underreported that SSI benefits are 40% lower today than they would have been had the inflation measures stayed the same.

Alternet just had a great article on this:

Washington's Great Inflation Hoax

It's simple really ... the American public has been scammed by the usual suspects; the corporatocracy, the main stream media and the political elites of both parties, to line their own pockets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Soon it will take three incomes for a household to have a sense of financial stability.
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on May 20, 2008 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because duplication of fixed housing expenses like initial construction costs, monthly utility services, daily commuting for work etc. burdens the environment and its limited resources. The more economically productive people aggregate in a single household, the more efficient that household is, at least in general.

The frills of middle-class life, including suburban homes, multiple vehicles, vacations, and frivolous consumption, have had a hideous effect on the natural world, and they need to be curtailed anyway. Economic forcing, via increasing financial stress, might be the only way to achieve this.

Still, economic insecurity is hell to live with, especially when it is dire enough that a person can see the specter of homelessness looming on the horizon if something simple goes wrong, like the car dies or someone gets sick and misses work. The best that people can do is to keep trying, while reassessing their expectations in order to be prepared if personal catastrophe does occur.

Political change can help the situation, but it's always uncertain whether such change will come and who it will impact, and at this point in time, it will still take years at least - if not decades - to reorganize our economy such that ordinary people can feel secure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's why it's called "nonprofit"
Posted by: Capitalist Pig on May 20, 2008 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard Nan Mooney on NPR yesterday. She bemoans the fact that "teaching, social work, and careers in the nonprofit sector" don't pay very well.

Of course they don't pay well, that's why it's called nonprofit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is just the beginning....
Posted by: xi_people on May 20, 2008 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The American "middle-class" is history. Not only won't this generation be able to keep up with their parents, but the entire class is going to disappear. With the advent of Peak Oil, and perhaps Climate Change, the factors that have enabled the concept of a more equitable distribution of wealth (mainly cheap oil) are being obliterated.

These are the "good old days" that people will reminisce about for decades to come. Better enjoy them while you can!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The real question
Posted by: warpspasm on May 20, 2008 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shouldn't the question be whether or not the "middle class" lifestyle of days gone by is a good thing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The real question Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: The real question Posted by: fatbradley
» What are you prepared to do? Posted by: warpspasm
» RE: The real question Posted by: Logic's Edge
Hard Choices and Welcome to Reality
Posted by: terradea42 on May 20, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The middle class needs to wake up. Options for this family include abortion and defaulting on student loans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hard Choices and Welcome to Reality Posted by: world traveler
» What A Great Reason to Adopt! Posted by: pdxstudent
» An Even Better Reason To Foster! Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: What A Great Reason to Adopt! Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: What A Great Reason to Adopt! Posted by: world traveler
» RE: What A Pathetic System Posted by: FoonTheElder
Katrina Victims are our future
Posted by: fred_53_99 on May 20, 2008 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The victims of the ninth ward, the victims of Katrina they are our future. "po" not poor. most of them had jobs but they were still poor. Th ejobs they have could pay enough to live. Now it seem neither can most of the middle class. By next year ten percent of Americans will be on food stamps.Thats 23 million. But we're not bitter,The rich are supposed to screw us,that's how they got rich. Break out the industrial sized jar of vasoline, we're about to really get the big one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Having trouble feeling sorry...
Posted by: Farasien on May 20, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...for the couple described in the article. They both have sub-standard jobs, for professionals. They were dumb enough to buy a house they couldn't afford, then compounding the issue, were dumb enough to have a kid they couldn't afford. Not once, but TWICE. She then opened her own practice instead of finding a more stable job, taking on MORE debt they couldn't afford...

Is it just me, or is it just a bit patheric that people like the dolts in this story, clearly victims of their own stupidity, are bitching? One of the reasons the boomer generation is doing better than the current one (of which, I'm disgusted to say, I'm a member) is that they had some sense of financial wisdom. THEIR parents bothered to teach them a touch of responsibility and common sense whereas the dipshits of my generation think they can do the procession of stupid shit described in the article (or even worse, in some circumstances) without having to pay for it. Unlike most of my generation, apparently, I learned how to conduct myself and my finances in a manner that resembles sanity. I'm married, happily child-free, I own my own (sane-sized and priced) house which I renovate continuously on my (not credit) money, 2 cars (both paid off), have a job that, while not saving the world provides me a lower-middle class lifestyle. I'm out of consumer debt and have been for the last 2 or so years. I'm saving an appreciable amount for retirement and am going to school on MY dime in my free time to learn a trade I love (CNC machining) in case my science job takes a permanent vacation in China. I do this in spite of both myself and my wife having (manageable) health issues and a mortgage. If we can do this with my and my wife's pittances of salaries, its damn hard to feel sorry for dolts like the ones in this article or others like them. If you want to be stupid in life, you should damn well be ready to pay the price for it. A little wisdom and discipline goes a hell of a long way, and contrary to the whining you might hear from what passes for parents these days, isn't too hard to teach or learn. I guess its just not fashionable to be intelligent these days.

Too bad for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's the sense of entitlement Posted by: suprmark
» It is JUST YOU! Posted by: Gravitas
» RE: It is JUST YOU! Posted by: Knot_Rich
» Read it again Posted by: Farasien
» Why Do You Think That? Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Credit the hippies Posted by: westomoon
» Solving and Blaming Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: Some people need leaders Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Overcoming PSYOPS Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Greedy Sellers and Greedy Buyers Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
There Really Were "Good Old Days"
Posted by: Liberty G on May 20, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I approach the age of 70, I believe I have a good perspective on the societal history during my lifetime. I am no dreamer in rose-colored glasses when I look back - but by every concrete measure, the 1950s through the 1970s were vastly better for the majority of people. Certainly there were serious problems, and the wealth and civil rights were never shared equally. But the cost of living and quality of life were far superior to today for those not in the corporate, political or academic elite. I remember living in NYC in the early '60s with a salary of $60 a week - which was exactly the rent of the apartment in Brooklyn Heights I inhabited. Today, that apartment could never be mine, even with a job paying far more.

In particular, I have often pointed out to people the fact that needing two incomes to raise a family is not an improvement over being able to do it with only one. Thanks for speaking my mind!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I haven't worked in 2 years, I live on $800 a month in one of the most expensive areas of the U.S.
Posted by: blogbooks on May 20, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop spending more money than you make. It isn't hard. I haven't worked in 2 years. Kind of a temporary retirement.

You simply have to change the way you think about money. Stop thinking there is an unlimited money supply you have access to via loans and credit cards and start looking at how much money you actually have in your accounts and in your pocket.

I'm sorry but if you can't live comfortably on a combined income of nearly 80 grand a year then your sense of entitlement is simply too grandiose to ever be satisfied.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: i would love to konw how you do this!! Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
dave580b
Posted by: ed580b on May 20, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clue bus... cut up the credit cards. Shop with cash. Ask yourself if you can do without on every puchase until you are debtfree. That's how your parents made it to middle class status.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here we go again...
Posted by: grokked on May 20, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The willful self delusion in these discussions never fails to amaze me.

Oh, woe to the middle and working classes!! Victims of vast economic forces beyond far their ability to combat.

Actually, what they are, is victims of their own stupidity.

The truth is that the "ownership class" would never win a single election on the strength of their own numbers.

But, nevertheless, they do win election after election after election. Thanks, almost entirely, to millions of faithful middle and working class morons who continue to vote republican, despite seeing the cronic disintegration of their personal fortunes and lifestyles.

I see it constantly, even among my own family and friends. It seems that there is no degree of persuasion or connect-the-dots that will cause them to open their eyes to the republican bait-n-switch tactics. Vote for the "good christian man" (people who always make me itch), and get instead corpratocracy, free-market fundamentalism (a.k.a. offshored jobs), and "relaxed" work rules (a.k.a. shut up or you can be replaced).

The middle and working classes in this country have the government that they have repeatedly chosen. If it sucks, they have no one to blame but themselves.

In my uniquely uncharitable and unlefty way, I have taken to calling them the "christian stupids".

May their mindless holier-than-thou corpses rot in the sun. Soon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here we go again... Posted by: fred_53_99
» RE: You got it absolutely right Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» RE: Taught to "believe" Posted by: Sushi
Not the number of incomes
Posted by: fdgsr on May 20, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I often wonder why we only count the number of incomes without noting the number of productive incomes. I wonder why we fret about the number of family incomes, and not so much about the number of non-productive people we support with those incomes.

When a number of working hours are spent on non-productive activities, the total cost to the economy is higher than when more of the incomes pay for production.

I have compared the cost in dollars adjusted for inflation for basics, such as flour, sugar, fat, and energy in the '30s with the same costs in adjusted dollars today. The cost of these things is lower today than then adjusted for inflation. So where do we spend the additional income?

If the cost of food is half what it was in 1935, the extra income can be used for technology and education. Eight grades of school was common as a max in 1935, while twelve grades are expected today. Jobs that went to high school grads in 1935 now go to college grads.

The fact that food costs half what it did in 1935 in terms of inflation adjusted dollars, means that half the man hours needed to produce all the food consumed can now be employed in other services and products. Still we want more. None of us had health insurance in 1935, yet a visit to a doctor cost $2.00 and the medicine he prescribed cost less than a dollar. Dentists could pull a tooth for $3.00 and there were no psychologists to deal with the stresses of the great depression. Only the rich, like the doctor and dentist who charged $2.00 per visit, could afford to go to a psychiatrist, who was also a medical doctor.

My doctor drove a new Buick every three or four years and my father drove a used Nash or Chevy. State sales tax was 2% and there was no income tax on the income of ordinary workers. Property tax was less than $20 per year on our 80 acres. It included enough to run the local school and to transport a couple of high school kids to town five days a week for their 'advanced' education. College was out of the question for most of us. Farmers could get all the labor they needed for $1.00 a day. At harvest time, they could double the pay to get more on a temporary basis.

If the work force worked as hard today and was as productive as they were in 1935 added to the production due to technology and machines, there would be no economic problems and enough left over to fund health care, dentistry, and mental treatment of the few who could not adjust to that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not the number of incomes Posted by: JERSEYDAN
Rev Wright caused all the decline of the middle class
Posted by: fred_53_99 on May 20, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know Rev Wright is the real cause of the middle class melt down. So lets have a Bud and make John McCain's wife richer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can we get real here?
Posted by: LeslieGem on May 20, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every few months we have an article on this theme, and it's the same unrealistic attitude.

Let's get real here -- my grandfather and father supported their families in a middle class lifestyle while their wives stayed home, but they weren't working their "dream job." They were working the job they needed to work to earn the money they needed to to support their family. My generation, on the other hand, seems to think that they are entitled to work their low-paying "dream job" and still earn an income at a certain level to support a certain lifestyle that they are "entitled" to.

It doesn't work that way. If you CHOOSE to work a job that pays "x" dollars, they you have to adjust your lifestyle accordingly. If you can't tolerate the lifestyle your income provides, then you are going to have to suck it up like our fathers and grandfathers did, and work in a higher paying field that doesn't fit your dream of "what you want to be when you grow up."

Work hard, spend wisely, save your money, and make a career change to your "dream job" when you can afford it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What career change? Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» Too Funny! Posted by: Gravitas
» RE: Dream job? Posted by: westomoon