As I reflect on approaching adulthood, I figure it is time to begin planning a hypothetical presidential campaign. I don’t know what life will be like in twenty years when I would actually be able to run, so assume that it’s 2020, in an alternate dimension where COVID-19 never happened.
Couple of things to get out of the way
I probably have to change my name or shorten it. I was thinking Mehul Sach or Mehul Dev, despite Dev being a popular Indian first name. There is also Hul Dev I could go with. But more practically I would change my name to Michael Sachs.
Sooner rather than later I need to convert to Christianity. Bobby Jindal did it senior year of high school and he couldn’t even make it to Iowa when he ran.
I realize I wrote more than I intended to so most of the important takeaways will be boldened, written down in a numbered list format, or hyper-linked
Everything that is underlined is a hyper-link to my sources
Revitalizing the American Dream
The issue I am most passionate about is intergenerational mobility, which is commonly associated with the “American Dream.” As you will find, children born in the 40s-50s were fulfilling this dream quite well. It was even reflected in the culture of the 70s and 80s when movies about rags to riches such as Goodfellas and Scarface were being made. Although the characters in these films were usually criminals, they embodied the individualistic, work hard play hard culture of America. They conveyed values of hard work, ambition, and drive, which over 40% believe to be among the most important factors for economic advancement. That culture has somewhat evaporated with an exception to Shark Tank, the most notable media production promoting the idea I can sum up as:
Hard Work = Economic Advancement
Today (if you’re still reading at this point), I’m not going to prove this:
Hard Work ≠ Economic Advancement
Rather I will conclude that coming from a wealthy family as well as hard work is among the factors important to economic advancement, which only 10% believe. To me, this is a problem. It doesn’t concern me that a child is benefitting from their parents’ wealth because it is inevitable. The real problem is the lack of mobility among lower-income earning backgrounds and how it reflects the state of our public investment. The goal of generating economic mobility among lower-income earners provides a framework for how to form public policy. Public policy that involves lifting the possible burdens hurting mobility and limiting the rapid accumulation of wealth at the top end of the distribution through taxation and legislation. This doesn’t mean government handouts. Instead, I want to remove obstacles from people’s paths to success. In this edition, I will identify what these obstacles are and explain the political failures to address them.
My Favorite “The American Dream is Dying” Statistics
1. In the US, there is only a 7.5% chance that someone from the bottom 20% makes it to the top 20%; In Canada, it is 13.5%
2. The rich usually stay rich and the poor usually stay poor.
3. While most children still surpass their parents’ incomes, the rate at which they do has declined at an alarming rate. Note: x-axis refers to the birth years of the children
4. College education acts as a leveler for kids from all income ranks …
... however, the chances of going to college are scarily very strongly related to household income.
“The Two-Income Trap”
The idea that kids are not doing better than their parents speaks broadly to other issues such as health care and education, as well as political activity. Imagine a working-class couple whose child has just been born. Right off the bat, they have a decision.
Choice A: One parent works, while the other takes care of the kid
Choice B: Both parents work, pay for child care for the kid
Elizabeth Warren calls this the “Two-Income Trap.” Choice B seems reasonable, although there is a tradeoff between consequential early child development and added income. Added income that could possibly pay for the child’s higher education (which will undoubtedly increase in 18 years), not to mention rising medical and living expenses. But don’t forget that wage growth has been slow, employment security has declined, more and more jobs from certain sectors are outsourced or automated away, and we are not even considering the shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now it is important to note that most of these jobs the aforementioned factors address do not require a college education. If this couple does have college degrees, they are most likely still paying off their student loans. They are also vulnerable to “degree inflation,” or the credential gap between holders of jobs and the descriptions of the same jobs that has led to rising underemployment.
But back to intergenerational mobility. One more thing to consider is that the success of their child is also somewhat dependent on the strength of the school system they live in which reflects the economic conditions of the surrounding area. Some geographic areas are riper for opportunity than others. Generally speaking, there are higher rates of upward mobility in places with high school quality, local tax rates, social capital, and marriage rates. The deep South and the Midwest tend to have less mobility than other regions.
By now it should be obvious that the capital this couple can invest in their child is hindered by these financial burdens. Financial burdens that are largely ignored in circles of political power, partly because of the blatant influence that these predatory industries have on politicians but also because it is these people who become disengaged with the political process altogether. Yet it is this demographic where the most political opportunity is located.
Though I disagree with all but the last fourteen seconds of this video, it is evidence that Tucker Carlson seems to understand this as well. This puts him in an odd group of the left-wing of the Democratic party and the pro-worker, pro-family wing of the right that comprises of conservatives such as J.D Vance, Senator Josh Hawley, and Saagar Enjeti. All of these people seem to agree that the candidate that promises a less impossible path to raising a child that will be better off than their parents, will emerge victoriously.
Unfortunately, both political establishments have done the equivalent of applying a band-aid to a gaping wound that obviously needs stitches. The wound represents despair and the band-aid signifies phony campaign ads or cheap looks into the camera where the politician incorporates pathos to the same level as a middle-school student who just learned about rhetorical techniques in their English class.
Elected officials of both parties have become governed by the Pareto Principle, or the 80-20 rule, that claims approximately 80% of economic activity is attributed to the richest 20%. The consequences of this rule are visible in the most recent administrations, as they have done the bare minimum in securing the welfare of the bottom 80% while shifting their priorities to enriching the top 20%. The result? Massive increases in inequality that the US has seen since the 1980s, which I won’t get into because everyone and their mom has written about it. The dichotomy between the effects of the Federal Reserve’s actions on the stock market and pensions is a prime example of this. This topic is a behemoth that I can barely understand myself so if you’re interested I recommend reading the linked article.
Though it is difficult to predict twenty years into the future, a campaign focused on economic mobility would probably lack the sexiness of “Drain the Swamp,” “Lock Her Up,” and “Make America Great Again,” which I personally believe were the most effective campaign slogans in the recent history. Many of the realities of the “American Dream” would also come as a shock or challenge long-held beliefs that tend to divide ideological lines. Particularly those who value individualism and tie hard work, and hard work only, to economic advancement, and the Shark Tank enthusiasts. Definitely those Shark Tank enthusiasts.
Thank you for reading! The next edition will be about the smokescreen that is the national debt and what’s wrong with economics. Other ones I’m thinking about:
Tradeoff Between Happiness and GDP
Why I have Political Nihilism
Unpacking Reincarnation
A Word about Instagram Activism