 | http://nsx.altervista.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=197&mode=&order=0&thold=0
"Ya gotta believe in what you're doing." "Stand up for yourself." "You
gotta
think of yourself as a winner, and you will be."
These are the sermons of one of the most popular men in contemporary
pop
culture, Donald Trump. His reality TV show, The Apprentice, has become
an
entertainment phenomenon, repackaging and reselling the increasingly
elusive
American Dream. It is perhaps no coincidence that The Apprentice is
wildly
popular at this point in American history. Never before has the divide
between
our nation's richest and poorest been so large. Never before has
corporate
corruption and welfare been so flagrant. Therefore, we watch with rapt
attention and desperation the unfolding of the American Dream on
so-called
reality TV, distracted from the fact that the Dream's rewards are more
fiction
than fact nowadays.
The American Dream is possibly the strongest cultural force driving
the US
worker. It inspires us to work long hours and borrow large sums of
money. This
dream translates into economic self-sufficiency, manifested through
successful
entrepreneurship and homeownership. Yet is it truly blind? Are all
Americans in
an equal position to attain this dream, provided that one has enough
ambition
and work ethic?
According to the American Dream, increased productivity will lead to
higher
wages, enhanced wealth, and ultimately, to economic self-sufficiency.
Pious
sacrifice will reap earthly rewards. As the American working class
experience
proves however, this is not the reality. Not only does hard work not
necessarily translate into economic success, but the fruits of
opportunity are
not shared equally. This stark reality taints the promise of freedom
and
justice that we claim as cornerstones of our nation.
For the vast majority of the US population, the American Dream is not
readily
available to them. In 2000, the US Census Bureau reported that 31.5
percent of
families in this country make a total income of less than $35,000. In
most
states, this amount of money barely affords rent and food for a
family, let
alone car payments, health insurance, education costs or, worse,
treatment for
medical problems. Many middle and lower class Americans, especially
single
parents, rely on overtime to make ends meet. To make matters worse,
the White
House and the Labor Department uprooted overtime regulations with the
announcement of new regulations that took effect on August 23. Workers
who earn
between $23,660 and $100,000 will find themselves ineligible for
overtime pay
if they are reclassified as "professionals, administrators or
executives."
Currently, $23,660 is only $5,000 above the poverty line for a family
of four,
and these boundaries have not taken inflation into account. So fewer
and fewer
workers will be protected by overtime pay as time goes on. These new
rules
determining eligibility for overtime pay has placed this privilege in
jeopardy
for over six million workers. Fortunately, the House voted to block
this
legislation from being enforced, but this is not likely to be the end
of the
fight. American workers face an uphill battle to erase what many call
"the
biggest pay cut in history."
Despite the fact that the US is one of the world's richest
industrialized
nations, our average per capita income is a meager $21,857. Where is
all the
wealth to which the American people supposedly have fair and equitable
access?
It is concentrated at the top. We live in a society in which 1 percent
of the
population owns 60 percent of stock and 40 percent of total wealth.
The top 10
percent of Americans own over 80 percent of all real estate.
Consolidation of
real estate has partly spurred a housing crisis in many cities as the
rich and
poor compete for housing, and the rich win for obvious reasons. As a
result,
the working poor have increasingly been forced into substandard
housing that
costs upwards of 40 percent and 50 percent of their income.
Furthermore, since
much of the working poor are in service and retail industries that
primarily
serve the upper classes, they often can only afford housing far from
their
place, or places, of work. In her book, Nickel and Dimed, Barbara
Ehrenreich
explains that transportation expenses and commutes burden an
already-strained
budget, and they affect a worker's job security by impacting
punctuality and
performance.
The American Dream, with its emphasis on individual enterprise and
responsibility, cleverly veils the economic and social forces arrayed
against
the poor by not recognizing the basic structural problems in suburban
sprawl
and concentrated wealth. It is convenient to accuse the working poor
of being
lazy, tardy, foolish with their money, and undeserving of wealth. That
is
easier than probing the problems of commuting, securing decent child
care, and
surviving on wages that have been systematically suppressed even as
inflation
has increased the costs of living. Even well-meaning,
socially-conscious
Americans are susceptible to judging the poor rather than seeing them
as a
shameful result of capital accumulation run amok. People in the lowest
income
brackets are admonished by pop culture icons such as Oprah Winfrey and
Dr. Phil
to better manage their money, and yet they are told what to buy to
attain the
stylish trappings of the American Dream. The Dream's mixed messages,
as they
are played out in popular culture, add a psychological burden to an
economic
one. Not only do the poor struggle to exist on pittance wages, they
are
constantly bombarded by images selling the elite lifestyle.
And the elite grows ever more elite. Between 1977 and 1999, the top
one-fifth
of American households enjoyed an increase in income of 43 percent.
The bottom
fifth of American households lost income at a rate of nine percent. Is
this the
egalitarian vista of productive, successful, middling farmers and
entrepreneurs
that Jefferson envisioned two centuries ago?
The Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy
published a
report that highlights the gross inequities between executive and
worker pay:
"Executive Excess 2001: Layoffs, Tax Rebates and the Gender Gap." As
revealed
in the report, executive pay rose by 571 percent between 1990 and
2000. During
the same period, workers' pay rose only 37 percent. The Progress
Report article
notes, "if the minimum wage, which stood at $3.80 an hour in 1990, had
grown at
the same rate as CEO pay over the decade, it would now be $25.50 an
hour,
rather than the current $5.15 an hour."
Why is there such a disparity between the working and upper classes?
Are we not
working hard enough? The Washington Post notes that business
productivity grew
by 9.4 percent in the third quarter of 2003, the highest increase
since 1983.
Workers are working harder, but this has not translated to higher
wages. In
Progress and Poverty, Henry George asks, "Why, in spite of increase in
productive power, do wages tend to a minimum that will give but a bare
living?"
Perhaps we should ask corporate executives, whose astronomically high
salaries
are made possible by the workers' increasing productivity.
Unfortunately, corporate executives are unlikely to be challenged. In
fact,
average American citizens more commonly pose the question to
themselves. The
American Dream, rooted in a Protestant work ethic and assumptions of a
level
playing field, perpetuates a cultural version of "blame the victim."
In his
book, The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination, Bradley R. Schiller
explains
how Americans view poverty:
In colonial America poverty was regarded as the manifestation of vice
and sin.
Because everyone except Negro slaves was thought to enjoy the
opportunity to
acquire economic security by his or her own labor, those who did not
attain
such security were deemed to be morally flawed. Poverty thus became
proof of
moral bankruptcy, and the poor were treated accordingly.
If success is portrayed as an individual enterprise, then it follows
logically
that failure is an individual responsibility. There is an
under-explored idea
in cultural anthropology that argues that psychological trauma results
from the
gap between cultural expectations (as set forth in myth and ideology)
and
material reality. As the economic structure polarizes the classes, a
surprising
number of Americans turn inward, blaming their perceived deficiencies
in
spirituality and character. This is manifested in movements such as
the Promise
Keepers, Million Man March and followers of Robert Bly in the 1990s.
It is
interesting to note a gender difference in social movements. Famous
men's
movements tend to focus on accepting internal responsibility for
perceived
failures. Women's movements, such as the March to Save Women's Lives,
rightfully lash out at the socio-economic structure that denies
universal
health care, fair education, and decent and equal living wages.
Research in the field of psychology has shown that cultural
aspirations of
monetary wealth can be directly correlated to individual psychological
problems. One study, by Tim Kasser and Richard M. Ryan, found that
individuals
who place high levels of importance on financial success experience
more
depression and anxiety than those who do not. In a concurrent study,
they note
that among a sampling of 18 year olds, those who place a high
importance on
monetary wealth experienced "lower social productivity and more
behavioral
problems." Carol Nickerson and her associates note that individuals
with
stronger financial goals generally have lower job satisfaction and
lower
satisfaction with family life and friendships. Despite the negative
personal
and interpersonal effects associated with the American Dream, we have
not
ceased the pursuit of its "promised glory." Against all odds, social
and
cultural motivations have proven to be an overwhelmingly powerful
force in
maintaining our drive to achieve financial and material wealth. In a
cultural
and historical landscape that blindly exalts the motto "reap what you
sow," we
are driven to sow to exhaustion, attaining amazing levels of
productivity. We
are, however, shielded from knowing that the sowers and reapers are
not the
same people.
Modern American cultural expectations, as articulated in the American
Dream,
arose and evolved from our frontier history (as brilliantly explored
by
historians Frederick Jackson Turner and Richard Slotkin and
contemporary
anthropologists, such as University of Central Florida's Vance
Geiger). The
Dream presupposes a limitless vista of land and resources that only
need be
tamed into property and wealth by pioneers with a strong work ethic,
upright
morality, and courage. In fact, the image of the American West is so
powerful
that it permeates our economic and political vocabulary without us
being
conscious of it. Osama bin Laden is "wanted dead or alive." Nations
that do not
accept US global supremacy are "rogue." To get anywhere you have to
"take the
bull by the horns."
The vista of never-ending land and resources still serves as a
metaphor for
urban and rural entrepreneurs wanting to exploit opportunity. Yet, the
frontier
of opportunity is not so fair. Corporate welfare tips the scales of
economic
justice significantly in favor of big business. Small businesses fail
at a rate
of 50 percent, and they are expected to sink or swim in the
marketplace. Such
small business owners probably do not have significant funds to lobby
Congress
and the White House like the mammoth Enron, for example. Before Enron
failed,
it benefited from billions of dollars of tax breaks and subsidies for
operations abroad. Further legislation giving Enron financial and
environmental
free rein (Bill HR 4) was scheduled for a vote in the summer of 2002.
Not only
do large and small companies play by different rules, average
taxpayers
subsidize corporate corruption. Small business owners and American
workers are
expected to conduct themselves with honor, ethics, and fairness in the
workplace. Yet, the administration oddly looked the other way as
evidence
surfaced that Enron was a primary player in manipulating artificial
energy
shortages that caused massive blackouts and nearly bankrupted the
state of
California in 2001.
Corporate welfare has made it virtually impossible for small- and
micro-businesses to compete in an economy that provides credits,
subsidies and
favorable trade and labor policies for large corporations. This is
particularly
true in the agricultural sector. Family farms throughout this country
are being
run out of business by corporate producers. For example, as a result
of
decreased profits to agricultural corporations, dairy farmers in New
York have
been forced to sell their multi-generational businesses. Small citrus
and
vegetable producers in Florida are continually being driven to
bankruptcy,
unable to compete against agribusiness companies that thrive on the
benefits of
corporate economies of scale and farm subsidies. This is not the
result of
free-market economics.
Government favoritism towards big business limits the potential for
micro- and
small- businesses to remain competitive in the US market, let alone on
the
global market. As a result, multi-generational livelihoods, through
which
socio-economic identity has been formed, are being stripped from the
American
worker. An independent Florida farmer, like our reigning cowboy Donald
Trump,
was mentored by his heroic father and believed passionately in his
living. When
his produce goes under, literally, he has no TV show from which to
sing praises
about the American Dream.
Yet, despite these outrages, a unified revolt does not seem likely.
As a larger
workforce competes for a shrinking share of total national wealth,
workers are
wary of those who seem to outperform. In researching Nickel and Dimed,
Ehrenreich worked a variety of minimum-wage jobs to document whether
minimum
wage can actually sustain a living (The conclusion? No, unless a
single worker
holds two or more jobs). She discusses different ways workers
"checked" each
other in the workplace. A fellow waitress at a diner scolded her for
straightening display desserts, explaining that they would all be
expected to
do it. At Wal-Mart, Ehrenreich and co-workers expected each other to
slow to an
"arthritic" pace in case a manager conducted a time and motion study.
Ehrenreich was continually warned against revealing her full knowledge
and
capabilities because more productivity would be demanded with no
commensurate
raise in pay: "The trick lies in figuring out how to budget your
energy so
there'll be some left over for the next day." These workers knew
better than to
think the Dream's promises were true; hard work brought them few
rewards. Not
only do fewer and fewer elites own the means of production, but the
fundamental
mean, labor, has been exhausted and divided against itself. The
suppression and
psychological battering of labor effectively sap whatever strength
labor may
have in numbers.
For US workers who dare to "stand up for themselves," they are likely
greeted
with a resounding, "You're fired." The 11,000 striking airline workers
in 1981
discovered this painful reality when they were fired by the most
gifted
frontier myth-maker of all, former President Ronald Reagan. The 1981
airline
strike, and other failed strikes, demonstrates that even when labor
can unite,
success and opportunity may still be unattainable. The 1981 strike is
compelling in its irony: it was busted by a president who marketed
himself as
the very symbol of what the American Dream deems possible. President
Reagan
espoused middle class values of virtuous work ethic and productivity,
yet he
was hostile to the labor movement. During his presidency, we witnessed
the
decline of the middle-class and increasing concentration of wealth.
The United
States exhibited the widest income gap between the rich and the poor
of any
industrialized country in the 1980s. A recent article in the New York
Times
reported that this gap is continuing to grow, with the top 20 percent
of the US
population earning 50 percent of the nation's wages.
Unequal concentrations of wealth have been a fact of American history
since the
founding fathers established this republic. Plantation slavery, the
industrial
revolution, and the military-industrial complex since World War II -
all of
these were built on the backs of a poor and oppressed majority and
used racist,
ist and various other prejudices to justify their modus operandi.
Yet, we
can challenge the past not to predict the future.
The reality of this country needs to be made into what its founders
claimed it
should be: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" for all, not
just the
chosen few. In The Future as History, Robert Heilbroner notes, in
words that
echo true today, "We are simply not concerned, beyond a mild
lip-service, with
mounting an all-out effort to raise the level of national health or
civic
virtue, or mass living conditions or average education or upbringing."
Economic
justice is achieved when all our sisters and brothers can share
opportunity
equally. W.E.B. Du Bois noted in his book, The Souls of Black Folk,
"American
is not another word for Opportunity to all her sons." One hundred
years has not
seen the end of that shameful reality.
The American Dream will truly be achievable to all when privilege
becomes a
thing of the past. When the average American (regardless of race,
ethnicity,
gender, religion, age, etc.) has an equal chance at entrepreneurial
success
against a corporate giant like Wal-Mart. Then and only then has the
American
Dream succeeded. There is no true American Dream for whom there is no
social
and economic justice. In the great words of poet Langston Hughes: "Let
America
be the dream the dreamers dreamed/ Let it be that great strong land of
love/
Where never kings connive or tyrants scheme/ That any man be crushed
by one
above." Let us narrow that gap between expectation and reality. Let us
transform fleeting symbols into grounded truths.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/385/1/38/
---
Riceverete email con opinioni,analisi e notizie inviare un'email a:
notizie_sinistra-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Nsx - News from Left http://nsx.altervista.org
|
|
