Thank you for taking the time to share your views on “American Agency”. Not being a sociologist, during my first reading I had a misunderstanding of the term “agency” but was able to infer the correct one (the capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices) from your discussion.
“The promise of the American Dream is about the opportunity to live better, richer, and fuller lives. However, recent policy conversations have turned from an emphasis on economic dynamism to a focus on economic security, infused with an Us vs Them mentality centered on inequality. Certainly, many factors have influenced this shift, but, whether perceived or real, Americans increasingly reflect a diminished sense of individual agency. And as Americans lose their sense of agency, the dynamic spirit that fueled an unprecedented level of economic prosperity risks being lost.”
I agree that there is increasing pessimism — especially in the younger generations — of achieving the American Dream and that it is centered on inequality. The general perception seems to be that the government supports the wealthy getting wealthier at the expense of the middle and lower class. Consequently the middle class is shrinking and it is becoming more difficult to progress from the lower class to the middle class.
There is animosity and frustration toward the federal government. There is widespread disapproval of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court due to usurpations of power by each branch and negligence to challenge said usurpations. Citizens believe (and justifiably so) that lobbyists have more influence over politicians than the electorate they supposedly represent. Ironically, citizens still look to the government to solve their problems — possibly because they don’t feel empowered to do it themselves.
“Haidt and Lukianoff focus readers’ attention on several negative trends in universities, and society at large, that have come to exist not because of any grand plan but rather because of detrimental cultural, political, and (most importantly) parenting issues. These often originate from good intentions, but have led to an increase in fragility among college students and recent graduates.”
With the exception of Hillsdale College and a few others, colleges and universities have degenerated from their original intent. They no longer promote — or many cases even tolerate — the debate of important issues that affect the lives of students and the general public. The institutions have gone to the extreme of designating “safe places” where students will not have to endure opinions contrary to their beliefs. The institutions no longer teach moral values and how they were incorporated into our constitutional republic.
“Or, equally as important, safetyism can impair child development more broadly, preventing kids from learning emotional skills like working well under pressure, developing self-confidence, or being able to learn from and accept criticism.”
Many parents today are absent (physically and/or mentally) from their children. They spend their time shuttling their children from activity to activity but do not participate in them. Many families infrequently eat their dinner meals together and when they do they are distracted from meaningful discussion by social devices. Many parents are not implanting their social and moral values into the minds of their children. They hover over their children protecting them from the potential disappoints that could damage their ego.
“They are less likely to switch jobs, less likely to move around the country, and even less likely to go outside the house at all.”
The degeneration of the moral values in the U.S. contributes to physical isolation of the individual and the family. Middle and upper class parents of children keep their children indoors to protect them from abduction for ransom. Parents of lower class children keep them indoors to prevent abduction for sex trafficking. Gated communities are becoming more common to protect the inhabitants from criminal offenses from outsiders. Relocation requires financial assets and many individuals and families are living from paycheck to paycheck with excessive credit card debt.
“Focusing on the issue of business dynamism, Cowen goes through a lot of data around the decline in new business startups since the 1970s.”
Starting a new business requires capital which is generated when earned income exceeds the cost of living. Too many max-profit motivated businesses do not pay their employees enough to generate capital.
“Could it be that people who have stopped looking for work and are out of the labor force have lost their sense of agency?”
An increasing percentage of college graduates are unable to secure adequate employment to live on their own and are returning home to live with their parents. This may be due to excessive student loans, an unmarketable education, high cost of living, low pay or just a lack of initiative. Many seniors have dropped out of the work force because available job opportunities would not result in a standard of living better than they can achieve in retirement.
“Almost half of Americans, 48 percent, support some sort of Universal Basic Income (UBI).”
I suspect this is a reflection of a basic sense of insecurity and an increasing reliance on the nanny (welfare) state. I predict that if good paying vs cost of living jobs were readily available less Americans would be willing to pay UBI taxes. If the federal government was prohibited from subsidizing “general welfare” programs with deficit spending there would be even less acceptance of the UBI concept.
“Those worried about the cost of living and economic security in a serious way should explore taking a bolder approach to meeting these challenges. Rather than accommodating them, address structural problems head on by reforming zoning laws, increasing choices and competition in education and healthcare. Ultimately, removing barriers to opportunity and increasing the opportunity for upward social mobility will be far more effective than band-aid solutions with flashy names and empty promises.”
I heartily agree! Unfortunately, citizens have lost faith in the willingness of their elected representatives to listen to their electorate instead of lobbyists. That is why I now donate to think tanks like the Heritage Foundation instead of political candidates.
“Both the left and right are inculcating a mentality that there is someone or some group of people actively conspiring against our agency and free choice. As this mentality sinks in, people feel less inclined to act and instead insist that the rules of the game are rigged against them.”
I believe the left and right have valid concerns. Members of Congress must “pay to play”. To actively participate in the Congressional process — other than roll call voting — they must raise money for their political party. The more influential the committee, the more expensive the “tuition”. It doesn’t take long for a member of Congress that it is much easier to raise money via lobbyists than via the electorate. They quickly transition from representing their electorate to representing their lobbyists.
“There is a kernel of truth in that increased globalization and free trade has shifted the makeup of the American economy and the positive and negative effects of these shifts have had different regional effects.”
During past years I have stated that the evolution of global markets without tariffs result in the depression of American wages until the wages of global suppliers are comparable to those of Americans.
“The key insight is that by protecting people from facing challenges, they are made weaker and less able to handle future challenges that they will inevitably encounter.”. . . “By encouraging students to be more adaptive and confront challenges, they are able to learn the power and potential of applying their agency to the problems they confront.”
Both statements are excellent observations!
