To the Editor:
In his column dated March 26, Dr. Richard Lechtenberg presents a good argument why — overall — things are much better than many Americans seem to believe is the case (the glass-half-full argument). In response, I feel called to point out some of the reasons why I believe things are, indeed, “not so great” (the glass-half-empty argument).
A big part of the problem is that we place far too much confidence in highly aggregated and regimented economic statistics that don’t reflect the lived experience of average Americans just trying to make ends meet. Perhaps most notable is inflation. Economists measure and report inflation based on the change vs. the prior year of the price of a theoretical basket of goods. Real people trying to make ends meet find that today’s prices at the supermarket (which represent a disproportionate share of their basket) are still cripplingly high compared to pre-Covid (five years ago) levels. Same with their housing costs.
Overall, few of them have seen net pay raises since pre-Covid sufficient to offset the net higher living expenses they are now experiencing. The fact that the stock market and housing values are soaring isn’t of much comfort (many people just getting by have no, or at best proportionately little, skin in the asset appreciation game). The overall unemployment rate being low is a remote aggregate statistic — what matters is the number of good job opportunities, within commutable distance, that don’t require skills/credentials that for all intents and purposes are unattainable for the average person past their education years. Other statistics Dr. Lechtenberg points out as improving are viewed by most Americans as being “secondary” considerations.
Dr. Lechtenberg’s column has a lengthy section on immigration. Many Americans believe that before we can have a sensible conversation about legal immigration levels, we first need to stop illegal immigration. Our asylum system is obviously broken; Dr. Lechtenberg’s claim that Americans are the primary driver of the problems of “population-fleeing” countries is both wrong in fact and unlikely to win the hearts and minds of those who are discontent. After we have full control of our borders, we can have a debate about the right level of legal immigration; I suspect many would agree that higher levels of legal immigration, particularly if they are skills-based, make a lot of sense.
Our federal budget situation is appalling; our voting generation is robbing future generations of Americans. Moreover, nothing encourages our international adversaries more than our ginormous recurring budget deficits. Most Americans understand how contentious finding the right mix of net spending cuts and net tax increases is going to be; with that proverbial sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, “celebrating our emergence from misfortune” would be premature.
If you’re so disposed, I recommend the book, “Why Liberalism Failed,” by Patrick J. Deneen. I disagree with much of the book (particularly his stance against social progress), but at a minimum it will help readers understand why so many working-class Americans are so angry with “elites” and are so sad/discontent when broad statistics suggest they shouldn’t be.
Gordon Cliff
Easton
