p>By the
time he was my age, my father had already married, seen his two
sons born, landed a good job with the New York City government,
and bought the row house in Brooklyn where my brother and I grew
up. Conversely, I have spent the six years since I left graduate
school at the age of 23 floating from job
to job, apartment
to apartment,
and relationship
to relationship.
Being financially secure enough to plan for the futureto buy
instead of rent, to marry and raise children, to set aside some
money for my retirementis a pipe dream. Nor can I blame the
fact that I decided to live in Manhattan and work in the notoriously
unstable publishing industry for my woes: My twenty- and thirty-something
friends, even the married ones with normal jobs who live in the
'burbs, are nowhere near financially secure, either. And, according
to the statistics, we're not alone.
As heretical
as it might be to those who still persist in the Hollywood-and-diamond-ring
retailer-endorsed myth in love
as a mystical force, the fact is that economics have
a very real effect on our personal livesand for all of the
Bush administration's "defense
of marriage" legislation and "family
values" rhetoric, the erosion of workers' rights
and the growing financial disparity between the rich and the rest
of us has not only made it more and more difficult for Americans
to actually start families, but it has encouraged a culture in which
sex has been reduced to a market force and the self has become the
ultimate commodity. The so-called "defense of marriage act"
is a farce: the threat to marriage is not gays and lesbians choosing
to join their lives and raise children together; it is well-paying
American jobs being shipped to New Delhi.
In his
recent book Perfectly
Legal (easily one of the most important works of
nonfiction to be published in the last several years), David Cay
Johnston, who won a Pulitzer for his tax-reporting for the New
York Times, writes that since 1972, real salaries have risen
by only a nickel an hour for the average wage-earner. The top one-hundredth
of a percent of Americans earns five percent of the wealth, and,
as much as the much-vaunted tax relief was supposed to give a break
to working families, it is the rich and superrich who can hide their
assets in tax shelters, while the rest of us shoulder the burden
for them. Meanwhile, tax laws have made it cheaper to fire employees
than to contribute to their 401(K)s, and, despite 1999's Vizcaino
v. Microsoft decision, companies continue to use
legal loopholes to reclassify employees as "independent contractors"
responsible for their own health insurance, unemployment insurance,
and retirement planson top of the student
loan and credit
card debt that already cripple the middle class. As
Paul Krugman remarked in the December 18th issue of The
Nation, that old pedophile Horatio Alger is quite dead.
The Wal-Martization
of the economythe insistence of the owner/managerial class
that the wage-earning class continually drive up corporate stock
prices by producing more profits with less investmentmeans
that what happened to the factory workers of the Rust Belt in the
1970s is now becoming a universal American experience. As research
for this article, I posed the question of how economics have adversely
affected personal lives on the widely-read discussion sites Fark.com
and Craigslist,
and received several dozen responses. One reader, Jen from Indiana,
expressed the effect her recent layoff had on her relationship with
her boyfriend rather succinctly: "I have less than no money
and no job now that my department has been sucked into the corporate
hole known as Scholastic, Inc., and I feel bad because I used to
be the one who bought things for me and my guy. I feel like total
shit because I have to ask him to buy me food once in a while now-and
he's not in great financial shape either because he's in school.
I just thank God that I don't have to worry about housing or my
health insurance right now. . . and I can't even file for fucking
unemployment. Fuck Scholastic. Yeah, I'm pissed."
The decline
of traditional patterns of family lifefirst comes
love, then comes marriage, then comes Baby in a baby carriagehas
paralleled the fall of the middle class. While they were dating,
our parents and grandparents evaluated each other as potential life-partners
and helpmates; I, on the other hand, do not know if I will be living
in the same city, let alone dating the same person, in a year. Today,
the median
age at first marriage is 26.8 for men and 25.1 for women.
Almost one third of the U.S. population is single, more than one
quarter of U.S. households are people living alone, and as many
couples cohabit as are married. If the traditional incentive for
a long-term relationshipthat is, building a shared life togetheris
a pipe dream, why not live for transitory pleasures? Like corporations
acquiring smaller companies solely in order to bolster their own
stock prices, my peers and myself so no reason not to pursue relationships
based solely on short-term goals.
The cadre
that does choose to have children, meanwhile, is growing older and
older. The average American women giving birth to her first child
is now 25.1 years old, an all-time high which is explained not only
by lower teen birth rates (which conservatives credit to abstinence-education
programs, liberals credit to the late-90s economic upswing fostering
a renewed sense of hope in the future, and those who actually spend
any time around teenagers credit to the fact that oral sex is the
preferred birth control method), but also that more and more women
have been waiting until their late 30s and early 40s to have children.
Even after having a child, the two-income family is no longer a
statement of female liberation, but a necessity. The middle class
is stuck running to stand still, facing inevitable and irresolvable
conflicts between work, children, and personal time.
The result
is a stressed-out, overweight population rushing to and fro in their
SUVs, subsisting on fast food and junk culture, with crumbling marriages,
nonexistent sex lives, hardening arteries, and children who, on
average, spend 800 less hours a year with their parents. As a married
man from San Francisco Bay area responded to my survey, "I'm
38, and I've been married for seven years. My wife was my high school
sweetheart twenty-two years back, now she's forty and we have a
two-year-old daughter. I work three jobs (accounting by day and
teaching at night), and my wife, who is a psychiatrist, also works
three jobs. Our marriage is on the brink of doom-we've been reduced
to cohabitation, pooled financing, and parenting. We have no time
or energy for intimacy or relationship enhancement or development.
Either we give up all the creature comforts that we have grown so
fond and dependent on-or we continue down the path we're treading
and end up in divorce court."
Of course,
from medieval peasants keeping a village's fields together through
marriage alliances, to Jane Austen's characters introducing suitors
along with their incomes, to Victorian courtships prolonged until
the young man could support a wife and family and the "charity
girls" of the New York slums, the interrelation between love
and money is as old as history. The economic boom of the 1940s and
1950s fostered the postwar cult of domesticity: Early marriage,
working fathers and stay-at-home mothers, and a new car in the garage
every year were taken for granted. All of that changed when the
Baby Boomers-the first generation to have their culture marketed
to them through television, instead of imparted through their elders-came
of age at a moment when three factors converged: The post-GI Bill
universalizing of white-collar upward mobility, which required putting
off marriage and childbirth until after years of education and entrance-level
low-paying jobs; the uniquely American sense of I-want-it-now entitlement;
and the birth-control pill, which removed the final argument against
premarital sex that years of Kinsey and Freud and Margaret Mead
had been unable to destroy.
What
is shocking is how both the economic and romantic landscape has
been transformed in the years since the Sexual Revolution. The "urban
tribes" that Ethan
Watters has so mythologized came about not because of
some strange countercultural zeitgeist brewed up at Burning
Man, but because our modern way of living and working
has simultaneously alienated us from our families, neighborhoods,
and other traditional means of support, atomized us into marketing
niches, and Wal-Martized us into production units instead of employees.
What we are likely to consume according to our age and gender has
been scientifically calculated; our financial futures have not.
And, as NYU sociologist Richard Sennett wrote in his 1998 The
Corrosion of Character, the practice of treating
people like pieces of fruiteating the pulp and throwing away
the peel (to paraphrase Willy Loman)has led to a general decline
in long-term thinking and commitment.
Faced
with the pressures of free-market romance, the pressure to remain
youthful and attractive, to keep up with sexual styles and fashions,
has become overwhelming. Meanwhile, a large market of perpetual
singles has meant that marketed hedonism, from Deep Throat to "erotic
play parties" such as New York City's One
Leg Up and CAKE,
has become a profitable business. Nowhere is this more evident than
in Internet
personals, the drive-thrus of dating, which allow for
a maximum payoff with a minimum of invested time. In the race to
consume new experiences, people, and identities, we can now take
the express checkout line.
If Congress
and the Bush administration were serious about restoring "family
values," they would do more than opiate the masses with slogans
taken from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell; they would take steps
to enable the middle class to perpetuate itself and its values.
By eliminating the tax loopholes that enable billions of dollars
to slip out of the public coffers, we could afford national health
care, parental leave, childcare, and public education. By ensuring
workers' rights, a living wage, and unemployment insurance, we could
take the insecurity out of starting a family. The values of real
social conservatism would, in fact, seem to be identical to those
of social democracy.
Anyone
wanting to be the mother of our children may e-mail editor@corporatemofo.com.
Posted
February 22, 2004 12:33 AM