Economic Paradox

The paradox of the current U.S. Economy – as noted by countless others – is that it is driven by consumption, which is a linear system, which like all linear systems, can't be sustained for an indefinite period of time. Consume, discard, repeat can only go on so long, and I think we may be seeing the end of the line for that 60-year-old method. The more that people consume, the less they save, and the more vulnerable they become when things like unemployment happen. So right now, many Americans across a fairly wide economic range are deciding it's time to save, and I'm not so sure that the economy is going to rebound simply by giving Americans more money, and especially more credit. We as a society are already up to our ears in student loans, credit cards, and mortgages. The average person has more than $9,000 in credit card debt alone. The LAST thing we need is to have to make more payments to banks. However, every news and government report seems to be championing that very solution for the current problems in the banking industry. The primary purpose of the $700 billion in bailout funds given to Wall Street was to encourage banks to reopen lines of credit for Americans who were then supposed to start buying homes and cars again.

However, I think a lot of Americans are recognizing that the homes, cars, iPods, cell phones, televisions and other major purchases we've been making just aren't worth their cost. Over the past 25 years, the cost of big ticket items has more than doubled. My parents paid a little over $4,000 for Chevette in 1984. You can't buy a car that's 10 years old for $4,000 today, and yet many Americans are working for similar wages that they made in the mid-late 80s, said parents included. Likewise, the cost of a college education has gone up 50 percent in the last decade alone, but entry-level wages are down. So we have less money to spend, but have had more credit available to us at younger and younger ages, and while we were so busy spending and keeping the economy riding high, we didn't notice that bank fees and interest rates more than quadrupled since 1995, trapping us in debt by age 25 that we have no hope of ever getting out of. The end result is that we've finally stopped consuming, which made companies stop producing, so jobs have been lost, so loans have been defaulted on, so banks go belly up, and the cycle continues.

While I don't disagree with the recently-passed stimulus package (because I think the general population needs at least as much help as the corporations), I'm not convinced it's going to be a cure-all. Perhaps it may sound radical right now, but I think the era of excess may be permanently slowing down. Jobs based on production and consumption may not bounce back because, when forced by the recession to make do with less, people are may very well realize how much they can do without. The biggest mistake our government is making right now is trying to get us back to where we were: with an economy that was trapping people in endless cycles of debt. We're realizing that it's hypocritical and unconscionable that we live in a society in which government and corporations team up to tell us that we are solely responsible for knowing our own financial limits, then tell us that the reason people are losing jobs is because we aren't spending enough money. Every personal economic indicator – from record low savings accounts to sky-rocketing personal debt – tells us the last thing we need is to take on more $200,000 mortgages, $18,000 car loans, and even $40,000 student loans. Likewise, the weekly jaunts to Wal-Mart to drop $100, the $150 monthly cell phone plans, the $100 cable/satellite TV bills, and the $200 monthly restaurant tabs are slowly starting to go by the wayside.

People are cutting back, and if the recession last long enough, we may even come to realize how much happier we are spending less money. While I have no idea what that will mean for the structure of our economy, I know that we cannot continue on the path we're on. Our economy hasn't always been based on consumption, so maybe it's time we begin exploring ways to stay afloat that don't put the burden of making more Wall Street millionaires on the backs of those who can least afford it.

Working Mom-in-chief

Michelle Obama is making news -- and a few waves -- as she breaks eight years of silence from the office of the first lady by speaking out in support of her husband's policy. According to an article in the New York Times, "'Mom in Chief' Touches on Policy; Tongues Wag" , Michelle has used recent pubic appearances to tout President Obama's economic stimulus plan -- actions regarded by some as completely in character and by others as near scandalous.

It seems there is still some expectation -- renewed over the past eight years by Laura Bush's uber-traditional approach to her role -- that the wife of the president be little more than Official Hostess and Loyal-But-Silent Companion to the President. As one woman in the article put it: "She (Michelle) went to some lengths to say she was going to be first mom-in-chief. I don’t think we ever really imagined her edging toward public policy like this."

Why not? How does being mom-in-chief exclude her from publicly discussing the issues that the rest of the country can't stop talking about, issues that are of vital importance to moms everywhere? She never said she was going to be a stay-at-home-mom-in-chief. And I think mothers across the county are breathing a collective sigh of relief that we may have someone in the White House who is in a position to work to make it a little bit easier for us to have opinions and responsibilities that extend beyond the home. Perhaps we have someone in Washington who not only understands the needs of working mothers, but can help us out with real policies that don't economically and professionally penalize us for having children. That's how I interpreted her "mom-in-chief" comment.

However, it seems there are people who took that statement to mean we would be treated to an endless parade of warm and fuzzy featurettes of her being a mother, only a mother, and nothing but a mother. While that is certainly an important task in her life, it's not the only one, and it's frightening that so many people seem unable to accept that a woman can debate economic theory and brands of peanut butter with equal ease. Heck, we can do it at the same time!

In discussing Mrs. Obama's foray into public policy, the article said, "It is a notably different approach than the one embraced by the former first lady, Laura Bush, who like most others steered clear of discussing legislation." First of all, let me say "most other" first ladies didn't so much "steer clear" of talking about legislation as they were prohibited from it. In fact, the first 28 first ladies weren't even allowed to vote, so exactly what degree of respect were they likely to have been given on so-called "men's" issues? Later first ladies had a slew of interests that ranged from substance abuse to drugs to neighborhood beautification, and a few in the 60s and 70s were even known to publicly support the ERA.

Of course, all first ladies had the ear of their very public husbands in private, which was considered a far more acceptable place than a podium to express their intelligent and independent opinions, a tradition that should have gone the way of the corset by now. Which leads me to the comparison between Laura Bush and Michelle Obama: I can't help but wonder if Laura was so silent, and hence so "traditional" because she found it difficult to support her husband's policy. It's also worth noting that the Republican Party still likes to harken back to days of old when their definition of family values kept women in their place. Remember the embarrassingly archaic "cookie bake-off" between Hillary Clinton and Barbara Bush in 1992, the supposed "Year of the Woman"? What better fodder for the "Mommy Wars" than a stunt designed to presumably draw a stark comparison between a traditional, caring grandmotherly type of first lady and the brash, independent, feminist that the Democrats were backing? It seems that no matter the year, no matter the woman, there is pressure to keep the most public woman in the country in the kitchen. And even strong-willed Hillary felt the need to bend to it by taking part in that very First Ladylike publicity stunt.

The bottom line is Michelle will be no more like Laura than Laura was like Hillary, than Hillary was like Barbara, than Barbara was like Nancy, and so on down the road. She is her own woman with her own plans for what she can do with her title. That fact that she sees her role as first lady from many angles with multiple agendas reflects how many women today feel about their dueling roles as women, mothers, professionals, students, and spouses. But I can't deny it's as nice to have a first lady willing to publicly address the problems facing the country as it is having a president able to deal with them.