When The Atlantic published the article in 1999, I took notice. The Atlantic ranks high among my journalism favorites. The long article written by James K. Glassman and Kevin A. Hassett, and surely scrutinized by the crew of wise and critical Atlantic editors, made the case that conditions in the early 21st century supported a Dow Jones average of 36,000. At the time the DJ was something above 10,000. Will we ever forget the absurdity of this forecast?
Last evening I read another financial forecast published in The Atlantic. It’s hardly an exaggeration to say that the article, written by Don Peck, one of Atlantic’s deputy managing editors, is as extreme as the Glassman/Hassett essay, but in the opposite direction. If the former article could evoke unrestrained optimism, this article contains depressants enough to effect acute worry.
Try this quotation:
“If it persists much longer, this era of high joblessness will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults — and quite possibly those of the children behind them as well. It will leave an indelible imprint on many blue-collar white men — and on white culture. It could change the nature of modern marriage, and also cripple marriage as an institution in many communities. It may already be plunging many inner cities into a kind of despair and dysfunction not seen for decides. Ultimately, it is likely to warp our politics, our culture, and the character of our society for years.”
If you find the quote a baseless exaggeration, you are invited to read Don Peck’s article, filled with respected research reports, quotes from learned authorities, and logical inferences. Some facts and opinions.
The real unemployment rate was 17.4 percent in October. This figure includes people who want to work but have stopped actively searching for a job, and people who want full-time jobs but can find only part-time work.
The economy now “sits in a hole more than 10 million jobs deep.” The author can not find “the engine that will pull the U.S. back into a strong growth path.” He quotes former labor secretary Robert Reich: there can be no recovery until we find an entirely new model of economic growth.
Research of past economic downturns indicate that the contemporary youth generation suffers lasting negative effects. They don’t catch up, even when the economy improves.
The loss of finance, building and manufacturing jobs has hit males particularly hard, harder than the socially related jobs that employ women. This change in employment patterns will affect marriage and the family in fundamental ways.
Inner cities will suffer as prolonged unemployment among Blacks and Hispanics continues at rates higher than among whites.
Bell cites The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth written by economic historian Benjamin Friedman: “(I)nside and outside the U.S., lengthy periods of economic stagnation or decline have almost always left society more mean-spirited and less inclusive, and have usually stopped or reversed the advance of rights and freedoms. People become more jealous of their status relative to others, Anti-immigrant sentiment typically increases, as does conflict between races and classes; concern for the poor tends to decline.”
Shall we hope that Bell is as faulty in his forecasting as Glassman and Hassett were in 1999? Or do we need a major and immediate reshaping of social consciousness and conscience, inasmuch as we have, in the past 50 years, developed many destructive spending and consuming habits.