Thank you for hosting this debate - overall I’m glad to have heard it. Having said that, one of the most frustrating parts of listening to the “declining America” argument was the lack of evidence - and rebuttal of realistic facts - around the “problems” of life expectancy duration, opioid addiction, the dangers of school shootings, etc. The simplest rebuttal would have been to point out that tens of millions of people’s life expectancies are nearly double what they were a century ago; that 10 of millions of school children go to school every single day and encounter no life-threatening school violence; that hundreds millions of people go about their lives not addicted to any drug; that massive numbers of people live a life that is exponentially better than their parents lives, not to mention what billions of people worldwide must endure. And that it is improving every day.
I wish you had invited Steven Pinker to the debate.
The argument also suffered from a kind of “recency bias“ in which only the exceptions were quoted, and hardly any mention was made of the norm, in which the vast majority of people cannot honestly claim to be suffering.
Lastly, nobody adjusted for structural changes that impact people’s perceptions. Back in the so-called wonderful 1950s, men and women started work in their teens, and families in their 20s, and began to accumulate wealth, status, and opportunity earlier in their lives. Thus by the time they entered their 30s and 40s their standard of living had dramatically accelerated. Today, people in their 20s stay in college until nearly their 30s; they are employed substantially less during those years; and marry significantly less during those same years. And they somehow claim they can’t “afford” or achieve the American dream, by which they mean, the upper end of housing, automobiles, travel, and other luxuries.
Finally, I was amazed that the pro American dream group not once pointed out the fact that many people reporting to be dissatisfied live in some of the most expensive ZIP Codes in the United States. They complain they can’t afford a place to live in downtown San Francisco; but they never consider moving 50 or 1000 miles away. Again, this isn’t a failure of the American dream; it’s a failure of American governance. You’re not going to find any $300,000 starter homes in a San Francisco ZIP Code; but three hours outside the city or two states away and you’ll find options. We must be cautious, not to declare the American dream, simply because people expect to have their cake and eat it too.
Thanks again for an insightful debate. It’s easy to armchair quarterback the conversation from the recording, so I offer my comments lightly.
A suggestion. As a paid subscriber, I would welcome being able to see the transcript. Most podcasts on Apple allow for transcripts. There were several sources referenced, and I wanted to follow up with a couple, but it was very hard to do. I had to stop, write it down, restart the podcast, or I had to go back and scrub the podcast after listening to it. A list of references on the episode page would be a welcome start. Thank you.
Gotta admit I lean towards the pro-American dream side on this topic, but the debaters on this side didn't really argue their point well. Most Americans see the American dream as the ability to achieve a good secure middle-class lifestyle; Tyler Cowen was too busy arguing about side-points and even included 'trans rights' in the American dream. Granted, I found it funny that the negative side at one point argued about all of the social ills plaguing America e.g. fatherlessness etc. considering liberal (and libertarian) policies and worldviews are the greatest creators of such social ills.
Thank you for hosting this debate - overall I’m glad to have heard it. Having said that, one of the most frustrating parts of listening to the “declining America” argument was the lack of evidence - and rebuttal of realistic facts - around the “problems” of life expectancy duration, opioid addiction, the dangers of school shootings, etc. The simplest rebuttal would have been to point out that tens of millions of people’s life expectancies are nearly double what they were a century ago; that 10 of millions of school children go to school every single day and encounter no life-threatening school violence; that hundreds millions of people go about their lives not addicted to any drug; that massive numbers of people live a life that is exponentially better than their parents lives, not to mention what billions of people worldwide must endure. And that it is improving every day.
I wish you had invited Steven Pinker to the debate.
The argument also suffered from a kind of “recency bias“ in which only the exceptions were quoted, and hardly any mention was made of the norm, in which the vast majority of people cannot honestly claim to be suffering.
Lastly, nobody adjusted for structural changes that impact people’s perceptions. Back in the so-called wonderful 1950s, men and women started work in their teens, and families in their 20s, and began to accumulate wealth, status, and opportunity earlier in their lives. Thus by the time they entered their 30s and 40s their standard of living had dramatically accelerated. Today, people in their 20s stay in college until nearly their 30s; they are employed substantially less during those years; and marry significantly less during those same years. And they somehow claim they can’t “afford” or achieve the American dream, by which they mean, the upper end of housing, automobiles, travel, and other luxuries.
Finally, I was amazed that the pro American dream group not once pointed out the fact that many people reporting to be dissatisfied live in some of the most expensive ZIP Codes in the United States. They complain they can’t afford a place to live in downtown San Francisco; but they never consider moving 50 or 1000 miles away. Again, this isn’t a failure of the American dream; it’s a failure of American governance. You’re not going to find any $300,000 starter homes in a San Francisco ZIP Code; but three hours outside the city or two states away and you’ll find options. We must be cautious, not to declare the American dream, simply because people expect to have their cake and eat it too.
Thanks again for an insightful debate. It’s easy to armchair quarterback the conversation from the recording, so I offer my comments lightly.
The biggest problem by far is the cost of housing.You fix that and it fixes a lot of other problems
And there's only one way to do that we need to build build build
Over the last fifteen years, we should have Built about ten million more homes to keep pace with population growth
If you build those homes, it's gonna fix the cost of housing problems
A suggestion. As a paid subscriber, I would welcome being able to see the transcript. Most podcasts on Apple allow for transcripts. There were several sources referenced, and I wanted to follow up with a couple, but it was very hard to do. I had to stop, write it down, restart the podcast, or I had to go back and scrub the podcast after listening to it. A list of references on the episode page would be a welcome start. Thank you.
Gotta admit I lean towards the pro-American dream side on this topic, but the debaters on this side didn't really argue their point well. Most Americans see the American dream as the ability to achieve a good secure middle-class lifestyle; Tyler Cowen was too busy arguing about side-points and even included 'trans rights' in the American dream. Granted, I found it funny that the negative side at one point argued about all of the social ills plaguing America e.g. fatherlessness etc. considering liberal (and libertarian) policies and worldviews are the greatest creators of such social ills.