Dear Ben Stein,
Dear Ben Stein,
Your article about how Americans have been irresponsible with money, and behaving like children assuming their parents could always bail them out, was very interesting. There are, however, a few points that make me want to smack you across the head.
First, your inherent classism is not merely showing, it's shooting off fireworks and dancing naked to "Livin' La Vida Loca." Prior to the massive layoffs, pay cuts, and work-reduction of the past three months, a "typical" American was not actually up to their eyeballs in debt. Fifty-five percent of Americans carried no debt at all, and I'm sure some of the remaining 45% carried debt that wouldn't be classified as any higher than the knee. (I am having some difficulty locating the post where I earlier linked to the source of this data. Please bear with me.)
People who are living on $40K or less per year are usually aware of their spending patterns. They pay the rent and utilities, buy groceries and gas, clothe and shoe their family. If there's any money left over after that, it's not so large a number as to be difficult to count. The thought of large capital purchases such as a house or a shiny new car or even a giant TV is more or less shoved to the back of the brain, in the same way that people shove thoughts of riding on the space shuttle to the back of the brain: It ain't gonna happen, so don't dwell on it.
There's a strong correlation between income and debt, and it's not the one you apparently assume. People who have higher incomes have higher debt. They are more tolerant of carrying debt, because they know if they simply tightened their belts for a couple of months, the debt would get paid off. This is, of course, assuming their income remains the same.
Lower income people, on the other hand, are well aware that they are one missed paycheck away from going hungry. They turn up for 12-hour shifts at factories even when they are sick, because the alternative is to have the heat turned off in the dead of winter. Or they work unpaid overtime at their mid-level office job because they want to keep that job, rather than end up flipping burgers while they search for another job.
Sometimes the economy is good and they feel more secure in their jobs. Other times, it isn't. The "down" times come roughly once a decade--often enough that no one forgets them, even in the good times.
I know you think everyone in America is Eloi, but there are 99 Morlocks supporting each of you. Yes, right here in America, not overseas in third world nations that don't matter.
Second, j'accuse, sir. You seem perfectly willing to scold "typical Americans" about their spending habits, but don't take responsibility for your own behavior. You utterly failed to teach your high principles to your son. To quote from your article:I wish I could teach them that money is a scarce good, worth fighting for and protecting. But I very much fear that my son, more up-to-date than I am in almost every way, is more of a modern-day American than I am. To hustle and scuffle for a deal is something he cannot even imagine. To not be able to eat at any restaurant he feels like eating at is just not on his wavelength. Of course, that’s my fault.
Damn skippy it's your fault, buddy! Your son is only 21 years old. Did you never make him go out and get a summer job? Did you never tell him, "Well, if you want to eat at that restaurant, you have to earn the money yourself"? What was the source of his money to go to those many restaurants? You say he's a student--I can get on board with you wanting to get him out of college without student loans, but what is he living on? I'm guessing you give him more than just a meal plan at the school cafeteria.
Here's the next line after that quote:(I have learned that everything bad that happens anywhere is my fault.) And I hope to be able to leave him well enough provided for to ease his eventual transition into some form of self-sufficiency.
Nice way making with the irony there. You obviously don't believe it's your fault your son is a wastrel. He must have picked up those habits spending the money he wrested from the magical leprechaun living in your garden. If you wanted him to learn self-sufficiency, maybe you should have killed the leprechaun a decade ago instead of trying to handle it now. Twenty-one is much too old to be thinking about an eventual transition to self-sufficiency. That transition should have begun long ago.
Third, your friend in California? Perhaps she is a very sweet and kind lady. However, she is not drowning in astronomical debt because she's imprudent or irresponsible or immature. She clearly is those things, but she is also useless and moronic.
Being useless and moronic doesn't make her a bad person. It doesn't even make her all that unusual. It does, however, make her utterly unsympathetic.
I'm uncertain exactly what feeling her story was supposed to inspire in your readers. "Wow, the economy must be bad--even the wealthy trophy girlfriends are in trouble"? Are you so out of touch with the "typical Americans" you presume to lecture that you didn't realize most of us pretty much think your friend is a high-priced whore? My sympathy goes to her children, but the only thought that makes me feel the tiniest bit sorry for her is that she probably had a father who paid all her bills and never made her get a summer job. No wonder you like her so much.