by Richard V. Reeves | Goodreads
Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and What to Do About It
by
3.68 · Rating details · 1,414 ratings · 244 reviews
America is becoming a class-based society.
It is now conventional wisdom to focus on the wealth of the top 1 percent—especially the top 0.01 percent—and how the ultra-rich are concentrating income and prosperity while incomes for most other Americans are stagnant. But the most important, consequential, and widening gap in American society is between the upper middle class and everyone else.
Reeves defines the upper middle class as those whose incomes are in the top 20 percent of American society. Income is not the only way to measure a society, but in a market economy it is crucial because access to money generally determines who gets the best quality education, housing, health care, and other necessary goods and services.
As Reeves shows, the growing separation between the upper middle class and everyone else can be seen in family structure, neighborhoods, attitudes, and lifestyle. Those at the top of the income ladder are becoming more effective at passing on their status to their children, reducing overall social mobility. The result is not just an economic divide but a fracturing of American society along class lines. Upper-middle-class children become upper-middle-class adults.
These trends matter because the separation and perpetuation of the upper middle class corrode prospects for more progressive approaches to policy. Various forms of “opportunity hoarding” among the upper middle class make it harder for others to rise up to the top rung. Examples include zoning laws and schooling, occupational licensing, college application procedures, and the allocation of internships. Upper-middle-class opportunity hoarding, Reeves argues, results in a less competitive economy as well as a less open society.
Inequality is inevitable and can even be good, within limits. But Reeves argues that society can take effective action to reduce opportunity hoarding and thus promote broader opportunity. This fascinating book shows how American society has become the very class-defined society that earlier Americans rebelled against—and what can be done to restore a more equitable society.(less)
It is now conventional wisdom to focus on the wealth of the top 1 percent—especially the top 0.01 percent—and how the ultra-rich are concentrating income and prosperity while incomes for most other Americans are stagnant. But the most important, consequential, and widening gap in American society is between the upper middle class and everyone else.
Reeves defines the upper middle class as those whose incomes are in the top 20 percent of American society. Income is not the only way to measure a society, but in a market economy it is crucial because access to money generally determines who gets the best quality education, housing, health care, and other necessary goods and services.
As Reeves shows, the growing separation between the upper middle class and everyone else can be seen in family structure, neighborhoods, attitudes, and lifestyle. Those at the top of the income ladder are becoming more effective at passing on their status to their children, reducing overall social mobility. The result is not just an economic divide but a fracturing of American society along class lines. Upper-middle-class children become upper-middle-class adults.
These trends matter because the separation and perpetuation of the upper middle class corrode prospects for more progressive approaches to policy. Various forms of “opportunity hoarding” among the upper middle class make it harder for others to rise up to the top rung. Examples include zoning laws and schooling, occupational licensing, college application procedures, and the allocation of internships. Upper-middle-class opportunity hoarding, Reeves argues, results in a less competitive economy as well as a less open society.
Inequality is inevitable and can even be good, within limits. But Reeves argues that society can take effective action to reduce opportunity hoarding and thus promote broader opportunity. This fascinating book shows how American society has become the very class-defined society that earlier Americans rebelled against—and what can be done to restore a more equitable society.(less)
Showing 1-30
Jun 20, 2017Trish rated it really liked it
Shelves: america, economics, family, parenting, political-science, race, social-science, nonfiction, government
At first Reeves’ argument, that the upper middle class should voluntarily give up their advantaged place in society, sounds virtuous, if a little unlikely. But gradually, listening to his arguments in this slim book of charts, graphs, and statistics, we remember what we don’t like about America: how our segregated neighborhoods bear little resemblance to what we see on the news every night. We sense a dislocation so strong we know it could come back to bite us, or more importantly, our children. Using beneficial social and tax structures to advantage our children and perpetuate class division may ultimately work to their detriment, and is certainly skewing the competitiveness of a large proportion of our working class, and therefore our nation as a whole.
First, Reeves posits that real advancement for most people in our society is predicated on access to knowledge and information, i.e., “knowledge is power.” Right away we realize that access to information has never been equally distributed in this country, and that many of us have considered attainment of an IV-league education for ourselves and our children the highest goal. Virtuous in itself, one could say. But, Reeves points out, who is actually able to attend the IV-league is skewed by a few factors which can ultimately taint the achievement: access is unequal and not as competitive as touted. One reason is inequality in preparing for admission, and another is legacy admissions for relatives of graduates.
Reeves suggests we protest legacy admissions until they are denounced publicly as discriminatory like they were in a strongly class-based society like Britain in the middle of the last century. Inherited admissions clearly work for the benefit of the landed class alone, and are therefore something which perpetuates inequality. For greater equality of opportunity, one has to look at lower schools, and who has access to the best schools.
The best schools often go along with the best neighborhoods, the most nourishing family environments, opportunities for exposure to both nature and culture, music, art, etc.…and these are circumscribed, Reeves tells us, by zoning restrictions disallowing multi-family dwellings, low(er)-income high(er)-rises in desirable suburbs.
I had a harder time reconciling this argument of his. In the United States, despite laws forbidding discrimination in real estate, there was demonstrable race-based discrimination in real estate throughout the twentieth century. Races were segregated beyond what would occur naturally—that is, races seeking to live with others of their culture. The idea is to allow access to desirable suburbs with good schools, nature, etc. If we stop discrimination on the basis of race, that will take care of some of the problem. Then, if we can add low(er)-income high(er)-rise buildings without changing the essential benefit of desirable suburbs (leafy, green, quiet, beautiful), I’m all for it. Let’s do it everywhere.
For those that cannot escape poor schools in the inner-city, Reeves suggests we offer our best teachers the hardest jobs: teaching in low-income neighborhoods downtown. These excellent teachers would be offered the best salaries. I have no objection to this, but I fear it will not produce the outpouring of talent that Reeves is anticipating. Teaching is a profession, and we have learned anything about professions, it is that money is not always the strongest motivator. At the margins, a certain amount of money can induce some individuals to take on difficult jobs, but the inducements must quickly become exponential after a certain level of difficulty, saying nothing about the kinds of returns one would be expected to produce annually. But big challenges can be an inducement and the money will help make sense of it. It’s absolutely worth trying. Let’s do it everywhere.
Among other things that would flatten the playing field is to eliminate our most beloved tax breaks which, Reeves explains, are in effect subsidies for the wealthiest among us: College savings 529 tax havens, and the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners. Eliminating these two loopholes would add hundred of billions to government coffers, while disadvantaging those in the upper 20% income bracket very little indeed and flattening the playing field for the rest of us.
Lastly, Reeves suggests that internships during college are often distributed not on merit, but on the basis of class, familiarity, or favored status. Since jobs to which many of us aspire are often awarded on the basis of experience, internships, which deliver a certain level of confidence to applicants, can be extremely useful in bridging the gap from childhood to adulthood within the target job area. While favored distribution of internships seemed somewhat trivial to me and other critics Reeves mentions, he counters with “If it is trivial, you won’t mind then if we eliminate/outlaw it.” So be it. All “merit” all the time, if we can be reasonably expected to perfect that little measure.
It is not going to surprise me when liberals discover status and wealth do not necessarily translate into greater life satisfaction or happiness and therefore decide to voluntarily give up certain advantages that perpetuate their inherently unequal class ranking for the greater benefit of the society in which they live. It is conservatives in the ranks of the well-to-do that may hold back progress. According to Nancy MacLean’s new book called Democracy in Chains, which paid some attention to the basis of far right conservative thinking, the wealthy feel they deserve their wealth, even if it is inherited, or even if it is made on the backs of exploited labor. It may be more difficult to get past this barrier to change.
On the basis of the statistics Reeves shares about the stickiness of class status among the top 20% of income earners, he writes persuasively about different individual things we can do to alleviate huge class disparities in opportunity. Reeves addresses the experience of J.D. Vance (author of Hillbilly Elegy) explicitly in the book, and indirectly in the first of the short video links given below. It is difficult and uncomfortable to move up the ladder but people with exceptional skills are not going to be discriminated against: “The labor market is not a snob.”
Two very short videos posted on my blog quickly and easily explain the concepts Reeves is trying to get across. Check it out. (less)
First, Reeves posits that real advancement for most people in our society is predicated on access to knowledge and information, i.e., “knowledge is power.” Right away we realize that access to information has never been equally distributed in this country, and that many of us have considered attainment of an IV-league education for ourselves and our children the highest goal. Virtuous in itself, one could say. But, Reeves points out, who is actually able to attend the IV-league is skewed by a few factors which can ultimately taint the achievement: access is unequal and not as competitive as touted. One reason is inequality in preparing for admission, and another is legacy admissions for relatives of graduates.
Reeves suggests we protest legacy admissions until they are denounced publicly as discriminatory like they were in a strongly class-based society like Britain in the middle of the last century. Inherited admissions clearly work for the benefit of the landed class alone, and are therefore something which perpetuates inequality. For greater equality of opportunity, one has to look at lower schools, and who has access to the best schools.
The best schools often go along with the best neighborhoods, the most nourishing family environments, opportunities for exposure to both nature and culture, music, art, etc.…and these are circumscribed, Reeves tells us, by zoning restrictions disallowing multi-family dwellings, low(er)-income high(er)-rises in desirable suburbs.
I had a harder time reconciling this argument of his. In the United States, despite laws forbidding discrimination in real estate, there was demonstrable race-based discrimination in real estate throughout the twentieth century. Races were segregated beyond what would occur naturally—that is, races seeking to live with others of their culture. The idea is to allow access to desirable suburbs with good schools, nature, etc. If we stop discrimination on the basis of race, that will take care of some of the problem. Then, if we can add low(er)-income high(er)-rise buildings without changing the essential benefit of desirable suburbs (leafy, green, quiet, beautiful), I’m all for it. Let’s do it everywhere.
For those that cannot escape poor schools in the inner-city, Reeves suggests we offer our best teachers the hardest jobs: teaching in low-income neighborhoods downtown. These excellent teachers would be offered the best salaries. I have no objection to this, but I fear it will not produce the outpouring of talent that Reeves is anticipating. Teaching is a profession, and we have learned anything about professions, it is that money is not always the strongest motivator. At the margins, a certain amount of money can induce some individuals to take on difficult jobs, but the inducements must quickly become exponential after a certain level of difficulty, saying nothing about the kinds of returns one would be expected to produce annually. But big challenges can be an inducement and the money will help make sense of it. It’s absolutely worth trying. Let’s do it everywhere.
Among other things that would flatten the playing field is to eliminate our most beloved tax breaks which, Reeves explains, are in effect subsidies for the wealthiest among us: College savings 529 tax havens, and the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners. Eliminating these two loopholes would add hundred of billions to government coffers, while disadvantaging those in the upper 20% income bracket very little indeed and flattening the playing field for the rest of us.
Lastly, Reeves suggests that internships during college are often distributed not on merit, but on the basis of class, familiarity, or favored status. Since jobs to which many of us aspire are often awarded on the basis of experience, internships, which deliver a certain level of confidence to applicants, can be extremely useful in bridging the gap from childhood to adulthood within the target job area. While favored distribution of internships seemed somewhat trivial to me and other critics Reeves mentions, he counters with “If it is trivial, you won’t mind then if we eliminate/outlaw it.” So be it. All “merit” all the time, if we can be reasonably expected to perfect that little measure.
It is not going to surprise me when liberals discover status and wealth do not necessarily translate into greater life satisfaction or happiness and therefore decide to voluntarily give up certain advantages that perpetuate their inherently unequal class ranking for the greater benefit of the society in which they live. It is conservatives in the ranks of the well-to-do that may hold back progress. According to Nancy MacLean’s new book called Democracy in Chains, which paid some attention to the basis of far right conservative thinking, the wealthy feel they deserve their wealth, even if it is inherited, or even if it is made on the backs of exploited labor. It may be more difficult to get past this barrier to change.
On the basis of the statistics Reeves shares about the stickiness of class status among the top 20% of income earners, he writes persuasively about different individual things we can do to alleviate huge class disparities in opportunity. Reeves addresses the experience of J.D. Vance (author of Hillbilly Elegy) explicitly in the book, and indirectly in the first of the short video links given below. It is difficult and uncomfortable to move up the ladder but people with exceptional skills are not going to be discriminated against: “The labor market is not a snob.”
Two very short videos posted on my blog quickly and easily explain the concepts Reeves is trying to get across. Check it out. (less)
Jul 01, 2017Stephen rated it really liked it
I hated this book. I knew I would hate it when I read Dr. Reeves' 10 Jun Sun NY Times article "Stop Pretending You're Not Rich".
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/op...
I knew I would hate that Dr. Reeves would call me out for my efforts at gaming the system (529s, property, investments, parenting, university admissions, job referrals/networking) to ensure that my daughter would not fall out of the top quintile, regardless of how many times she might fail, despite our best efforts.
In all fairness, "Dream Hoarders" is an excellent book, Reeves writes with clarity, simplicity, and brevity discussing how Upper Middle Class (top 20%) privileges are distorting the playing field for the bottom 80%, and promoting more equality while making social mobility more difficult.
"Beneath a veneer of classlessness, the American class reproduction machine operates with ruthless efficiency. In particular, the upper middle class is solidifying. This favored fifth at the top of the income distribution, with an average annual household income of $200,000, has been separating from the 80 percent below."
This is a well researched book, Reeves documents meticulously, and cites his work while promoting original thought -- not only admiring the problem in the first several chapters, but also makes some pragmatic policy recommendations (housing/zoning/internships/birth control) in the last few. The challenge? Persuading the Upper Middle Class to give up their privilege and accept that some of their offspring might fall out of the top quintile. No small feat. I'm not sure I'm willing to do it. (less)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/10/op...
I knew I would hate that Dr. Reeves would call me out for my efforts at gaming the system (529s, property, investments, parenting, university admissions, job referrals/networking) to ensure that my daughter would not fall out of the top quintile, regardless of how many times she might fail, despite our best efforts.
In all fairness, "Dream Hoarders" is an excellent book, Reeves writes with clarity, simplicity, and brevity discussing how Upper Middle Class (top 20%) privileges are distorting the playing field for the bottom 80%, and promoting more equality while making social mobility more difficult.
"Beneath a veneer of classlessness, the American class reproduction machine operates with ruthless efficiency. In particular, the upper middle class is solidifying. This favored fifth at the top of the income distribution, with an average annual household income of $200,000, has been separating from the 80 percent below."
This is a well researched book, Reeves documents meticulously, and cites his work while promoting original thought -- not only admiring the problem in the first several chapters, but also makes some pragmatic policy recommendations (housing/zoning/internships/birth control) in the last few. The challenge? Persuading the Upper Middle Class to give up their privilege and accept that some of their offspring might fall out of the top quintile. No small feat. I'm not sure I'm willing to do it. (less)
Placeholder review
Some good observations and awful conclusions. I will write more later. But in the meantime I will note that this guy quotes the likes of Charles Murray (of The Bell Curve fame!) and implies that virtually anything people do to help their children is part of a malicious economic game. There's no room in his world for intrinsic values. His view of the world is one in which people only value pursuits insofar as they bring profit, in which people dropping millions to secure legacy college admissions are upper middle class, and in which parents should consider not reading to their children so as to ensure the proper amount of class self-flagellation. I was disappointed in this book.
Also, edited to add this important fact: He never once mentions health care costs or the ways that a serious illness or injury can absolutely bankrupt people even among the "dream hoarding" class. He never mentions that downward mobility via medical bankruptcy is basically a threat for everyone in America except the 1%. Even with the ACA, many people still face outrageous health care costs, especially if they require long-term care late in life. This is a fact he conveniently ignores in his quest to shame people with a certain combination of income, financial planning acumen / privilege, and personal values that happen to include education. He conflates the 1% with the "upper middle class" so often it's deceitful. (less)
Some good observations and awful conclusions. I will write more later. But in the meantime I will note that this guy quotes the likes of Charles Murray (of The Bell Curve fame!) and implies that virtually anything people do to help their children is part of a malicious economic game. There's no room in his world for intrinsic values. His view of the world is one in which people only value pursuits insofar as they bring profit, in which people dropping millions to secure legacy college admissions are upper middle class, and in which parents should consider not reading to their children so as to ensure the proper amount of class self-flagellation. I was disappointed in this book.
Also, edited to add this important fact: He never once mentions health care costs or the ways that a serious illness or injury can absolutely bankrupt people even among the "dream hoarding" class. He never mentions that downward mobility via medical bankruptcy is basically a threat for everyone in America except the 1%. Even with the ACA, many people still face outrageous health care costs, especially if they require long-term care late in life. This is a fact he conveniently ignores in his quest to shame people with a certain combination of income, financial planning acumen / privilege, and personal values that happen to include education. He conflates the 1% with the "upper middle class" so often it's deceitful. (less)
This book has been floating around my Twitter feed for a while, and after reading one of Kimmaytube’s threads about #DreamHoarding, I decided to give it a read. Like most Americans, talking about class differences and inequality is an abnormal, uncomfortable experience for me. However, as someone with socioeconomic privilege, it’s important to address these issues, and learn how I can push for change.
Personally, Richard Reeves’ work was helpful in that it clarified some hard-line facts about the increasing gap between the upper-middle class (people with household incomes above $112,000) and the other 80% of American society. By shifting his focus away from the “one percent,” and to a much larger (and arguably, more influential) class of Americans, he is able to offer a more salient economic critique than those who only focus on the uber-rich. He basically explains how “twenty-percenters” have done everything within their possibility to cement their family's permanent position in the upper-middle class. This “hoarding” of the American Dream is accomplished through zoning laws, elite educational systems, assortative mating, and some general rigging of our mythical meritocracy.
Contrary to popular belief, Reeves does not believe in doing away with income inequality, but rather making it a fair competition for Americans born into lower income quartiles. I’m not entirely sure it matters that he is a member of the class he studies, but it definitely helped me relate to him as someone who detests these injustices, but at the end of the day, would prefer to be on “the winning side.”
This, in a way, is my main problem with the book—despite Reeves understanding on a personal level why it is advantageous for his own family to be members of the upper-middle class, he underestimates others' resistance to changing this to this system. Many of his solutions felt rather idealistic, especially the ones that required taking away quality teachers from affluent school districts, and having them prove their worth in higher-need schools. It’s not that these aren’t wonderful suggestions, it’s just obvious that no suburban parents will actually vote for them!
For me, his strongest point is found midway through, when he states that only when children in the upper-quartile are at risk of downward mobility will our parents support social safety nets for all. A stronger recommendation section would’ve proposed solutions in this vein of thought, which asks a much harder, but more effective question: how will the upper-middle class be incentivized, not shamed, into dream sharing?
I think anyone who is passionate or even curious about economic inequality will find this book to be enlightening on a macro-level. If, like me, you're looking for tangible, start-today actions you can take to personally stop dream hoarding, you won’t find much here. Regardless, Reeves begins an important discussion those of us with more economic privilege must stop avoiding. To actually end this dream hoarding, however, we’ll need to look for some more realistic resolutions. (less)
Personally, Richard Reeves’ work was helpful in that it clarified some hard-line facts about the increasing gap between the upper-middle class (people with household incomes above $112,000) and the other 80% of American society. By shifting his focus away from the “one percent,” and to a much larger (and arguably, more influential) class of Americans, he is able to offer a more salient economic critique than those who only focus on the uber-rich. He basically explains how “twenty-percenters” have done everything within their possibility to cement their family's permanent position in the upper-middle class. This “hoarding” of the American Dream is accomplished through zoning laws, elite educational systems, assortative mating, and some general rigging of our mythical meritocracy.
Contrary to popular belief, Reeves does not believe in doing away with income inequality, but rather making it a fair competition for Americans born into lower income quartiles. I’m not entirely sure it matters that he is a member of the class he studies, but it definitely helped me relate to him as someone who detests these injustices, but at the end of the day, would prefer to be on “the winning side.”
This, in a way, is my main problem with the book—despite Reeves understanding on a personal level why it is advantageous for his own family to be members of the upper-middle class, he underestimates others' resistance to changing this to this system. Many of his solutions felt rather idealistic, especially the ones that required taking away quality teachers from affluent school districts, and having them prove their worth in higher-need schools. It’s not that these aren’t wonderful suggestions, it’s just obvious that no suburban parents will actually vote for them!
For me, his strongest point is found midway through, when he states that only when children in the upper-quartile are at risk of downward mobility will our parents support social safety nets for all. A stronger recommendation section would’ve proposed solutions in this vein of thought, which asks a much harder, but more effective question: how will the upper-middle class be incentivized, not shamed, into dream sharing?
I think anyone who is passionate or even curious about economic inequality will find this book to be enlightening on a macro-level. If, like me, you're looking for tangible, start-today actions you can take to personally stop dream hoarding, you won’t find much here. Regardless, Reeves begins an important discussion those of us with more economic privilege must stop avoiding. To actually end this dream hoarding, however, we’ll need to look for some more realistic resolutions. (less)
Aug 29, 2017Rute rated it did not like it
This book is a waste of time. In an attempt to write a book different from all the others on the shelf about inequality caused by the top 1%, the author presents weak arguments about why the "upper middle class" is the cause of inequality in the United States. In fact, the arguments presented lose traction when you take a moment to question the premise:
"The upper middle class is privileged"
The word "privileged" means to have special rights or immunities, often undeserved. But almost on the very same page, the author admits that the upper middle class have worked hard and earned the income and wealth they have accumulated. So where is the privilege? This continues as you turn the pages, time and time again throughout the book, Reeves admits that the upper middle class have done everything right to get to where they are (worked hard in school, obtained high-income jobs, encourage their kids to do the same, spend more time reading to their children, etc.) which only further waters down the validity of his premise.
Other points were weak if not contradictory. Reeves presents the argument that legacy admissions are one of the main causes for preventing entire classes of income earners below the 80th percentile from earning their place in top schools. That is almost laughable, especially when he provides no data to back it up. He then goes on to make the argument that because individuals with higher cognitive ability are within close proximity to each other (university campus), they are more likely to marry and produce future generations of children that will also have high cognitive ability; however, if legacy admissions are as rampant as he makes them out to be, then shouldn't the presence of individuals with cognitive abilities lower than what elite universities would accept through proper channels somewhat mitigate the magnitude of this phenomenon? This is left unaddressed...conveniently.
Lastly, anyone can present a dramatic picture of inequality when treating individuals as statistical categories. Statistical categories show the differences between each quintile but what it does not show is the movement of individuals from one quintile to the next over time (a failing of cross-sectional and time-series data). Reeves does a very good job at presenting other people's high quality research, unfortunately said research has been strung together to present a poor argument. (less)
"The upper middle class is privileged"
The word "privileged" means to have special rights or immunities, often undeserved. But almost on the very same page, the author admits that the upper middle class have worked hard and earned the income and wealth they have accumulated. So where is the privilege? This continues as you turn the pages, time and time again throughout the book, Reeves admits that the upper middle class have done everything right to get to where they are (worked hard in school, obtained high-income jobs, encourage their kids to do the same, spend more time reading to their children, etc.) which only further waters down the validity of his premise.
Other points were weak if not contradictory. Reeves presents the argument that legacy admissions are one of the main causes for preventing entire classes of income earners below the 80th percentile from earning their place in top schools. That is almost laughable, especially when he provides no data to back it up. He then goes on to make the argument that because individuals with higher cognitive ability are within close proximity to each other (university campus), they are more likely to marry and produce future generations of children that will also have high cognitive ability; however, if legacy admissions are as rampant as he makes them out to be, then shouldn't the presence of individuals with cognitive abilities lower than what elite universities would accept through proper channels somewhat mitigate the magnitude of this phenomenon? This is left unaddressed...conveniently.
Lastly, anyone can present a dramatic picture of inequality when treating individuals as statistical categories. Statistical categories show the differences between each quintile but what it does not show is the movement of individuals from one quintile to the next over time (a failing of cross-sectional and time-series data). Reeves does a very good job at presenting other people's high quality research, unfortunately said research has been strung together to present a poor argument. (less)
Oct 03, 2017Mehrsa rated it really liked it
This is an important book. We need to talk more about the stickiness of class in America. This is a great start to that discussion. I think he could have talked a lot more about race in here because it’s actually the main example of dream hoarding—white flight and segregated schools lock in both advantage and disadvantage. It was an uncomfortable book to read too as a part of the privileged cohort. I don’t want my children to drop down a class, but apparently that’s what he says needs to happen. We could at least make the fall less consequential. (less)
Jan 13, 2018Bogi Takács added it
So far removed from my usual things to review that I won't do a full-length review of it, but it was interesting. In a nutshell: the author, a white, upper-middle-class American man*, makes the argument to his fellow white upper-middle-class Americans that they are not dealing with their privileges appropriately. (This means I'm also not the target audience... oh well.) Blaming the "1%" is a derailing tactic by upper-middle-class Americans - the upper 20%.
I think his most persuasive argument is that if you are looking at the upper 1%, you will see that in fact it is not a very stable class, but a variety of people from the upper 20% end up in it at some time as their finances shift around.
I also liked that he looked at the inverse of many well-worn topics in social-political discourse. Not just a glass ceiling that stops lower-status people from ascending, but a glass floor that stops higher-status people from falling too low. Not just upward mobility, but downward mobility (I never thought about downward mobility in this way previously).
I disagreed about many policy details (I'm a left-winger from Europe! Of course I did!) but overall this was an interesting book, even if the style was occasionally annoying. I also liked that he made it VERY clear that race is also a very major social determinant, but here he would examine class.
Source of the book: Lawrence Public Library
__
* He is an immigrant from the UK, but he's very invested in not just America, but American-ness, and talks about it a lot. He also compares the two countries, which I found interesting - his take on class does not align with the stereotypes. (less)
I think his most persuasive argument is that if you are looking at the upper 1%, you will see that in fact it is not a very stable class, but a variety of people from the upper 20% end up in it at some time as their finances shift around.
I also liked that he looked at the inverse of many well-worn topics in social-political discourse. Not just a glass ceiling that stops lower-status people from ascending, but a glass floor that stops higher-status people from falling too low. Not just upward mobility, but downward mobility (I never thought about downward mobility in this way previously).
I disagreed about many policy details (I'm a left-winger from Europe! Of course I did!) but overall this was an interesting book, even if the style was occasionally annoying. I also liked that he made it VERY clear that race is also a very major social determinant, but here he would examine class.
Source of the book: Lawrence Public Library
__
* He is an immigrant from the UK, but he's very invested in not just America, but American-ness, and talks about it a lot. He also compares the two countries, which I found interesting - his take on class does not align with the stereotypes. (less)
Jun 06, 2017Paul rated it really liked it
Eye-opening. Scary. Brave. Reeves lays out an unpopular and unvarnished truth about America's privileged class of which he and most of his readers (including me) are members. His sincere and thorough scholarship make for an interesting if uncomfortable read.
This book is provocative, in the more specific meaning that it is very liable to provoke. For example, I have a friend from the upper middle class who claims distant acquaintance with Reeves, and said that Reeves is really a “one percenter”. The implication was that Reeves is trying dishonestly to pass as a member of the u.-m. class only to better toss brickbats and hand grenades on behalf of our society's genuine villains. (I don't think the accuser is correct, but I remained silent, as I am trying not to alienate any more of the few friends I have.)
There is plenty to admire about this book, especially (not sarcasm here) it is short – my Kindle edition claimed the main text was only 157 pages long. In a short book, you can't hide shortcomings in your argument in a thicket of blather.
I thought the author spent too much time on the evils of legacy admissions and too little time on the other parts of his argument. He also failed to address the following: Legacy admissions have been in place for a long time (I know they were an important factor when I applied to university 40 years ago) and yet we only seem to be feeling the full force of their venality today. Why is that?
I guess that you don't make a best-selling and thought-provoking book by writing a lot about zoning, but nevertheless I wish the author had drilled in on this topic a little more. Specifically, I think he missed an important point: zoning is often designed with the best of intentions. However, even small cities are a maze of details, so the zoning rules and their enforcement from the get-go are so complex and idiosyncratic that they become opaque to the average citizen, and subject to manipulation by paid experts and interest groups. As a result, I don't think this is a problem that will be solved by a change in laws. Instead, there must be a more difficult, more hard-to-define, and more difficult-to-sustain change in the culture of zoning enforcement: the process must be more transparent before people will cease to see it as another scam of hypocritical and self-seeking mandarins.
Lastly, I think the author's recommendation that the upper middle class needs to act against its perceived self-interest is disingenuous. Surely he knows that appeals for one group to act for the good of all, once a fairly common occurrence in political rhetoric, will (rightly or wrongly) go absolutely nowhere in our day and age. No one wants to be the sap who, for the benefit of a group of ungrateful strangers, caused their family to move downward in society. You have to convince the entire society that we are all in this together and sacrifices by all will result in a better society for all. Even then, specific groups and classes will try to wiggle out of their end of the bargain. The improvement of society will largely depend on squabbling endlessly about seemingly trivial details (e.g., removing tax benefits from 529 college savings plans – Kindle location 47 and after) and keeping the ideal in mind even after setbacks, like the ones we are experiencing now. (less)
There is plenty to admire about this book, especially (not sarcasm here) it is short – my Kindle edition claimed the main text was only 157 pages long. In a short book, you can't hide shortcomings in your argument in a thicket of blather.
I thought the author spent too much time on the evils of legacy admissions and too little time on the other parts of his argument. He also failed to address the following: Legacy admissions have been in place for a long time (I know they were an important factor when I applied to university 40 years ago) and yet we only seem to be feeling the full force of their venality today. Why is that?
I guess that you don't make a best-selling and thought-provoking book by writing a lot about zoning, but nevertheless I wish the author had drilled in on this topic a little more. Specifically, I think he missed an important point: zoning is often designed with the best of intentions. However, even small cities are a maze of details, so the zoning rules and their enforcement from the get-go are so complex and idiosyncratic that they become opaque to the average citizen, and subject to manipulation by paid experts and interest groups. As a result, I don't think this is a problem that will be solved by a change in laws. Instead, there must be a more difficult, more hard-to-define, and more difficult-to-sustain change in the culture of zoning enforcement: the process must be more transparent before people will cease to see it as another scam of hypocritical and self-seeking mandarins.
Lastly, I think the author's recommendation that the upper middle class needs to act against its perceived self-interest is disingenuous. Surely he knows that appeals for one group to act for the good of all, once a fairly common occurrence in political rhetoric, will (rightly or wrongly) go absolutely nowhere in our day and age. No one wants to be the sap who, for the benefit of a group of ungrateful strangers, caused their family to move downward in society. You have to convince the entire society that we are all in this together and sacrifices by all will result in a better society for all. Even then, specific groups and classes will try to wiggle out of their end of the bargain. The improvement of society will largely depend on squabbling endlessly about seemingly trivial details (e.g., removing tax benefits from 529 college savings plans – Kindle location 47 and after) and keeping the ideal in mind even after setbacks, like the ones we are experiencing now. (less)
Jul 24, 2017Jennifer rated it really liked it
I agree with much of the argument, in particular about how the individual choices of the upper middle class contribute to opportunity hoarding. However, the ways in which inequality itself and the lack of a safety net contribute to the problem is largely ignored.
Feb 16, 2018Lance Eaton rated it really liked it
Shelves: audiobooks, 2018, reviewed-books, race-identity-culture
Reeves addresses something that I've seen for a while but had trouble naming. He shows in many ways how the upper-middle class is essentially pulling up the ladder of opportunity in our culture just as much as the elites are in the ways they make personal choices--often canceling out or undermining the opportunities that they were afforded to get to their current economic status. Reeve explores how the tearing down of policies within education, finance, and public policy had been stalwarts to help grow the upper middle class, but that such policies are often being replaced with policy that benefits the upper-middle class in lieu of lower classes. Some of those policies include tax benefits around home-ownership, capital gains, college education, and the like. Reeves contends that every time there is an attempt to reassess these, the upper-middle class vociferously demands it stay in place--often to the detriment of other classes that could benefit from that redistribution. He contrasts this with the spoken desire by many within the upper-middle class that claim they want to see more programs that help poor, working and low-middle class families. A good example is college education wherein upper-middle-class families rely on legacies, merit-based scholarship (which is largely geared towards upper-middle class students), and increased chances of admission because of the family's wealth (e.g. familiarity with a campus increases chances of admission; for schools that are far away, upper-middle-class families can spare the resources to have their child visit the school several times). Ultimately, Reeves shows that the scales are already tipped in favor of upper-middle-class but they continue to want more at the sacrifice of opportunity for poor, working, and lower-middle class. (less)
Aug 27, 2017Paige rated it liked it · review of another edition
The value of this book is more in the introspection Reeves encourages members of the upper middle class to undertake than the information. Most of the upper middle class intuitively know they are privileged to the expense to everyone below them, but most don't do anything about it. They like their 529 college savings plans, mortgage tax deductions, legacy admissions, internships, high performing suburban schools, and economically segregated neighborhoods. It makes them feel safe, protects their place in society, and passes on their privilege to their children.
The problem is if they continue to succeed, along with the super-rich, at the expense of everyone else, then the American Dream won't exist. The meritocratic ideal of rags to riches, of the value of hard work to take you to the top, has been battered, if not rendered inexistent, by the growing inequality in this country. Social mobility is extremely hard, and if you are born at the bottom it is highly unlikely you will be able to move upwards. An obsession with capitalism to the detriment of democratic ideals has overtaken the United States.
It's time to be less selfish. People must realize that your position in the current American society really comes down to luck. You don't choose to be born to rich or poor parents. In an ideal country no one would be poor. While utopia doesn't exist, we can try a lot harder to even the playing field. That means writing to Congress, state and local governments to help the underprivileged, volunteering to help those that desperately need it, and overall thinking about what it means to be a good, civic individual in this country. Reeves encourages the upper middle class to stop hoarding the best opportunities; people should listen. (less)
The problem is if they continue to succeed, along with the super-rich, at the expense of everyone else, then the American Dream won't exist. The meritocratic ideal of rags to riches, of the value of hard work to take you to the top, has been battered, if not rendered inexistent, by the growing inequality in this country. Social mobility is extremely hard, and if you are born at the bottom it is highly unlikely you will be able to move upwards. An obsession with capitalism to the detriment of democratic ideals has overtaken the United States.
It's time to be less selfish. People must realize that your position in the current American society really comes down to luck. You don't choose to be born to rich or poor parents. In an ideal country no one would be poor. While utopia doesn't exist, we can try a lot harder to even the playing field. That means writing to Congress, state and local governments to help the underprivileged, volunteering to help those that desperately need it, and overall thinking about what it means to be a good, civic individual in this country. Reeves encourages the upper middle class to stop hoarding the best opportunities; people should listen. (less)
No comments:
Post a Comment