A reflection on Oren Cass and Jeremy Beer’s conversation on the rising costs of flourishing in America.
Skimming through the archives of the Givers, Doers, & Thinkers Podcast, I stumbled across an episode with Oren Cass talking about the “rising costs of flourishing” in America. This episode of the podcast is a deep dive on the cost of living in America for the middle class. Also discussed is an evaluation of whether things getting more expensive than in days gone by really matters since wages are so much higher in the modern age. My kneejerk response was to argue that of course, inflation is always driving up prices, but wages and the material quality of life enjoyed by Americans are increasing, too. Material goods abound. Isn’t that a good thing?
I listened to the episode twice. The first time through, my reaction was one of skepticism at Jeremy and Oren’s discussion. But upon further investigation, I realized that I had missed their point. Listening again (and admittedly with greater humility) I think there is a great deal of wisdom, rooted in virtue, being put forth by Oren and Jeremy. My own college education focused on a deep dive into economic history. This part of Oren and Jeremy’s discussion is what caught my attention and persuaded me to listen farther, but it was also territory in which my own ego made me want to discount what they were saying.
The discussion starts with Mr. Cass discussing the origins of conservative economic policy. He points to a key distinction between what he calls the “old right” and the “new right.” The old-right GOP would look at the American economy today and say that it’s doing well. Wages are at all-time highs, unemployment is low, and this is all very good. From the old right’s perspective, the purpose of economics is to maximize consumer welfare—let people consume the most stuff at the lowest cost while doing the least amount of work.
Contrast this with the view of the new right, which centers on the question: what do we want markets to be doing? We like consumption but we need markets to drive innovation, cultivate ingenuity, and create good jobs for people to raise families.
Oren argues that classical conservative all-stars like Hayek and Friedman laid good groundwork that was relevant in their respective times, but their views need more nuance in today’s economic situation. Hayek is the godfather of free market ideas but, Oren points out, did not label himself a conservative due to the rigidity he felt was inherent in that world view. Friedman studied Hayek’s arguments against central planning and government control of the market and adapted them to his time, as the titanic clash between the USA and USSR crested under Reagan.
In my mind, the focal point of the discussion (and the indictment of my own perspective) is that conservatism today needs to hear where people are and taking seriously the problems they face on a daily basis. Groceries really are more expensive. Healthcare expenses truly are out of control and delivering a sub-par product. Home prices and the costs associated with home ownership are skyrocketing and pricing many out of the market. Don’t just throw an economics textbook at people and cite the historical perspective. And I’m ashamed to admit it: I can’t tell you how many hypothetical textbooks I’ve thrown! Even when my own experience matched what I was observing. I was still too stubborn to see that the system itself might be flawed.
Because we are conservatives, we believe in free markets. And due to conservatives’ natural inclination to reduce governmental power and size, I think we ultimately fear the repercussions of meddling with the market. But in recent years, it is clear that what we have now, the constant pursuit of cheaper material goods from the most convenient manufacturer (even our adversaries), isn’t a workable answer either. As a culture, we are starting to recognize and question the empty promises that blind materialist consumerism has whispered in our ear.
At this point in the discussion, it was time for me to eat a slice of humble pie.
My consumption of that famed dessert was rewarded as I listened further. Oren, in his work at American Compass, has created the “Cost of Thriving Index,” which is an in-depth analysis of the key question: “How are families actually doing?” This is the question that really matters to me, a father of five just looking to provide for a young family. Oren vindicated the feeling that I’ve never been able to shake: that things are much harder now, especially for single-income families, than they were when my grandparents or even my parents were raising their families. But it was hard to reconcile my general feeling of how challenging today’s economic situation is with my education, which, once again, involved the throwing of econ textbooks.
The moral of the story for me, by the end of the podcast, was that adding nuance to my viewpoint and taking the time to question the status quo is essential. That doesn’t mean ejecting the proverbial market economy baby and bathwater for the sake of efficiency. It means, with diligence and patience, using prudence to integrate the lessons of the past and develop solutions relevant to our time and to our problems.
Jeremy insightfully summarizes that “the market, left to itself, can dissolve the stores of cultural and human capital needed to make this whole thing, our society, work.”
Before this podcast, I couldn’t see that. The-idealogue-who-thought-he-knew-everything got the better of me and I reduced a complex problem to a simple solution and continued to try and bang the gong of “Capitalism works and we shouldn’t touch it or it’ll get screwed up.” That isn’t entirely false, but it’s also not that simple. Turns out, humble pie doesn’t taste so bad after all . . . and it certainly makes you wiser! If you’ll let it.
