"The death of the American Dream" has been explored ad nauseam throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. It definitely pokes its head out more prominently in times of political and economic upheaval (eg the 60s and 70s, the 00s, now) but it is always there in the background humming. I think one of the reasons it is such a persistent narrative, other than the obvious being that the American Dream is nothing more than a myth, is that this country holds nothing sacred. There's definitely unfair preferences and biases but there's no status you can acquire or own that will make you invulnerable. This isn't to say we're egalitarian, far from it, but everyone can feel that the floor could come out from under you at any time. And that anxiety makes a quaint idea like universal opportunity for everyone seem ridiculous. But its also that unsentimentality about the traditional sources of security that I think keeps the dream alive for those seeking it.
Good article. I think we sometimes take for granted what others may see as an amazing opportunity. I wonder if there is such a thing as 'freedom fatigue', meaning that Americans enjoy so much freedom of choice that we become desensitized to the possibilities that freedom presents.
The fact that some people like the author still succeed in becoming wealthy from humble beginnings is besides the point. It's like those actors who talk about how they waited tables and went to hundreds of auditions before they got the role that made them a movie star. Yes, it worked for them, but how many more didn't make it? Did they really work less at it, or were they less lucky?
Yes I do live in America - and nothing I've said has anything to do with zero sum economics - only that examples of people succeeding has no bearing on how likely it is in general. The "American Dream" implies that economic mobility is 1) likely in America and 2) more likely there than in other places. This can be and has been measured and the results are not in general optimistic e.g. https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/20/tracking-decline-social-mob...
The American Dream is that all Americans have freedom to attain a better life, that was replaced with freedom to choose products, most of which will take your time, energy and money and leave you the same or worse off than before.
That some people still have the opportunity to improve their life isn't a signal that the American Dream is alive it's the exact opposite signal. It's that society has chosen a model for winners and if you don't play that game well then it doesn't need you. Is it at all surprising that a Yale -> Cambridge PhD -> Best selling author has a better quality of life than a similar immigrant whose son didn't go to Yale? Is your personal success built on the backs and graves of those that didn't make it?
There is lots left out of the story, I'm sure the drug addiction is true, but many drug addicts aren't so driven to move to America. The story could have easily ended with and my plane was shot down. Or I went to work at Amazon, where hard work is exploited and the turnover rate is 150%, Or I came back with trauma, Or I was part of a group that the military didn't want, Yale has a limited number of seats, Cambridge has a limited number of PhDs etc. Often times hard work is rewarded with a medical emergency, usually energy drink/substance abuse induced paranoid schizophrenia, and a bill. Look at any major industry and there are at least 10 million abusing substances to "get ahead"
The surveys are less about people losing faith in themselves and more telling you and the government that these pathways are not open to them. If what it takes to be a winner in the 00s is put your life at risk to get into the top school in the country, and people still believed in the American Dream back then, I can only imagine how bad it is now. The simple fact is that contrary to the article most Americans aren't wealthy, they are in massive debt, precisely because they failed and couldn't socialize their college costs. There is no luxury gap, the average parent just believes the average kid will make between 60k-100k [1]. If you're a median in that top 10% that owns 70% of American assets then you are making over $300k, currently those people making $100k are below average despite having a higher than average salary, because labor has never been the main driver of wealth. It's worth noting that throughout the authors entire life the only value he produced was his teenage jobs, subsidized foster homes, military, GI bill for education, if he didn't become a national best seller at the end of all that would he even have paid it all back through taxes? Certainly not if he made an average salary of $65k.
Yes people should work hard, all people, including the wealthy but they shouldn't be required to take needless risk because 10% like sitting on their cushy chairs counting their money, or 40% with their paper pushing office job and slightly less money counting. People should make their own damn sandwiches. It lessens the externalized burdens workers are subject to.
[1] Lets look at PPP in some categories
Since the 2000s headline CPI has increased by 100%. This means, at a broad level, ignoring objections to CPI methodology, and taxes, you need make $200,000 this year to have the same purchasing power as someone who made $100,000 in 2000. If we look at asset and essential service categories the difference grows
Housing -> $255,000 - $265,000
Education -> $280,000 - $300,0000
Healthcare -> $410,000 - $440,000
Of course it's hard to control for increases in frivolous Home/Education/Health expenditure, but I suspect it's a wash since tech purchases are often considered frivolous yet prices have collapsed. The American Dream largely relies on the fact that prices come down, eventually that will happen, but currently there is no end in sight to price hikes.
"The death of the American Dream" has been explored ad nauseam throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. It definitely pokes its head out more prominently in times of political and economic upheaval (eg the 60s and 70s, the 00s, now) but it is always there in the background humming. I think one of the reasons it is such a persistent narrative, other than the obvious being that the American Dream is nothing more than a myth, is that this country holds nothing sacred. There's definitely unfair preferences and biases but there's no status you can acquire or own that will make you invulnerable. This isn't to say we're egalitarian, far from it, but everyone can feel that the floor could come out from under you at any time. And that anxiety makes a quaint idea like universal opportunity for everyone seem ridiculous. But its also that unsentimentality about the traditional sources of security that I think keeps the dream alive for those seeking it.
Good article. I think we sometimes take for granted what others may see as an amazing opportunity. I wonder if there is such a thing as 'freedom fatigue', meaning that Americans enjoy so much freedom of choice that we become desensitized to the possibilities that freedom presents.
The fact that some people like the author still succeed in becoming wealthy from humble beginnings is besides the point. It's like those actors who talk about how they waited tables and went to hundreds of auditions before they got the role that made them a movie star. Yes, it worked for them, but how many more didn't make it? Did they really work less at it, or were they less lucky?
Do you live in America? You seem to be under the mistaken impression that it is a zero sum game. It isn’t.
Yes I do live in America - and nothing I've said has anything to do with zero sum economics - only that examples of people succeeding has no bearing on how likely it is in general. The "American Dream" implies that economic mobility is 1) likely in America and 2) more likely there than in other places. This can be and has been measured and the results are not in general optimistic e.g. https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/20/tracking-decline-social-mob...
The American Dream is that all Americans have freedom to attain a better life, that was replaced with freedom to choose products, most of which will take your time, energy and money and leave you the same or worse off than before.
That some people still have the opportunity to improve their life isn't a signal that the American Dream is alive it's the exact opposite signal. It's that society has chosen a model for winners and if you don't play that game well then it doesn't need you. Is it at all surprising that a Yale -> Cambridge PhD -> Best selling author has a better quality of life than a similar immigrant whose son didn't go to Yale? Is your personal success built on the backs and graves of those that didn't make it?
There is lots left out of the story, I'm sure the drug addiction is true, but many drug addicts aren't so driven to move to America. The story could have easily ended with and my plane was shot down. Or I went to work at Amazon, where hard work is exploited and the turnover rate is 150%, Or I came back with trauma, Or I was part of a group that the military didn't want, Yale has a limited number of seats, Cambridge has a limited number of PhDs etc. Often times hard work is rewarded with a medical emergency, usually energy drink/substance abuse induced paranoid schizophrenia, and a bill. Look at any major industry and there are at least 10 million abusing substances to "get ahead"
The surveys are less about people losing faith in themselves and more telling you and the government that these pathways are not open to them. If what it takes to be a winner in the 00s is put your life at risk to get into the top school in the country, and people still believed in the American Dream back then, I can only imagine how bad it is now. The simple fact is that contrary to the article most Americans aren't wealthy, they are in massive debt, precisely because they failed and couldn't socialize their college costs. There is no luxury gap, the average parent just believes the average kid will make between 60k-100k [1]. If you're a median in that top 10% that owns 70% of American assets then you are making over $300k, currently those people making $100k are below average despite having a higher than average salary, because labor has never been the main driver of wealth. It's worth noting that throughout the authors entire life the only value he produced was his teenage jobs, subsidized foster homes, military, GI bill for education, if he didn't become a national best seller at the end of all that would he even have paid it all back through taxes? Certainly not if he made an average salary of $65k.
Yes people should work hard, all people, including the wealthy but they shouldn't be required to take needless risk because 10% like sitting on their cushy chairs counting their money, or 40% with their paper pushing office job and slightly less money counting. People should make their own damn sandwiches. It lessens the externalized burdens workers are subject to.
[1] Lets look at PPP in some categories Since the 2000s headline CPI has increased by 100%. This means, at a broad level, ignoring objections to CPI methodology, and taxes, you need make $200,000 this year to have the same purchasing power as someone who made $100,000 in 2000. If we look at asset and essential service categories the difference grows Housing -> $255,000 - $265,000 Education -> $280,000 - $300,0000 Healthcare -> $410,000 - $440,000
Of course it's hard to control for increases in frivolous Home/Education/Health expenditure, but I suspect it's a wash since tech purchases are often considered frivolous yet prices have collapsed. The American Dream largely relies on the fact that prices come down, eventually that will happen, but currently there is no end in sight to price hikes.