A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
To the editor:
It is a tragedy that a modern nation can so easily forget the foundational inheritance of political liberty and economic infrastructure secured for it over 250 years ago.
The Greatest Generation built wealth by delaying gratification, saving money, building factories, and investing in infrastructure. They accumulated capital.
In contrast, our modern consumer culture survives merely by consuming that inherited capital.
According to recent U.S. Census Bureau inflation-adjusted data, the daily purchasing power of our lowest-income citizens equals or exceeds the middle- class living standards of Eastern Europe. Yet, many people completely ignore this fact.
How did we move from a disciplined, grateful, and duty-bound generation to a culture of pure consumption?
The answer is simple: success naturally breeds complacency.
Consumer culture is the dangerous belief that personal satisfaction is the highest good and can be gained without earning it. It isn’t a sudden moral failure of individuals, but an economic system weaponized by convenience and instant gratification.
Today, inheritors rest in the shade of trees planted by farsighted people—the very people they now despise.
This cultural resentment turns basic consumption into a total separation from reality. By rejecting our past, we blind ourselves to the very principles that made our current comfort possible.
Somewhere along the way, we began to see ourselves as the center of the universe. Today, consumers want simply because they want.
It is a flawless tautology. But a society built entirely on empty desire eventually forgets how to build anything that lasts.
Robert Sica
12 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
reenjoe
49 percent of Americans only earn enough for, or less than a subsistence life consisting of food and shelter and Sica compares those folks to "middle class" Eastern Europeans? What exactly does "middle class" look like in Eastern Europe? And how, exactly, can a person save on a subsistence income? I'll answer the second question, they can't.
Thursday, September 10 Report this
namrogm
My dentist said the 2 places he wanted to visit this year were Lake Ontario and New Mexico. Now he said he can't find these places on Trump's official map. I was laughing so much he couldn't drill my tooth for 5 minutes.
He calls it megalomania. I wonder how much dementia is controlling our nutty and dangerous president.
But as reenjoe said, it's not a laughing matter for those who can't afford to live and support their families because of Trump's tariffs, war with Iran, promoting policies that only make the the rich more wealthy, and the resulting price hikes on everything.
Thursday, September 10 Report this
reenjoe
Thank you namrogm. I would add to your comment the reckoning we will face due to our $40 trillion debt.
BTW, 30% of that total debt was added by Trump alone and it was top-heavy tax cuts initiated by Reagan that sent our ever growing debt snowball rolling down the hill.
Thursday, September 10 Report this
Valete
.
Your claim that 47% of Americans live a subsistence life is false. It is a distortion of economic data. The 47% figure is a number used in political debates; it’s pure baloney.
The 47% figure has nothing to do with subsistence. It comes from misunderstanding tax brackets and savings.
The poverty rate in the US historically ranges between 11% and 12%. In terms of material consumption and physical living conditions, they are roughly equal.
In fact, the poorest 20% of Americans consume more than the national average of many affluent European countries. The American poor are living well on the backs of the American taxpayers—especially the rich. Their living standards are on par with middle-income countries such as Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Romania—an interesting tidbit."
Friday, September 11 Report this
reenjoe
To begin with, my "claim" that 49 percent of Americans only earn enough to afford a subsistence living is a well documented fact. Word Man tries to confuse the issue by citing the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line - 11-12% - while ignoring the tens of millions of Americans who eke by, only able to pay for life's bare necessities - rent, food, clothing and transportation.
Word Man/Sica's letter is the typical "poor shaming" that circulates among insensitive right-wing ideologues. In essence, Sica blames the poor for their plight saying they buy too much and save too little.
Friday, September 11 Report this
reenjoe
In addition to Sica excluding the 30% of Asset Limited Income Constrained Employed or ALICE Americans and 7% of Americans who sit just above ALICEs economically, he tosses in a meaningless statistic - the 20 percent poorest Americans consume more than the national average of many affluent European countries - an apples to acorns comparison. I have no doubt that 70 million Americans (20%) consume more than nations with half or fewer people.
The dismissive language Sica uses is also very telling about his attitude towards those less fortunate. Specifically, "The American poor are living well on the backs of the American taxpayers—especially the rich". If this is how self-professed Christians, like Sica speak of the poor, I'm proud to be an Atheist.
Friday, September 11 Report this
Valete
The claim that 49% of Americans only earn enough to survive is wrong. The data proves this is false.
The US Census Bureau says the official poverty rate is 10.6%. The broader Supplemental Poverty Measure sits at 12.9%. Hardship tracking from the United Way puts the number of households struggling to afford basics at 41%, not 49%. 41%includes families with cars, cell phones, and internet. That is a far cry from bare “subsistence” life of food and shelter. Mixing middle-class workers with those in real poverty skews national data.
To look at spending habits is not “poor shaming.” Pointing out low savings and high debt is standard financial analysis. It is not a biased attack. Discussing how households spend money is key to understanding inflation.
Throwing insults and political labels proves you cannot answer the math.
Friday, September 11 Report this
Admin
When Word Man is not getting his facts wrong, he's telling only half of the truth. If you own a car you're not poor? How about people living in their cars because they can't afford housing? A cell phone is a luxury? Many people have cell phones but no landline.
Sunday, September 13 Report this
reenjoe
@Admin, spot on pointing out Sica's BS. I would add to your excellent comment, Word Man's ridiculous assertion that those with a car and cell phone are "middle class workers".
Monday, September 14 Report this
Valete
I am not a psychiatrist, so I will not opine on the reasons for people behaving oddly—like living in cars. But looking strictly at the math, OECD data show that the poorest 20 percent of Americans have an average spending level of $34,500. This includes cash, government welfare benefits, and private charities. This spending power allows the lowest-earning Americans to have more goods, technology, and housing amenities than the average citizen in many Eastern European countries—end of subject.
Tuesday, September 15 Report this
reenjoe
Word Man offers yet another apples to acorns comparison by saying the average poorest 20% of Americans spend more (including salary, welfare and charitable handouts) than the average person living in impoverished Eastern European countries, the declaring "end of subject"!
Sica's flawed analysis is like saying a single person in New York making $35K lives better than someone living in South Dakota making $32K. For the record, MIT's Living Wage Calculator finds that a single person needs $42K to maintain a minimum standard of living in NY and only $29K in SD. The subject continues....
Tuesday, September 15 Report this
Valete
.
"You miss how the math works here. The original matchup uses purchasing power parity. That metric does the exact same job as your MIT calculator—it standardizes local prices so you can actually compare different regions fairly.
Check the OECD data on actual individual consumption. It tracks household spending plus government perks like healthcare. Even after adjusting for local costs, the poorest 20% of Americans out-consume the average citizen in multiple Eastern European nations.
The New York vs. South Dakota distortion is already accounted for. This fact proves the matchup works perfectly. The data is clear—this debate is over.”
Tuesday, September 15 Report this