Blessings on your new home, family, and job.

Best wishes,

Cheryl

By way of clarification: I do not deny the reality of America’s economic turmoil. It is undeniable, and exists just about everywhere in the country right now, even in the minds and hearts of those who are “untouched” by the downturn. Nor do I believe that the media is conspiring to instill fear into the general public.

I do believe the turmoil is just that—turmoil. I do believe that lay-offs and foreclosures are much less serious than what they are being made out to be; not because these are light challenges, but because they, individually, matter far less than the national focus that is being given them—and because their story is a one-sided one, as exemplified by the actual rates of employment and home ownership. (That is not a comment about what such challenges may or may not foreshadow.) I say this as someone who has been laid off twice and has experienced the foreclosure of his childhood home. Where are the stories of the Americans transitioning into their new workplace, and moving into their now downsized home? Are we to believe to that these hundreds of thousands of citizens are now sleeping on park benches and have no money to eat?

The “suffering” that the country is talking about is not just a relative term, but an inappropriate, even offensive, term. How many stories have I now heard, as some of the most extreme that the journalistic community can track down, about the mother crying that her son will not be able to get his class ring this year; about the parent who cannot afford senior pictures for his daughter; about the family who will have to stay home to open their gifts this year, rather than visit Grandma; about the homeowner (who has the wealth to actually own his own home!) whose home value has plummeted to 40% of that to which it had once inappropriately ballooned. Any one of these folks who perceives that they are actually suffering needs to accompany me next time I travel to Romania, after buying airline tickets with their fat paycheck, and crawl into a cardboard lean-to for a visit with one of many thousands of orphaned Gypsy children. Cry me a freakin’ river.

I don’t claim to know the most effective remedy for any one individual’s economic difficulties, but I do believe that a “macro” perspective on just about any issue in life is often appropriate, helpful, and goes a long way in drying out the tears of most of life’s pity parties.

I am well aware that low gas prices may be a reflection of pangs in an economy. My noting such prices was not a statement about the economy, but a reminder to my readers of their current financial blessings—albeit immediate and possibly temporary—a topic that fails to make it into the headlines with much gusto.

My blog posting was not a posting about the economy; it was a posting about attitudes. It was not a posting about any one family’s finances; it was a posting about the focus of American journalism, an unspeakably powerful force in shaping American decision-making, American conversation, American policies, American spending, American reactions, American values, American impulsiveness, and therefore the American economy.

My comments about gas, 96% employment, cell phones, and cable were not references to the country’s economic stability, health, or lack thereof. These comments were simply off-hand and highly generalized examples of the absolute luxury that exists in the American populace, and my response to claims of financial “suffering” in the country at large. As for what’s coming down the pike, I make no predictions of the future; I’m no economist, no politician, no pundit. I do know where to look, however, to find what lies ahead for any individual or any group of individuals—just look where their gaze is fixed.

Most of you who have written me sound much more educated about all the ins and outs of the current situation, cause and effects, etc. I can’t respond to your detailed economic discussions with much intelligence. Perhaps someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that much of the current mess has been the fruit of many overly eager Americans borrowing money that they had no business borrowing. Is this correct? An oversimplification? Pray do educate me. But please don’t come back with any nonsense about management having responsibility for an individual’s woe when that individual made the choice to get in the car, drive to the bank, and sign the papers themselves. Much of the blame-shifting and abdication of personal responsibility I have heard for months now is so reminiscent of that grossly overweight man who sued McDonald’s for his obesity… and won. But again—I am admittedly ignorant on these matters. I do own a retirement account, and I can say that my watching it plummet has made me mad at no one except myself—for making the choice to invest my money there. I don’t recall anyone having a gun at my head.

I live in Philadelphia, one of many US cities which has faced chronic unemployment and underemployment for decades. With the rise in healthcare and housing costs, the pressure on ordinary people has increased dramatically. Recently, our mayor announced several severe cutbacks in social services because the city is running a huge, unexpected deficit. Apparently, a lot of our taxpayer money was invested in the banking industry. (Philadelphia is not unique in this situation. Other large cities are facing similar challenges.) Several libraries and public pools are slated to be closed. Hundreds of city workers are being laid off, including at least two friends of mine. My street will no longer be plowed in the wintertime. There will be no more bulk trash collection. A high profile program that gives scholarships to poor school students is being discontinued. And there are many more cutbacks that I have not listed.

My father and my aunt have been laid off from their jobs as computer professionals. Since they are older, they have decided to retire. My friend’s brother recently lost his job at Aetna. My stepfather was laid off a few years ago, and was unemployed for two years before he finally found his current crappy job where he has to work crazy hours for less pay and no overtime. But, at least he is working. My husband’s company is laying off a good number of people next month. I’ve also read that thousands of people in NYC and areas where credit card banks operate (like Wilmington, DE) are now unemployed as a result of problems in the financial industry.

So, based on personal observations, I would say that this is not all hype and it certainly is not a new problem. What has plagued working class people for at least three decades now is finally beginning to affect middle and upper class people who previously had some semblance of job security. I don’t think we’re doomed, but many people are certainly facing some hard times and I do think more will be affected before the climate changes again.

I will just put in my two cents (for that is about all it worth).

First, I would like to agree with your premise that our national media is bad news driven and that one cannot get an accurate picture of the world from the mainstream media. I also agree that they often do make mountains from mole hills as the saying goes. I disagree, however with your conclusion that the ecomony is even remotely okay.

As a member of the construction and contracting industry, I feel the need to point out a few ways in which the just looking at the unemployment rate is an inadequate measure of our current conditions. For most people working in the construction industry, filing for unemployment isn’t an option. Often times what happens is that hours are simply cut back, profits decrease, and none of this is ever reflected in unemployment statistics. Additionally, suppliers and sales people who make their living of sales-based bonuses also see a sharp decline in income. The effect ripples throughout the entire economy. Again, none of this is ever reflected in unemployment statistics. Now, as to whether or not these industries operated the same way in past downturns (meaning, are we comparing apples to apples?) I cannot answer. I just know that everyone in my industry is at a standstill. The development and construction industry is almost entirely dependant on financing and financing is still frozen up for the most part. Another problem compounding this issue of tough-to-find credit is the issue of declining property values. Easy credit led to a glut of properties and now values are dropping (supply and demand) and current projects are having trouble even securing financing that was previously locked in. I figure that most of this is market correction, that the glut of properties has to be bought up (which will happen at huge discount) and until then there wont be the demand for more developement. Now, I say this as someone who has zero amount of formal education in economics, perhaps my experience has been purely anecdotal.

Finally, gas prices being low is perhaps THE greatest sign that we are indeed in a recession. Historically high gas prices were only alleviated when they pushed our economy into distress and the ecomony stalled or contracted. When this happened demand fell for oil and gas prices plummetted and the cycle started over again. In fact, I read an article by an economist this summer during the height of gas prices that questioned that the global economy might have become less dependent on the US economy to the point that a US recession would have little effect on global oil prices. Oh how wrong he was! I’m with you on the media, but they didn’t create this mess.

BTW – When are we hanging out?

I know the wise thing for me to do when debating someone of your intellect would be to apologize for my missteps (there were a few… we’ll get to that), say a few nice things, concede the point and move on. But I’m going to keep this going for at least one more email. So it’s going to go more like this: some overdue pleasantries, apologize for my missteps, provide better context for my previous argument, and continue with the discussion.

Pleasantries: It is really good to “talk” to you again. I love the pictures of the family and I admire your dedication to this blog. I wish I had the discipline to keep my friends and family so informed. As it is, I think I still have my original facebook picture up (actually my son, Jacob) and I have a backlog of friends to confirm who may believe by now that I don’t like them. I’m glad to hear things are going well and if your family are not frequent visitors to the comments section of your blog, I hope you will pass along my best wishes. Incidentally, just reading the phrase “three kids in diapers” in your response made me tired. I don’t know if you and Joyce are heroes or completely insane, but you have my respect. Jake looks like he is going to start crawling pretty soon and I cheer on his efforts even though I know life is about to get even more crazy if he is able to transport himself to every object of his desire. And put it in his mouth.

Apologies, redactions and clarifications: My biggest mistake in re-reading my response to you was allowing you to infer that I was accusing you of writing from a narrow world view. It was not my intent and I don’t believe that to be the case, but I see how it came across. I know you to be a person of diverse experience, highly educated, and uncommonly empathetic. My intent was to express surprise over the argument you used concerning how many people we (the readers) actually knew who were experiencing financial turmoil. Given your experience, I found it an odd choice.

My thought was something like this… Pretend you knew everyone in the country was going to read your post. Would you have still posed the question in that way? As soon as someone answers, “yes, I know someone who has been laid off”; it invites them to dismiss the rest of your point. The alternative is that you believe no one actually has lost a job or a home and all this reporting is a huge conspiracy to keep us all afraid. I don’t believe you believe that (entirely).

Second, I should stick to what I know. The immunity of a minister’s finances to economic downturns is not something I know anything about. I withdraw that statement completely with my apologies to anyone who read it and came to the absolutely correct conclusion that I have no idea what I’m talking about (for all you academics/educators out there, my point stands).

Less importantly, the apology in your response was unnecessary. Any offense I may have implied was being projected onto others if I was in their shoes. And I have been feeling particularly sympathetic for my wife and her friends and colleagues who are having a legitimately hard time in the face of letting people go in the name of efficiency.

Some Context: I have felt a bit inundated with the financial mess lately, not only because of Annie’s ties to the construction industry, or the difficulties of others in my family (who I believe have been model examples of maintaining perspective in tough times and of whom I am very proud), but also because I work for a very large mutual fund company, whose goal is to help people build wealth for their retirement. The company does not “profit” from shareholder accounts in the traditional sense of the word and its ethics are the class of the industry. So I spend the majority of my time working for a company who does its sincere best to help its shareholders preserve the money they have earned for their retirement and has been unable to do so, despite consciously avoiding some of the risky investments we constantly hear about.

So I see the effects of this everyday and it’s hard for me not to focus on it. That is not to say I think it is wise for everyone to focus too much attention on it. In fact most of the advice coming out of the company to its shareholders (which I agree with) is something to the effect of “if you can afford not to think about your account for a while, don’t.” But it has significantly affected my perspective.

Continuing the Discussion: Along with my earlier corrections, I will also concede the point that “suffering” and “pain” are relative terms and as Americans we benefit from being able to apply the loosest definitions. I believe it is always good and proper to remind ourselves that no matter how small our disposable income, the concept of “disposable” income is foreign to the majority of the world and we would be wise to keep that in mind when deciding what we can do with ours. But as you said, that was not the point of your post.

If we can agree on the thrust of my argument (that macroeconomic perspective is not the best remedy for those experiencing microeconomic “pain”, and perhaps, if done delicately, putting pain into context along with some biblical reminders that God is on our side (the hills are full of horses) would be the better way to go), then we can abandon that portion of the discussion as well.

The only thing I have left to disagree with you over is your conclusion.
“So… Gas is lower than we ever dreamed it would go, everyone is spending more than last year, holiday sales are predicted to be better than ever, we all got extra income earlier this year, job opportunities are innumerable, unemployment rates are very average, and cell phones and cable TV abound. THAT is the full story.”
I don’t think that’s the full story at all. As I said in my earlier post to you, one day holiday sales are a poor economic indicator if you are after the “full story”. Lower gas prices, while nice for my commuting budget, are a symptom of a much deeper problem. The unemployment rate itself while unremarkable in historical context is not nearly as relevant as the pace at which it has dropped from just over 3% to almost 7%. And cell phones and cable do abound, but I fail to see that as compelling evidence that the economy is in fact fine.
I don’t want to sound like Chicken Little, but I don’t want to ignore the facts and tell myself everything is OK, when there is so much evidence to the contrary. I mentioned before that my company prescribes a do-nothing approach with respect to 401k money and I agreed, but I don’t equate not obsessing over the short term value fluctuations in a 401k with staying actively uninformed.
Without doing any additional research, these things are also a part of the “full story”: The illusion of the American “free market” has been exposed by showing us just how involved the government is and can be. The weaknesses in the foundation of our entire economic system which we proudly promote as the best and only way to do business (and we may still be right) have been laid bare for the world to see. We have seen that short-term greed on the part of management can and does trump creating long term shareholder value in publicly traded companies and the effects are enormous. The actions of those few have not only affected every American who owns a house or a retirement account, but virtually every citizen in the industrialized world. Without veering off into to too much hyperbole, the actions of hundreds of people are responsible for damaging the lives of billions of people. We have started down the road of nationalizing our banks and an enormous insurance company and we are debating taking a public interest in automobile companies… during the Bush administration no less! We have seen that the stock market is driven in the short term by speculators and it turns out that is a false indicator of economic health because a huge portion of the money traded every day is sunk in the zero sum game of predicting what the next day will look like. Does anyone really believe American companies lost 40% of their intrinsic value in the last year? (Side note: Read John Bogle’s “Enough”. It’s very enlightening).
I need to know all these things if I am going to speak intelligently on the direction of the economy and make an informed decision on how to voice my opinion to the government with my vote. And the beauty of living in America is that I get to choose who I want to provide me with my news. Understanding that some bias creeps in to every journalist’s work who attempts more than a recitation of facts and statistics, I even get to choose multiple sources to ensure I am getting the full story. I actually hear very little of the hysteria of cable news because I choose not to watch it. From my experience it’s too obnoxious and the news is too liberally mixed with pundits who don’t appear any more qualified than my mailman to tell me how I should react to the news or predict the future.

My days go something like this: I listen to NPR on the way to work, read the WSJ for a lot of business news during the day, I’ll follow a link from anyone for national news, but often NYT or Washington Post. The Economist is how I keep up with the rest of the world, and I’ll listen to ESPN radio or even Sean Hannity on the way home (no one pretends the latter is objective, but sometimes I find his buffoonery entertaining. It’s particularly great to hear him tell me that everything I have seen and read during the day is a giant conspiracy to keep me in the dark and get liberals elected and he alone is able to set me straight, but I digress). And at night I’ll catch the Daily Show ripping all the cable news channels with its unapologetically liberal bent… but at least it’s funny.

So my advice to your readers would be to avoid selectively hearing the news and focusing only on what you want to focus on. Take it all in (from whomever you choose) and think about what it means to you and how to best make your voice heard. By all means, don’t let it dictate your life or fill you with fear. As you reminded us, as Christians we are explicitly told not to do this. But instead talk about it with people you trust, decide what if anything you should do about it and save the majority of your focus and attention on the people and things in your life that you love and bring you joy.

I largely agree with what you have so well-stated in your reply; I actually don’t feel that your perspective is much in conflict with mine. My words were not intended to be counsel for the distressed as much as a commentary on journalistic integrity and the selective focus of the American public. I certainly could have written a great deal more about the stress and anxiety that many people are experiencing among my own friends and even in my immediate family. Or I could have written about my own personal hardships in 2007 with regard to unemployment, job uncertainty, working three part-time jobs in addition to my full-time job while raising three kids in diapers, or even the months we have spent this year living “below the poverty line”; but such topics were peripheral to the intent of my piece.

I think I understand why you found my tone to be cavalier, although I am not altogether certain. If I am “reading” you accurately (which is always questionable through online communication!), you perceive me to be writing out of a context other than “the real world,” a context which discounts the raw nature of the nitty-gritty struggles that most of our society must reckon with daily. I’m not sure where your perception comes from, but if your assessment of those who earn their livelihood through the Ministry and the Academy is correct, I could not speak personally to that during this economic climate; for I earn no income through either “industry.” I only give my income to both. In defense of those who do put food on the table through the Ministry, however, I must inform you that the jobs in the Ministry are actually some of the least immune to economic downturns, perceived or real.

I do challenge the so-called reality and severity of the current economic climate, but I do so not in comparison with my own experience, but rather in comparison to the vast majority of the planet’s population—hence my quasi-snide remarks about the national “crisis.” There are very few Americans still alive, who were born and raised in this country, that have any concept of poverty. My attitude on this matter (which, again, was not the focus of my post) does not arise from an insulated American worldview, but rather from my experiences in 14 foreign countries. It is difficult, even nauseating, for me to hear people complaining about their economic woes when the “unimaginable” amounts to: living on one car, biking to work, losing their retirement portfolio, downsizing their home, working longer hours, or having to forego their Christmas vacation. For most of the planet, “unimaginable” means: watching their starving child wither in their arms, no water for days—actual survival issues. I understand that everything’s relative when comparing cultures, but I have little patience for the American attitude that dares to talk about the “suffering” we’re undergoing as people are trampled to death for the latest sale in Wal-Mart. I imagine that the billions around the globe who understand the term “poverty” are the ones who find us Americans to be unfair, narrow, and calloused in our pity party.

This current “recession,” if that’s what it is, is not a figment of the media’s imagination; but it certainly is largely, if not entirely, a product of their, and the public’s, imagination.

While I have enjoyed your musings over the last few months both as a passive way of keeping in touch (I will attempt to be more active in the future) and as food for thought, I found myself bothered by your last post to the point that I couldn’t get it out of my mind yesterday and I felt obliged to reply.

Let me say upfront I agree with a large part of your premise (that a lot of the angst and fear being felt by people in our society is largely the product of a media-driven self-fulfilling prophecy). For example, I do not have a legitimate reason to feel my job is in danger and while my wife’s bonus is contingent on her company’s bottom line profit which is dependent to a great degree on the construction industry in general, it does not factor into our operating budget as a family. Yet because of the constant barrage of bad news we still find ourselves in discussions about ways we can cut costs even though our income is relatively stable. This would seem an irrational response to outside factors that do not affect us, but after giving it some more thought I decided it’s not such a bad thing. If the current environment causes us and others to save more, which we as a country are terrible at doing, is that so bad?

But I’d like to address the two main reasons your post rubbed me the wrong way:

First, you are using a macroeconomic argument to address microeconomic concerns. You make the point that we have endured far worse as a country and an economy and that is true, but to the people who are being laid off right now it is a meaningless consolation and it dismisses the pain experienced by so many when times were worse. Just because economic cycles did not prove apocalyptic in the past doesn’t mean the people who suffered because of them are going to enjoy the repeat performance. I believe the unemployment rate itself is far less newsworthy than the direction it is heading and slope of the curve.

To answer your (rhetorical) question, I do know a few people personally who have been and will be laid off and many others who are affected less dramatically through decreased earnings including my father in the car business. My sister is finding it extremely difficult to find employment. My sister in-law is having to pick up more hours at her hospital because the small remodeling company her husband runs is having a rough time… it also means we don’t get the free daycare she enjoyed providing for us one day per week because she has to make more money for the family. Several people I know who are close to retirement age and will depend on their 401k to fund their retirement are now faced with the prospect of working more years to make ends meet. My wife has been miserable for the last week or so because she has been part of the team charged with determining which veterans of her company and people she considers friends will be told their services are no longer needed right before the holidays. I did not share your post with her because I think the cavalier tone and narrow focus would have been interpreted as more callous than I believe you intended and it would have put her into a deeper funk than she is already in.

Stepping back, the case could be made that her company has done disproportionately well in the last few years and the industry would never have been able to sustain the kind of growth it has experienced. These layoffs will make the company leaner, more agile, provide opportunities for cross training and ultimately it will be better prepared to react to the next upswing in their industry. And while that is a true statement economically speaking, it is also true that those individuals who are being laid off and those whose immediate salary depends on the short-term success of the company (sales people and upper management) are going to suffer significantly for an undetermined amount of time. Should they take comfort in the truth of the first statement? I wouldn’t. In fact I would be offended if someone brought it up.

And it doesn’t help allay the fears of everyone else that they might be next. There are plenty of people who will come out of this downturn on the other side unscathed in terms of real income. But they don’t know that yet. It is not right for you or anyone else to tell them their fears are unfounded because you don’t know. This downturn is different than the ones that have come before it and no one knows what to expect. There are a millions of people who work for firms that have laid off workers (or maybe their competitors have) and they can’t be certain that they won’t be next if things don’t improve. I would have felt more comfortable if you were offering more generic biblical advice such as (I’m paraphrasing): “Do not worry; for who can add even a single day to their life by worrying?” or “Our heavenly Father provides for the lilies and sparrows, so why not us?” But instead you challenged the reality and severity of a real and severe situation and I think you did so unfairly.

Second, (forgive me if it seems harsh, but because of your academic credentials I feel it’s appropriate to challenge your statements more critically than if you were just some yahoo) how can you in good faith offer an argument that is the logical equivalent to, “It’s sunny outside my house and my friends’ houses too… The whole country must be sunny.” I can think of few industries other than healthcare that are more immune to economic downturns than the Ministry and Academia which are the circles you run in. How can you base an argument that I assume is intended for a broad audience based on such a narrow point of view? You know it’s not representative of society at large. You can afford to have the attitude you prescribe, but millions of others can’t and you seem to discount their experience. I was home for Thanksgiving (I left on Saturday… I’m sorry I missed the chance to hear you preach). My sister was talking about the classifieds in the Sunday Cape Cod Times; there were two jobs. It’s not sunny everywhere. And an ill-advised thousand dollar check from the government doesn’t change that fact.

Finally, a few miscellaneous points: I don’t buy the so called Black Friday argument. It could just as easily point to the fact that more people were out that day looking for deals than the number that would have gone through the pain to save a few bucks in years past. I think the overall holiday numbers will bear that out. And even if they don’t, increased holiday spending in the face of a declining GDP is more of an indicator that we are country full of idiots than proof that the recession is a figment of the media’s imagination. Also I’ve heard plenty of good reporting on gas prices. It’s appropriate to report that high gas prices due to instability in the supply is a bad thing and it’s appropriate to report that low gas prices is a good thing for the commuter’s budget, but it’s also an indicator of weak demand which is not a good thing for the economy. And I haven’t had to look hard to find that reporting. Once I found out that listening to NPR doesn’t make me a communist, my appreciation for sincere journalism has increased.

I hope you are doing well. I’ve enjoyed your blog and I will continue to visit. I just needed to get that off my chest.

Fred