How Can America Be So Miserable When It’s So Rich?

[Scott Hotes]

Since this came up at last night’s dinner, and I thought this perspective was interesting...

David French - How Can America Be So Miserable When It’s So Rich?

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/26/opinion/economy-attitudes-republicans-democrats.html?unlocked_article_code=1.WVA.PaEk.TS70NI6ZyzoG&smid=url-share

In short, the thesis is that the reason people are not as happy about the economy as they might as well otherwise be is that as we have gotten richer, there have been more and more options for the wealthy to pay for perks.  The not-as-wealthy see that, know they can’t afford those things, and thus it impacts their perception.

Sound reasonable?

Scott

[Amei]

I think that connected to this there are deeper reasons. The biggest is that poor people get looked down on, blamed, patronized,  cheated ( get worse loans for example), vilified, controlled, ignored, persecuted, criminalized, negatively stereotyped than in all the other countries where I lived. Grew up in Germany, lived in Portugal and England, France.

How can you feel good with that on your shoulders?

They eat worse food (good food is expensive here) than poor people in other countries. Portugal food for poor people corresponds to upscale food here in US, it’s simple but good quality food, good bread, cheese, veggies are super expensive here and the most affordable option there

And there is healthcare….., having to pay for college…. Not in the poorest countries in Europe! 

No vacations…. No obligatory maternity leave…

The quality of life gap is soooo much wider here!   You see that when you’ve lived other places 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/F5E0F611-90A7-4614-A7CC-1A9775B0BE3B%40gmail.com.

[Warren Tighe]

But we have gradually been getting richer for the last two centuries. 

It seems a more credible explanation is our hyper-tribalism, hatred of "those people", outrage, fear, worry, obsession with politics and culture wars, sensing victimhood everywhere (including in economic matters), diminished trust in our institutions, etc.  These maladies are the result of much of the population being in an echo chamber of anti-social messages stoking those negative feelings.  The negative echo chambers are the result of several factors including repeal of the fairness Doctrine in 1987, abandonment of most restrictions on media ownership consolidation, algorithm-driven negative message repetition of social media, the absence of a national broadcast service, and the daily blatant lies, hatred, etc. spewing from Donald Trump.  Four of these five are largely unique to the U.S., hence we are even worse off than our peer nations.   

But I might be wrong.

Thanks,

Warren

---

From: ipse-...@googlegroups.com <ipse-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2026 6:21 PM
To: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Ipse Dixit] How Can America Be So Miserable When It’s So Rich?

 

[Asif Ahsan]

All those factors stated here play to an extent. Unfortunately the problem is much more deeply rooted into the cultural mechanics. They work also because of a constant comparison culture.  People don’t compare themselves globally—they compare to people they know or see on social media. That makes relative deprivation feel stronger, including feeling of inequality and that's where typically “Best” doesn’t mean it “feels good”. Unfortunately it is an inescapable problem that comes with certain type of socio-economic structure. 

Asif

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/BN0P221MB038358E2499D468AF4CE9E6CA557A%40BN0P221MB0383.NAMP221.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[Vince Koloski]

It's an interesting article.

 

I'll start by noting that the US economy being the "Envy of the World" comes from an article in The Economist with all that entails as to point of view. Setting that aside the article states that our GDP increased at a rate outpacing our allied competitors in the past quarter century. This GDP growth came during a time in which our economy accelerated the change begun in the 1990s from an industrial economy to a financial economy whilst the compared economies retained much more of their industrial nature. To give an example: My friend and his wife are moving to Oregon. They have found a home to purchase. Their down payment adds to GDP, taking out a mortgage from the bank adds to GDP, the realtor commission adds to GDP, the title company fees add to GDP, as do inspection fees (their payment to the inspector and the inspector banking their payment both transactions add to GDP), the payments my friend makes to pay off the mortgage add to GDP.  If the bank is a larger national bank they might well bundle the loan into an MBS (mortgage backed security - yes they still exist) and sell it to an investor. Both the sale and the purchase add to GDP. NONE of these additions to GDP produce anything real for the economy (the house already existed). They are in the classic economic sense rent not production. I am not convinced that an economy based on finance can realistically be compared to an economy based on production and that the supposed increases in GDP really mean anything.

That said. While the article does not briefly that the numbers used for the economic classes are adjusted to 2024 dollars one might ask which inflation adjustment the article uses, core inflation, inflation including food and housing or inflation including food, housing and services.

The article then states a series of numbers indicating households above and below the various income cutoffs. 19% make under $60,000; 16% make from $60,000-$100,000; 31% make from 200,000-$600,000 (a pretty wide range would be interesting to see the breakdown); and 4% who make from $600,000 to infinity. The article leaves out the 30% making from $100,000-$200,000 (the middle class by the article's definitions) perhaps to make the 31% upper middle class seem larger?

The article then states that we have luxuries we did not have in the past (big screen TVs, computers, air conditioning, multiple cars) to make the case that we are much richer than we believe.

All of this is deployed to convince us of our wealth, but then the article begins to state a number of cases that undermine the argument. To go to Disneyland requires taking out a loan, to go to a ball game is remarkably expensive (don't even mention taking your teen to a Taylor Swift concert), flying outside of cattle car sorry, coach, is expensive and exasperating.

The article then goes on to state that the "rational economic choices" which liberal economics and politics enshrines at a sacred level, drive the organizations providing goods and services to leave anyone but the rich behind. Big cars, big houses, expensive food, concierge medicine, all done to maximize profit which is, of course, the sacred "ration economic choice."

The kicker for me is this one that the article attempts to state is only in certain cities:

And what if you live in a city that the top 10 percent love? Well, then even being upper middle class doesn’t feel affluent at all. Six-figure salaries purchase shoe-box apartments, and everything from groceries to gas costs an absurd amount. Soon enough, you’re googling the real estate prices in Chattanooga or Des Moines — surely it’s cheaper there — whether or not you intend to ever leave.

The article mentions only in passing the increased cost of everything your "wealth" buys. Living space, food, clothes, transportation, medical care, education, insurances etc all of which have increased at the same pace as your income, actually generally faster. This leaves you in a higher income bracket but no better off from a financial security perspective.

Amei's point is well taken. Even leaving aside the social contempt and denigration of working class and lower people (a big ask, but...) the fact that education, health care, mandatory leave, some worker agency leading to vacations and better pay all exist in societies not enslaved to "rational self interest" that actually allow for the general interests of society to have a place, is a better outcome.

Asif's point about comparison society (amplified of course by predatory social media) is definitely the case and the point that the socio-economic structure amplifies it is well taken.

I don't think Warren's echo chamber is a primary cause.  When I am looking at my bills and my bank statements and my paycheck and try to do the juggling act to keep my finances afloat, what they say on TV, the radio and the internet do not enter the picture. It doesn't matter, they don't pay my bills. They can give me someone to blame, but they can't convince me things are better than they are.

 

 

Sorry this is so long, but this kind of article just pisses me off.

 

Vince

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/CAGc2QJofMANVXnPgyTPjY0moheFwFyALoaYnNifGW0rkb%3D%2BbYg%40mail.gmail.com.