Not trapped

Based on a few posts that looked interesting from the TPM Cafe bookclub, I requested Daniel Brook's The Trap.  I got it last week, and spent about an hour skimming it today, but couldn't really get into it.  The online discussion is far more interesting.

Brook's overall thesis is that the high cost of living in desirable urban areas, the cost of college and health care, and the very high salaries paid to workers in certain professions (big law, investment banking, management consulting), makes it harder for idealistic college grads to follow their dreams.  I think that's probably true, but am not sure it's the major crisis he portrays. 

Two quick points:

1)  As several of the commenters at TPM Cafe pointed out, Brook is wildly overstating the case when he suggests that the only alternatives are selling out and being a "saint" destined for poverty.  And by overstating the case, he actually makes it easier for people to sell out.  In reality, I know plenty of people who have darn good lives on public and nonprofit sector salaries.  By and large, they don't have second homes and they don't expect that their kids will make it through college without taking out student loans, but they're not living on ramen noodles either.

2)  When I wrote about the cost of living last of week, the comments were running pretty strongly against the "just move" idea.  And I agree that you shouldn't have to move time zones in order to make ends meet.  But I don't have a lot of sympathy for recent college grads who feel like they're entitled to live in hip urban neighborhoods and don't want roommates.

On a related note, my team at work is hiring a Research Assistant.  I'm not sure exactly what they're offering for salary -- probably not enough to live in Dupont Circle, even with a roommate -- but the benefits are excellent, they take work-life balance seriously, and it's a terrific group of people. 

Comments

[jen]

As a person who works in the for-profit sector, I can tell you it's pretty common for people similar to myself to go on at length about their angst -- particularly surrounding health care, but also with regard to keeping the kids in a safe neighborhood and school. I don't doubt that it's sincere, and certainly the reason I took my current job is so that I could keep the kids in their school while hubby when to graduate school. But I also think playing up the angst and "fall" you face when leaving for-profit allows people to defend their decisions.

[bj]

I agree with Jen that the cognitive dissonance does play a role. People who have chosen big law, or investment banking, when they told everyone they were going to "fight for the little guy" like to feel that they had no choice, rather than they chose one thing over another.

So, I don't think it's a trap, but I also do think the ratios make a difference. Choosing one thing over another is easier when you're talking about making 100K or 200K than when you're talking about 100K v 10000K.

bj

[Helen]

I wish I could apply for that interesting job, but living in southern Australia, it would make for a long commute :-)

But I don't have a lot of sympathy for recent college grads who feel like they're entitled to live in hip urban neighborhoods and don't want roommates.

Well, I might have to say to them that it's not possible, but I still feel sympathy - it's not really incompatible. Because while I was still a student (and while I was a struggling musician ) my friends and I were able to live either singly or together in hip urban neighbourhoods, because that was before they became gentrified and prices went up. So I might agree that my daughter can't have the same life, but I still feel sad about that and sympathise with her narrowed choices.

[Helen]

That second sentence was a quotation, should have been in italics.