Over-Unders for the Sandwich Generation

IE the gamble of choosing material renunciation as a middle-class, middle-generation American.

Sitting here squarely in a middle class “sandwich generation,” I’ve noticed a few things. Trying to build value, tend to the needs of two elderly parents, being mindful of other elder’s needs too, and raising two kids to be functional members in a middle class+ community. Yeah, it’s a bit much.

So, to prep you for my assertions below, and their tone: the bloom is off the rose about the drivers of this capitalist/consumerist economy, and I have buckets of skepticism what these drivers can achieve under our current economic climate, especially for the working middle.

I hope, in time, to have some meaningful suggestions to improve this situation¹. Right now, I’m reformulating a path forward that supports my community, but not at greater expense to myself, my integrity, or the larger ideals I’d like to live up to.

Middle Class Economic Observations

If you are in the middle class and work to gain a sense of freedom and/or security by acquiring assets like homes, retirement savings, and other forms of material wealth you may be wasting your time.
This may be because the monetary value number you would need to hit to assure financial stability for you and your children is an upwardly moving target. Especially in an economy that’s being grifted by casino-breaking leadership, data-brokering oligarchs, and consumer-bolstering media.²
It seems to me, the number a middle class person would need to hit to feel secure and experience a modicum of freedom is climbing rapidly, so stopping trying to hit it at all may be actually less risky than trying.

See, if you value social-emotional bonds, contribution, integrity, ideals, education, experience, and familial loyalty over material wealth; then liquidating one’s assets early, and relying on human decency or institutional safety-nets may be a better way to approach middle age than working harder.

This runs counter to our rugged individualist/innovation-based culture, but in order for this consumerist culture to work, people need real paths forward that don’t subsume their common touch or collective caring, or send them to an early grave from stress or exhaustion.
When the middle class chases security by earning more dollars, they also produce more value, and contribute more personal/human energy into a larger system – which stimulates the economy. These primary workers also buy loads of stuff, which further enlivens the economy. We are a rich country at the moment, which means even our poor and hidden (immigrant) populations play the game and help our economy writ large. But the respect is not there. And it needs to be.

It seems to me the lower and middle classes are the PRIMARY drivers of what makes this country wealthy in 21st century. But who is actually benefiting from this wealth? Is it the collective’s children? It should be.
For instance, if you are a member of the sandwich generation, you know one illness³ can wipe out your family’s assets. I’ve seen this first hand. Living = spending, is the economic reality for many in the middle class.

Unless one knows how to protect familial wealth via legal products that require lawyers and lots of investment to make it even worth engaging in the process, most every day people who face significant illness or extended care will likely end up with no material assets.
So, I find it annoying to notice how this system works AND to feel pushed by consumerist culture to join the ranks of asset-grabbers. Believe me I tried when I was too busy to truly think, and it didn’t feel good or sustainable. I also know I love to help those who need it, and will likely need to self-fund that. Sorta’ fine for me, but what about the next generation?

At some point, one’s over-under becomes clear: the least risky way forward that helps the greatest number of people. For the middle class choosing between A) giving in and riding the collective goodwill and institutional safety nets (IE becoming poor), or B) fighting to join the ranks of an ever-shrinking elite is pretty simple. Especially if you value PEOPLE over possessions.

Unless you carry generational wealth, pedigree, or (gasp) fame, choosing to give in to “being carried” kind of makes sense. And, with an ever-shrinking group of people holding the vast majority of the country’s wealth, any given person’s attempt to get to a place of “enough” seems just plain stupid. Like a fools errand.
People who choose to be supported by safety nets, instead of chasing wealth, may be the brightest among us: they are betting on common human decency, not a game called consumerism, which feels increasingly difficult for ordinary people to “win.”
In my opinion, a person who has spent their assets, given away their possessions, and now relies on the mercy of an institutional safety net, should definitely get one. That’s the BEST of what human societies do – equalize assets informally within communities.
However, no-one-left-behind safety nets like Medicare, Medicaid, (which were created by the People, for the People through a combination of laws, organizational ventures, and deal-making by decent folks with power), are formulated so you have zero to pass down in order for care to kick in.

So, in 30 years, middle class children too, will need to decide if they wish to fight this same battle again: do they fight to “win” in this consumerist culture by working hard with the fruits of their labor and energy pushed “upward,” or do they just ride out life like Blanche DuBois in Streetcar Named Desire depending on the kindness of strangers? I know there are other ways, but extremes presented here for sake of contrast. Your comments are welcome. Email me.
If you’ve ever tried arranging care for an elderly relative, you also will learn about “claw backs” into any assets moves perhaps as far back as 5-7 years, proving that the the assets that person amassed were not improperly granted to future generations. In my family’s case, there were few material assets maneuvered down past my parents’ generation, but that didn’t mean we still didn’t need to PROVE how little there was. And that’s just infuriating, having to PROVE you were of economically poor status. How can you maintain dignity to move forward? How can you contribute, if you are seen as needy?

In betting, the bookmaker determines the number where you decide if you’d be better off “over” or “under” that total. Your “win” comes from your understanding the totality of that game-system, not a particular team. In this case, I think the totality is the United States Economy.

In medical care, it’s often statistically-derived actuarial tables that determines winners and losers. That is, who extracts value from a system, and who provides value to a system at personal sacrifice.

Even though it seems counter-intuitive, I am personally relieved that my elders mostly chose to basically bet on the under. Maybe even, to bet on the zero as the winning ticket. That is, there was no amount of money they could acquire would assure a “win” in feeling secure in old age, so, perhaps they decided it was not really useful to try? Betting on the collective good will of our government and systems like Veterans Disability, Medicare, Social Security, and community safety nets is a sound bet, but also requires a loss of pride for those folks and their offspring.

A silver lining

From an elder’s perspective, if one has no assets to protect, their children will most likely WORK TOGETHER to ensure the well being of the elders and each other. When there are assets to protect (like vacation homes, cash, and investments), siblings may work against each other in favor of protecting the assets. I saw this happen in my own family. When my grandparents died, their daughters’ families split apart because of differences in opinion on how the assets should be managed (ostensibly for the next generation). The differential in asset management caused the rift. One side (the asset growers) wound up comfortably middle class with vacations and bigger and better everything, while the other side (the principled emotional protectorate), wound up broke and dependent on social services.

To each their own I guess, but in my case, making sense of a difficult middle (or a difficult “shit sandwich” perhaps) is nearly crazy-making.

FOOTNOTES & SUB-SUBTEXT 😉

Here’s what would help as a start: reducing/eliminating college debt, or better still, providing top-notch Head Start educational opportunities to ALL kids. Also respect and funding for public K-12 education, and extended university level education (including in international environments) paid by tax payers dollars too. Oh yes, and these tax dollars need to be appropriately collected from the aforementioned casino-breaking leadership, data-brokering oligarchs, and consumer-captivating media. ↩︎
At the end of the day, most media sells ads to pay for the content they produce. So the consumer culture and poor-to-middle class people (the majority of the population) is what fuels it. ↩︎
I still think public health care (our Nation as benefactor of healthy humans value), or even pay to play health care (predatory entities would first benefit, so supports would need to be enacted in tandem to support working people) could be workable solutions, but deeply complicated. How many generations to enact a change like this though? ↩︎