A new definition of prosperity?

I was listening to this story on NPR's Morning Edition about author Matt Miller and his new book The Tyranny of Dead Ideas. His basic premise is that there are six social, political and economic paradigms which are outdated and need to be changed in America. His first dead idea is summed up as "Our children will earn more than we do" and this got me thinking. In particular, I started thinking about how we measure success and prosperity.

Everyone wants their children to have a "better" life than they do. This is largely driven by the American dream of being able to make your life whatever you want through determination and hard work, regardless of where you start. But, in our consumer-driven society, "better" has often been interpreted as meaning "having more material possessions" in the form of money, home and personal items (flat-panel TV, Blu-Ray, iPhone, SUV, etc).

Miller's problem with this idea, which I think is becoming ever more obvious, is that today's kids will NOT make more money and be able to buy as much stuff as Gen Xers and Baby Boomers. But does that mean that the next generation won't have a better life than today's adults? Yes, unless we rethink our what better means.

At this point, many Americans want for nothing. Granted, many people still want for some things (flat-panel TV, Blu-Ray, iPhone, SUV, etc), but are these things really necessary for life? Also, many Americans are still living with few possessions, small paychecks and no health insurance, but by and large, Americans have every basic need met with virtually no effort.

Food is so easy to come by that we've turned the basic equation upside down. Meat and other foods which are expensive and resource-intensive are now the cheapest way to eat (McDonald's $1 menu, anyone?) and things like decent vegetables are expensive. Up until last year, anyone who wanted to a house could easily buy one and have a roof over their heads with heating, air conditioning, clean water, indoor plumbing, etc.

Even things which were once considered luxury items are now nearly staples in every house...big SUV's with GPS systems, entertainment systems with surroud sound and cell phones that keep us connected to everything, all the time. In order for today's kids to grow up and have more stuff than we do now, they'd all have to live like Donald Trump. I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure that would be impossible, even if America remained far and away the largest economic powerhouse on the planet.

So, if the growth of personal wealth and possessions has stopped, or at least will be taking a long vacation, does that mean that the next generation is doomed to a worse life than we've enjoyed? Not if we use something else as the measurement of what is "better."

I suggest we consider the quality and richness of one's relationships and one's satisfaction with life as the new yardstick. We could spend less time trying to make lots of money and buying lots of stuff, and instead spend time building personal relationships. We can spend time doing things that cost less and count more.

OK, I know that this sounds like idealistic crap, but I think that we would move in this direction, even if we don't entirely get there. The huge growth of social networking points to an evolution in the way interpersonal relationships are built and maintained. Not all online relationships are deep and meaningful, but sites like Facebook certainly make it much easier to form and nurture relationships which may become meaningful offline friendships.

This is starting to sound like the concept of Whuffie from the novel Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. We probably won't get to that point, but I think it might be good to measure ourselves in terms of who we are, instead of what we have.