Dual incomes, consumer debt, declining culture

In this series (see links at end), I've talked about ways in which the modern world differs from the world of 1918-19 (the time of the severe "Spanish Flu" pandemic). While we have some advantages today with respect to coping with a pandemic (e.g., improvements in health care), we also have some vulnerabilities (e.g., global supply chains).

Therefore, when all things are considered, perhaps we're not better positioned today to face a pandemic. This point is further brought home when you consider other differences between the two eras.

Locked in to a two-income lifestyle

Consider, for example, how there has been a huge expansion in the number of two-income households in the last few decades. Previously, the mother filled the role of homemaker and "full-time" mother - and generated relatively limited, if any, household income. Today, she often provides a very substantial part of household income (and discretionary funds) by working outside of the home.

Unfortunately, rather than save much of this added income, many households spend it. They pursue higher standards of living and, to that end, even take on greater financial commitments - higher mortgages, more car payments, etc. In the end, these households depend upon having two incomes to sustain their financial commitments and standard of living. In fact, it's not inaccurate to say that they're "locked in" to a dual-income lifestyle.

Consumer debt: Marketing-driven, materialistic

A second economic trend has been the expansion in consumer debt (despite having that second income). Every car dealer puts his arm around you and proclaims, "No money down! Sign and drive!" Every lender sends you countless "pre-approved" credit card offers. Mortgage bankers have a loan that "fits your budget." In a marketing-driven economy, we're like kids in a candy store. And lenders are happy to help us have whatever we want.

Combined with low savings rates, this consumer debt leaves households very vulnerable if household income should decline very much, even for short periods. Of course, this is especially true of households in the lower four quintiles.

I would suggest that our higher standard of living - with its greater possessions, greater expenditures, and increased debt - has been fueled by consumption-stimulating marketing campaigns along with a societal trend toward greater materialism. These influences certainly are more pronounced now than in 1918.

Disrupted income; then what?

The fact that two-income households are common in many economies today may heighten our economic vulnerability during a pandemic. How? Well, what happens if a flu pandemic reduces household income because one or both wage-earners are:

• sick


• caring for sick family members


• tending children while schools are closed


• working at a business whose operations are disrupted by pandemic conditions?

With reduced cash flow, limited savings, and a burden of debt, how long can two-income households remain financially healthy? To what degree will their consumer spending (certainly their discretionary spending) be reduced? How will such reductions ripple through the economy?

In a crumbling culture, where are the good neighbors?

Just as our household finances have changed, so has our social fiber. Think about the following traits of modern cultures:

• Dissolution of the family. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2004 there were 10,152,000 single-parent households in the United States. That was 28% of all households with children. For the most part, this sad situation is caused by people who:


• Can't uphold fundamental life commitments (i.e., they break their wedding vows and get divorced) and/or


• Don't know self-control; Want benefits without attendant responsibilities (i.e., sex outside of marriage produces unwed mothers)
  [PAUSE: Please don't email me ranting about, "Dissolution of 'the family?' A mother and her child/ren is a family too!" I know that. Or, "Sometimes spouses die or a spouse is abusive or..." I know that, too. However, the main reasons we have 10.2 million single-parent households are listed above.]


• Half-baked parenting ... producing half-baked offspring. This is partly a by-product of having fragmented families ... and partly the result of inattentiveness to the responsibility of parenting.


• No sexual restraint. (Forget the immorality of it for a moment. People can't even control themselves when faced with the personal risk of HIV/AIDS and other STD epidemics.) Resultingly, we see:


• Abortion (1.5 million pre-born Americans die this way each year).


• Homosexuality being widely, openly practiced and trumpeted.


• Pornography and immodest dress & behavior feeding the frenzy.


• Substance abuse. (Not just destroying lives, but also breeding huge amounts of crime.)


• The content or quality of popular media: films, television, music, video games - portraying, normalizing, and even advocating many of the above social ills.


• Lack of principle; therefore, lack of principled action. For example, the frequent inability of government office-holders and other officials to act in the public interest.


• Disrespect for authority and social/cultural/religious standards. In fact, this is the root of the decay listed above. No one wants to be subject to rules and institutions. No constraints. No God telling us what to do. Rather, Protagoras' "Man is the measure of all things" and all of that tripe.

Enough examples. What kind of people are we describing above? What kind of character do they have?

Here's my opinion, for what it's worth. I think we live in a declining culture. (Calling it "cultural decay" is too generous; it's "cultural rot.") The focus is on materialism, not spirituality ... the "here and now." Too many people can't see the consequences of their actions and beliefs ... and don't care anyway. Too many lives are not rooted in goodness.

The pandemic-related Bottom Line: Would I rather go through a severe flu pandemic with people from the cultural-moral environment of 2007 or the cultural-moral environment of 1918? Which would you prefer? (Come to think of it, the world's social/moral fiber has changed a lot just since the last pandemic in 1968-69, hasn't it? Think back to what life was like in 1968-69.)

Out on a limb, but not non-sensical

I readily acknowledge that I'm going out on a limb with these ramblings about the more extended hypothetical impacts of a flu pandemic. However, that doesn't mean you should dismiss these thoughts. While they may be hypothetical, they're not non-sensical. I can imagine that in governments worldwide, there are people thinking seriously about such economic and societal dynamics and what to do about them.

How much of an effect will these differences have on how well we respond to a pandemic? I don't know. But I suspect these are factors which we should consider in assessing the pandemic risk.

And my main objective isn't to moralize, but to remind you of some economic and societal circumstances which exist today but did not in 1918. In comparing today to 1918, there's more to it than just looking at the state of medical science. Don't forget: The people around you are the people you'll go through the next pandemic with.