In Defense of the Sellout
A young journalist examines why so many of us are becoming bankers.
By Jesse Singal
July 2, 2007
A young journalist examines why so many of us are becoming bankers.
By Jesse Singal
Monday July 2, 2007
The term “sellout” is a loaded one. It implies not a character flaw or annoying tendency, but rather a conscious decision to reorder all of one’s priorities for the sake of money. It’s a pejorative that can be tossed at anyone who compromises one of their ambitions or principles to achieve privilege, status, or comfort.
But what makes people sell out? When it comes to the selling out that defines many twenty-somethings—the decision to become a banker or a corporate lawyer, or to otherwise shill for powerful people—there’s an implicit assumption that the world is divided into two classes: those with the passion and conviction to make morally sound decisions, and those who will trade in their ideals and sincerity the first time they sniff a hefty paycheck.
A new book by Daniel Brook begs to differ. The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America wastes little time admonishing young idealists turned investment bankers. Rather, Brook takes a broad look at how wealth works in America, and he makes a convincing argument that we’ve built a system in which it’s almost impossible to live comfortably in a major city without selling out. “America,” he writes, “is the only developed country where an individual has to choose between the career she desires and the health care and education her family needs.”
The Trap quickly lays out a thesis about why this is occurring. “[A]s America has been transformed into a nation with literally millions of millionaires, a concentration of wealth not seen since the Gatsby era, the prices of the finite goods desired by the now-numerous wealthy have been bid up wildly, far exceeding inflation.” This, Brook is convinced, is the reason some colleges cost $40,000 a year, and the reason why even solidly middle-class folks are priced out of most of Manhattan.
And it is a recent problem:
Today’s inegalitarian America was intentionally built—or more accurately, another America was intentionally destroyed. In the decades after World War II, America became a middle-class society of broadly shared prosperity. Teachers and factory workers and lawyers often lived in the same neighborhoods as progressive taxation pushed incomes closer together… Widespread unionization ensured that a rising tide lifted most boats. Jobs with pensions and health care were common and attainable. Eventually, long-overdue efforts to make American institutions meritocratic and open to women and minorities began to build a truly egalitarian nation.
This prospect fueled a conservative backlash. Despite his slight tendency to caricature the motives of mid-century conservatives, Brook does compellingly review the movement started by William F. Buckley’s 1955 founding of National Review, a publication with the stated goal of standing “athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’” Five years later Young Americans for Freedom, a group that promoted laissez-faire capitalism and “militant anticommunism,” held its first meeting at his Connecticut estate. Formed at a time when “conservative” was a dirty word in American politics, YAF chafed at the widely-held view, inspired by Franklin Roosevelt, that governmental power should “be used to level the playing field, to make the promise of freedom real for all Americans.” YAF’s view of freedom was different; freedom was simply “the power to spend your money free from interference from the government.”
Buckley and his ilk quickly realized that this sort of language could be adapted to the middle class, despite the fact that it was the rich who were most affected by the tax code of the 1950s and 1960s. This was a monumental moment for the conservative movement. Even today, conservatives remain successful at exploiting the specter of excessive taxation against middle-class people whose most pressing economic concerns—the spiraling costs of education, health care, and housing—are in fact exacerbated by tax cuts at the top. Taxes, in short, are rarely the reason a middle-class family struggles. But conservatives were able to craft a new rhetorical conception of “freedom”—a conception in which the issue of taxation trumped all concerns of building a fairer society.
Buckley and YAF weren’t able to shape America in their image overnight, but on the whole they have been hugely successful. They steadily made progress throughout the 1970s (when big business mobilized to advocate for deregulation and against taxation, and when the Heritage and Cato foundations were founded), 1980s (when YAF, after the failure of the Barry Goldwater campaign and the less extreme Richard Nixon, finally got its man in Ronald Reagan), 1990s (Brook writes that on “Clinton’s watch, the rising inequality and deregulation of the Reagan years continued”), and, of course, with our current president.
The result of all of this has been a system that creates many millionaires, turning commodities that used to be available to anyone in the middle class—education, health care, and housing in the biggest cities—into luxury goods. And it’s a system that cruelly reinforces itself. For a college graduate looking to launch a career in art or the nonprofit sector, only the largest, most culturally and economically influential cities offer sufficient employment opportunities—New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and a few others. And it is in these “centers of business, culture, and government” where the problem of cost is so extreme. Brook interviews many progressive twenty-somethings who graduated from college with the full intention of moving to a large city and doing what they loved.
These idealists quickly turn into sellouts-by-necessity. Brook provides many examples, such as the “leftist with a liberal arts degree… [who went] to Wall Street after years stuck in unpaid internship limbo convinced him to give up on his dream of a career as a muckraking journalist.” None of these kids fits the stereotype of the sellout. Most devoted years of their lives to worthy causes and did everything they could to make ends meet. All, however, eventually ran up against the realization that having a job they were passionate about wasn’t compatible with being financially solvent. It’s worth emphasizing that they weren’t looking to live like Jay Z. All they wanted was a decent place to live, health care, and the chance to start a family should they so desire. And they were forced to sell out to obtain these things.
The Trap’s two primary prescriptions for fixing this are “flattening the top” by once again instituting high taxes on rich people and rich corporations, and setting up universal health care. But Brook realizes how hard a sell this is. He highlights an important, frustrating fact about American voters: they have radical, right-wing views on taxes. Only 1 percent of Americans think that taxes are too low (compared to 62 percent of Britons). While Brook does sketch out the origins of these sentiments, a more thorough discussion of America’s peculiar response to taxation would have made for a fuller account of the problem. It’s hard to talk about inequality without at least attempting to understand why so many non-rich people get so riled up over taxing the ultra-rich to pay for government programs that would benefit them (Thomas Frank is excellent at this).
But overall, The Trap is an excellent introduction for anyone looking to understand America’s top-heavy system of wealth and its consequences for young people’s career choices.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
!
I don’t understand why working for a non-profit is considered more virtuous than actually producing something. (I work for a non-profit right now) I was a full time student this year, and then worked every day. The gov’t took 33% of what I earned. So I worked more than 3 months for the government this year. I managed to still save some money to start investing in October, but those gains get taxed too. When I go to the gas pump about 50 cents of every gallon I buy goes to the government. That’s pure profit, and more profit per gallon than the oil companies make. Gov’t didn’t find it, drill it, refine it, or transport it. All you need to do to be considered rich if your middle class is to marry another middle class person and suddenly your in the upper tax brackets. You can’t look at wealth without looking at the incentives that create it. I’m tired of gov’t placing obstacles in the way of acheiving my goals, and you guys want to raise taxes even more.
— Kevin - Jul 2, 08:19 PM - #I think you’re making a claim that there exists a right for a person to be able to do whatever they want and make a decent wage at it regardless of societies needs.
My grandparents owned a business for decades, and the only way they could afford to send their children to college was to cheat on their taxes. (in the era of high tax rates)
How dare progressives call for a return to the days where people are forced to become criminals for their children to get ahead.
The broader point is what is a ‘sellout’? It seems to be a person who wants to do X but is forced to do Y because X does not pay the bills. Well what about someone who actually wants to do Y? Are they a sellout? I mean their are plenty of people who want to be bankers or corporate lawyers.
More to the point, as far as I know unions have never been a part of the arts or non-profit.
Bottem line: Artists and people in non-profit area are poor paying jobs. They have been and always will be. If you decide to rake up $250,000 in debt to get a masters degree in art history and failed to bother to figure out how to pay for such a degree, shame on you for thinking you were entitled to it.
— Mike - Jul 2, 08:56 PM - #I think this article is really obnoxious.
I suppose I can be described as a sellout – I attended a liberal arts college (Wesleyan), spent my summers interning at non-profits and now work at McKinsey. My decision to go into the private sector was NOT chiefly financial, as Miss Singal would have you believe. I was grossly unimpressed by the bureaucratic inefficiency that plagues so many DC advocacy groups. I still ideologically agree with CAP, but I know working there would not nearly be as challenging or edifying as McKinsey. I know this may come as a ghastly suprise to you, but some self-respecting progressives actually like working for “The Man” and not only because of the paycheck.
But how would you know that? Have you ever even worked at a private sector company, Miss Singal?
— Ethan Moore - Jul 3, 10:14 AM - #I’m sorry you found the review obnoxious. Brook actually devotes a few pages to McKinsey and their attempts to recruit graduate students from Yale:
“During the recruiting session, a conspicuously underdressed student waited until the question-and-answer session to ask why, if McKinsey was such a great company to work for, their turnover was so high. The consultants replied that the opportunities opend up by a job with the company were just so good they couldn’t keep people. The gadfly replied that the company’s working conditions sounded like something out of North Korea.
Hyperbole? Yes. But work-life balance at McKinsey (or the lack thereof) is a serious problem for the company and makes recruiting and retaining women of childbearing age almost impossible. In an era when medical and law school student bodies are now half female, McKinsey struggles to attract even a token female presence despite recruiting beyond the still-male-dominated business schools. In North America, only 22 percent of McKinsey consultants are women. Shockingly, the minimum recruiting goal is just 30 percent. Yet it is not only women for whom the incessant working hours take a toll. Yoo [one of the recruiters] advertised that he leaves the office each evening between 6:00 and 8:30 to see his kids—before getting back to work.” (134-135)
A short while later:
“Exactly how you make a difference is something you only find out once you’ve been hired; the work McKinsey does for corporate America is generally kept confidential. A leaked internal memo published by the New York Times in 2005 gives a taste. In it, Wal-Mart’s executive vice president for benefits, joined by a team of McKinsey consultants, devised ways to cut back the world’s largest retailer’s health-care and fringe benefits without adding to the public backlash against the company’s abominable labor practices. The solution concocted to this complex problem: attract lower-cost, healthier employees. The report called for ‘all jobs to include some physical activity (e.g. all cashiers do some cart-gathering)’ and suggested capping employee life insurance payments at $12,000 rather than the current level of a year’s salary (Wal-Mart employees earn on average about $17,500 a year). Life insurance, the report said, was ‘a high-satisfaction, low-importance benefit, which suggests an opportunity to trim the offering without substantial impact on associate satisfaction.’ After all, they’ll probably only notice the benefit cut once they’re dead! You have to suspect it was one of McKinsey’s guilt-ridden Ivy League liberals who leaked the memo.” (136)
I’m not trying to pass judgment on the company’s employees. I’m highlighting Brook’s argument: that no one would ever agree to work ridiculous hours for a company whose goal is to help corporations make more money if they could make anywhere near the same amount doing something they considered to be worthwhile and were passionate about. There are plenty of extremely bright, idealistic people who work for McKinsey and similar companies because it’s not usually economically feasible to do otherwise.
You wrote:
“My decision to go into the private sector was NOT chiefly financial, as Miss Singal would have you believe.”
First of all, it’s Mr. Singal, or, preferably, Jesse (we’re very informal at nonprofits like CAP). Secondly, I just re-read my review and didn’t see the name “Ethan Moore” anywhere. I’m pretty sure I never touched on what motivated you, personally, to work for McKinsey. Surprisingly, neither did Brook.
You also wrote:
“I was grossly unimpressed by the bureaucratic inefficiency that plagues so many DC advocacy groups. I still ideologically agree with CAP, but I know working there would not nearly be as challenging or edifying as McKinsey. I know this may come as a ghastly suprise to you, but some self-respecting progressives actually like working for ‘The Man’ and not only because of the paycheck.”
I really don’t want to get into a debate over what constitutes a “self-respecting progressive.” That’s for you to say, but it doesn’t disprove Brook’s point. He interviews plenty of people at companies like McKinsey who are overworked and unhappy. This doesn’t “prove” the point either, but no one’s making the argument that every single McKinsey employee dislikes his or her job.
“But how would you know that? Have you ever even worked at a private sector company, [Jesse]?”
No.
— jsingal - Jul 3, 01:00 PM - #So by your logic, should we eliminate all jobs with long hours, because they discriminate again woman who don’t want to work long hours because they want to have a child? And how do you rectify that with the notion of ‘choice’?
— Mike - Jul 3, 02:57 PM - #From your review, it sounds like the book conflates two policy lines to decrease the pressure to ‘sell out.’ The first and far less objectionable is to fund or resume funding a handful of increasingly expensive middle class staples. Passing universal healthcare, making public universities free again, etc. I get the sense this wouldn’t necessarily cost all that much. So far, so good.
But there’s also this bit about high marginal tax rates having a levelling effect no matter what the money is spent on. I think that’s going to strike people as problematic, because it looks like the government is simply confiscating money it doesn’t think you should have. To put it mildly, that is not going to be a popular proposal. It’s not even clear that it will do much to lower the cost of living in places like NY or SF.
Is there much effort in the book to draw distinctions between the middle class price crunch and inequality qua inequality?
— Trevor - Jul 3, 05:38 PM - #You should also examine the extreme salaries of “non-profit” CEOs versus the poverty wages their employees often make. Oftentimes, it’s a matter of priorities and the CEOs simply choose to pay their employees next to nothing because there is always a new crop of idealistic graduates who want to work in non-profits, so high annual turnover doesn’t matter when you can just keep replacing the “burnouts” and “sellouts.”
— Nat Okey - Jul 6, 02:21 PM - #How is having “millions of millionares” a “concentration” of wealth? Wouldn’t having more millionares than ever mean that wealth is getting spread out? There are two simple realities that hating the rich won’t change: (1) an ever-improving economy means that the high end always gets higher, while the bottom end always stays the same – at zero; you can’t get poorer than nothin’ (except for debt, and the homeless I meet don’t carry maxed-out credit cards) and (2) even the poorest in the United States live demonstrably, measurably better and richer lives than the poorest in this country did a hundred or even fifty years ago – so even the bottom end is constantly improving (and I say this as one who has lived most of my life at or below the “poverty level.”)
— Calix - Jul 6, 02:57 PM - #I think selling out is a part of getting older. I used to hold fast to my ideals, but they all fell by the wayside as I reached more obstacles getting where I wanted to be in life: married, kids, a car rather than a bicycle, a car that doesn’t continuously break down, a home of my own.
— duron - Jul 6, 02:59 PM - #For a detailed analysis on why people sell out, go talk to your parents; go talk to their parents. The babyboomers were supposed to be the Me generation because they fought the system. What happened? The ’68 Democratic Convention, Kent State, Watts, and finally, Disco. The ’70’s decadence and self-righteous indignation gave way to the cocaine-induced, S&L deregulating, economic collapse of the 1980’s. But from that we developed the personal computer, the internet we know and love today, financial prosperity enjoyed by more of the disenfanchised than ever before, and of course, Depeche Mode. We are culturally borne upon the broken dreams of sellouts. You can’t fight City Hall; and by the way, the government is The Man; The Establishment is the corporate elite, which I think is that at which you cast your aspersions, or toward which you’re leaning your aspirations, depending what side of the argument you’re on.
I work for The Man. I’ve worked here for 10 years and have three kids, one in college. I do what I must to make sure that they have what they need, and that includes giving up what I wanted, because I’ve found that, I want to provide for them more than I want to die fighting the system. You can’t eat principles.
“My decision to go into the private sector was NOT chiefly financial”
Uh-huh.
“unimpressed by the bureaucratic inefficiency that plagues so many DC advocacy groups.”
Yes, we all are; it’s a huge challenge. One you could solve at the advocacy group you most believed in, perhaps?
“working there would not nearly be as challenging or edifying as McKinsey.
— Dave - Jul 6, 03:21 PM - #We worked hard to reach the millionaire status. Now we must work even harder to attain the two million figure because the purchasing power of the first million has been reduced to half its value.
— Grace Stentz - Jul 6, 05:29 PM - #If everybody becomes a banker, banking won’t pay much
— Rebecca - Jul 7, 01:19 PM - #Great article Jesse. I responded with a few points of my own on the blog: http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/singhm/C2sv
— Madhu - Jul 9, 01:13 PM - #Taxes have become more regressive as the major ‘levers of redistribution’ in our tax code
— Denver at Harvard - May 2, 01:51 PM - #have been cut more and more.
Take the ESTATE tax for example. As super capitalist Warren Buffet and genius statesman John Q. Adams claim, the massive accumulation of wealth into the hands of the few (19% of assets belonging to less than 1% of population) ultimately become a threat to the sovereignty of a nation and its voting population. And how much do we enjoy paying 30-50$ parking tickets to our local governments because they are so grossly underfunded and given unfunded mandates by the fed gov.
Or how about the highway trust fund set to go bankrupt in less than 2 years…..oh wait, John McCain and Clinton want to end the Gas tax, further hurting the source of monies appropriated to keeping our roads and bridges (WATCH YOUR HEADS) maintained. A calculated bankrupting of our trust fund to in effect force the selling of our roads to investors. Or how about the homogenized national news coverage and the chronic disassembling of local news coverage capabilities. Public air waves no more….Welcome to the US of Murdoch.
Insurance cost ever increasing
Food,grain,corn,dairy,meat rapidly increasing
Avg distance traveled to and from work, car commutes….constantly increasing
A FED and chairman without control
Highest inflation in decades
Greatest polarization of wealth since the 20’s
Current housing crisis clearly demonstrating that not only did we not learn from the S & L fallout, we strove to successfully recreate it on a national scale…and did…hold on to your hats, and wallets, for about 5 years
Continuation of rate cuts at 2% now….creating a likely hyper inflation scenereo creating the worst inflation, and greatest buyers market ever*
I am amazed that someone’s judgment about more millionaires equating to more equally distributed income ...ha. The obsessively wealthy and their cronies like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Mckinsey have people in regulatory and political positions throughout the world. Just who has the final say in our government (electronic voting machines)??