An Interview with Daniel Brook, author of "The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America"

There's been some hand-wringing in the press lately about why so many young people, from Ivy League graduates to Law School students, are forgoing public sector and non-profit jobs in favor of the private sector and corporate law firms. Are young people just more materialistic and apathetic these days? Or is there something else at work?

Journalist Daniel Brook has a compelling answer. His book "The Trap: Selling Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America" gets to the heart of the problem: the rising cost of living in most American cities is making it nearly impossible for young people with public sector jobs to enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. Saddled with education debt and the spiraling cost of health care, unable to afford most real estate markets, to say nothing of the costs of raising children, is it any wonder our best and brightest are flocking to high-paying corporate jobs? As Brooks writes, "When a middle-class income no longer buys a middle-class life, things that rarely or never make one rich become harder and harder to pursue."

Although Brook's book is clearly partisan in tone, his subject matter transcends political boundaries, and the conundrum he exposes is at the core of Hope Street Group's mission. Following is an interview with Brook exploring some of his book's main themes.

HSG: Your book focuses on places where the cost of living a middle-
class lifestyle is most expensive, mainly in the northeast and in
California. In doing research for your book, did you find a similar
phenomenon happening in other places in the country as well, or is this something that is primarily limited to the coasts? Could a well-
educated person who wants to go into the public sector or a creative
field do better in Cleveland, for example?

Brook: Some of the phenomena I write about are local--like housing prices--while others are national--like health insurance and higher education. So by relocating, you can dodge some of the bullets. But even in Cleveland, teachers, for example, are priced out of almost all the desirable neighborhoods and suburbs.

But the main reason I focus on certain cities is because they're the places where it's most crucial people be able to afford public service jobs. Washington, DC, our nation's capital, is the clearest example of all. If you can't afford a middle-class lifestyle on a public service salary--and you can't, even senators at the top of the federal pay scale are priced out of the local housing market--it creates lousy government. Either only rich people can serve--which you now see in the millionaire's club that is the Senate--or you get the revolving door where public service becomes a career stepping stone on the way to lobbying in the private sector. (Before he lost his bid for reelection, one of the only middle-class members of the Senate, Rick Santorum, was commuting two hours a day from the Virginia exurbs, the only place he could afford a home for his family on a salary in excess of $150,000.)

HSG: You describe in frightening detail the rising cost of attaining
the American Dream, even for young people who are well-educated.
Your clear bias is for a liberal approach to solving these challenges
and yet, I would argue that at least some of the pragmatic solutions
you call for are at the heart and soul of many centrist post-partisan
(or at least bi-partisan) coalitions for health care and education
reform. For example, you write:

"In today's knowledge-based economy, it is clear that egalitarian
policies that guarantee higher education, health care and child care-
the sorts of policies that release talented individuals from reliance
on employers, spouses, and accident of birth-are in fact best for
ensuring social mobility and unleashing creativity."

This is the project, not only of Hope Street Group, but also major
national multi-sectoral coalitions such as Divided We Fail, which works on health care reform and financial security issues. In your
view, is their room for bi-partisan approaches, or is this
fundamentally a progressive project? What do you believe are the
limits of bi-partisanship?

Brook: It will be interesting to see how the so-called 'conservative crack-up' shakes out. If the Republican party moves back towards the center, or if individual Republicans do, there would be partners for some of the reforms I call for. (After all, the Republican party supported steeply progressive taxation in the past--under President Eisenhower, a Republican, the top income tax rate was 91%). But that's a hypothetical situation. As it stands now in the US, unlike in other developed democracies, there is no left-right consensus that health care is a right not a privilege. Sadly, there is not even consensus on the left side of the aisle that the extreme economic inequality is a bad thing. So to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you propose reform strategies for the country you have, not the country you'd like to have.

HSG: You describe a retreat into domesticity that you say tends to
happen whenever life in the public sphere is unfulfilling,
financially or otherwise. However, you don't mention the internet
and how that may or may not be part of that trend-what do you make
of, for example, the rise of web-based activism and social movements?

Brook: I think the web is a potentially powerful tool for organizing like-minded citizens to action though I don't think it's a substitute for more traditional forms of activism. I'm concerned though that the Internet is as susceptible to domination by entrenched interests as other platforms. In DC, for example, grassroots organizations are routinely mimicked by corporate-backed 'astro-turf' organizations that masquerade as membership organizations. Couldn't the same thing happen on the web? At the end of the day, inequality matters. We're only going to build a more vibrant democracy if we build a more equal country.

HSG: I'm sure you saw last week's article in the New York Times about
the rising number of Ivy League-educated students who are forgoing
public sector work in favor of highly-paid private sector jobs. Even
without reading your book it is obvious to me why this is happening,
and yet, the author seems mystified. Nowhere in the article, nor in
the letters that were published in response to it, did it mention the
reasons that are central to your book's thesis. Why do you think
this is?

Brook: I did see the article. I agree that the author seemed mystified that these kids today are so ostensibly committed to public service, but are still making a bee-line towards whatever post-graduate job pays them the most. It's frustrating because the author is implicitly saying it wasn't always thus--that's the implicit argument of any 'trend' story--but she never actually fleshes out how career choices have changed in recent decades, let alone the cost of living in Cambridge, Massachusetts, surely an important benchmark for Harvard students. In my book, I often bring out intergenerational comparisons to give readers a broader framework for understanding individual decisions (for example, the fact that in 1970 a starting teacher in New York City made $2000 less than a starting corporate lawyers; now they make $100,000 less). Without some historical consciousness about how we got into this mess, there's really no way out.

HSG: There seems to be a real hunger for young people to go into public service. What do you make of movements like ServiceNation and the proposed U.S. Public Service Academy?

Brook: There is indeed a real hunger among young people to go into public service. ServiceNation and the US Public Service Academy are evidence of this as is the surge in applications to organizations like the Peace Corps and Teach for America. The issue is not whether there is interest in public service careers--there certainly is--it's what we as a society can do to make public service a viable career again, not just a post-graduate stint. That has to be attacked at the national level. For example, the US Public Service Academy can address the issue of student debt, allowing would-be public servants to graduate debt-free, but it can't address the new inequality which has rendered Washington, DC and state capitols like Boston and Austin unaffordable for public servants.