Paper or Plastic?

After spending part of my Sunday afternoon at Trader Joe's with my mother, I noticed an interesting thing that recalled some of my previous posts on class. What struck me as even more interesting was my observations at the checkout line. Trader Joe's only offered paper bags for us to load our groceries into, where as our other favorite grocery store, Jewel Osco, offered both paper and plastic. My mom used her fancy-smancy reusable bags and opted out of the offered paper bags in general, but all the fuss over the bags had me thinking. 

Later, I heard about the recent Chicago "plastic bag ban". In a quest to save the environment from the approximately 185,000 plastic bags that become litter each day, officials made it official that in August of 2015 all chain grocery stores in Chicago must only use paper bags to package their customers' purchases. The teacher of mine who happened to introduce me to this ban, noted that it was only a ban that applied to Chicago, and the surrounding suburbs, such as mine of Wilmette, were not following suit nor had any interest to. 

I found this ban and my Trader Joe's experience to be telling me something about class. Was it a coincidence that a store that only offers paper bags was known to be one that also sold "designer" food products? I don't think so. I think that the plastic bags that we are offered at grocery stores are cheaper to produce, and therefore, as menial as it may sound, connote a lower class mark than their sturdier and more eco-friendly counterpart. Many popular stores along the North Shore only offer paper bags; take Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Fresh Market and Treasure Island for example. All popular stores among the shopping crowd of the North Shore-ians, and all which are known to be more upscale super markets. And although there are other extremlely popular grocery in the area that DO offer the plastic bag, I would argue from my own experience that many of the shoppers, like my mom, use their own reusable bags that they bring from home. Which seem to make a statement on class even greater than that of the paper bag. 

While it all sounds to be a little ridiculous for someone like me to argue that our thirst for class perceptions goes down to the kinds of grocery stores we visit and even greater the kinds of bags we use there, I believe, from my own observations, that these bags we use do, in fact, connote class. Hence the need for a ban on the prominent plastic bags in the inner city of Chicago and not the wealthier neighboring suburbs. Do you think this to be a crazy conclusion from such a menial part of everyday life, or have you observed similar trends? 

Keeping up with the Joneses?

Stemming from reading The Great Gatsby, my American Studies class has been discussing class and classism. We discussed the possible sources of class and the influences on class. One major influence on class is one's "group of aspiration", or the social group that they desire to be in. Maybe this group of aspiration is not so much what group we want to be in as what group we want to appear to be in. Joe Queenan, a journalist for the New York Times and the Atlantic, claims that there is "a desire in this country to be perceived as being one step ahead" (PBS, People Like Us). The word perceived in Queenan's argument jumps out to me as one of much importance. He claims that we want to appear to be wealthier than others, even if we are not. This thirst for an elevated perception of our own social class made me wonder: what price do we pay for class (or perceived class that is). This seemed to be demonstrated during the 2008 housing crisis when 3.1 million foreclosure filings were issued (Christie). 

Allow me to explain. In the early 2000's the government lowered the credit rating needed to take out a loan, making it easier for people to borrow huge sums of money in order to buy a home. People, who otherwise wouldn't have been trusted to repay the loans, could now borrow sums of money that they may or may not realistically be able to pay back. With these loans buyers bought houses that were otherwise unaffordable. The graphic shown here mocks the "McMansions" that such people purchased during the time. Because hey if you have a loan for so much money why not buy your dream home!? Well the answer to this is also demonstrated in the graphic with the big fat "foreclosure" sigh plastered on the regal columns. The opulent columns as well as the "McMan$ion" sign serve to demonstrate the excessiveness of the home. Clearly these people did not need houses of such a size, so they must have been reaching for the purpose of appearing higher on the class ranks. After the bank's "here take the money and spend" spree, the market crashed, and the people who were supposed to pay the banks back couldn't (read more). This caused thousands of homes nationwide to also go into foreclosure. While many blame the irresponsible loan takers, it is also argue that this crash should be to the banks for making the risky loans in the first place. Upon whomever the blame may fall, it is apparent to many, as well as exaggerated in the photo, that these mansions were owned by people who could not afford them. 

This graphic seems to illustrate perfectly the connection between Queenan's theory that everyone is always wanting to seem to be wealthier than their neighbors. I would argue that class competition made these families take out these loans in the first place that they knew were shaky, and eventually cause them to end up in foreclosures. It seems to me that some Americans are willing to risk everything to be perceived as higher class. 

Excessively Career Orientated or Properly Prioritizing?

Upon reading The Great Gatsby and discussing class, wealth and power in my American Studies class, I have been thinking a lot about American's priorities. One thing in particular that I have picked up on is the concept of people's dreams, and the American dream in general. It seems that many people's motivations are revolved around acquiring money and thereby "succeeding" in the work place. But another American dream centers around the idea of raising a family. So I wondered, at what cost do American's sacrifice their family centered dreams for their career centered dreams? And is there one that people generally value over the other.

A recent Bloomberg article covered a hot new trend that to me demonstrates the prioritizing of these two dreams- family and work. It is called "freezing eggs". Freezing eggs is a newish technology that allows women to extract eggs from their bodies and have them medically frozen until they want to use them to have a child. Brigitte Adams, a women interviewed in the article, says that freezing her eggs "bought [her] time and the possibility of having children in the future." Brigitte is a marketing executive, and like many other wealthy, career oriented women, paid $10,000 for the opportunity to put establishing a family off several years.

I first took the whole concept as a demonstration of Americans not valuing family but career above anything else. Wanting to work first rather than establish a family. However, after more thinking I have come to the conclusion that by these freezing their eggs they are actually doing the opposite- putting family above career. While they may be deciding to tackle their career first, they are spending large sums of money so that they can have a family eventually. They fear that if they "Work hard, put off kids, [they] might find [themselves] at 40 hearing a fertility doctor deliver the bad news." These women freeze their  eggs in fear of never having the ability to live their other American dream of raising an American family, which in turn demonstrates the fact that they care about the family values.

Do you feel as of these women are putting their values of having a family in front of or behind their career? Do you think there is a general American trend regarding the ranking of people's workplace and family dreams? 

Aware of The Truth?

        Just last weekend Wilmette hosted a 5k breast cancer awareness run at Gilson park. Pink was all around and ribbons covered everyone's tee shirt. People support these walks to feel good about donating to a cause of such a perceivably deadly disease. In a 1997 survey when asked what the leading cause of death in women was, 44% responded breast cancer (Jamieson). If I had partaken in the survey, I probably would have answered the same thing. To my surprise, however, the perception that breast cancer kills more women than any other disease is incorrect. 

If fact, heart disease is nine times as likely to kill a women. The book Unspun points out this misconception that many hold, and explains. It claims that though ironic, "breast cancer gets so much attention partly because so many women survive it"(Jamieson, 91). Not only is heart disease fatal to nine times as many women as breast cancer, but other diseases such as lung cancer, chronic respiratory diseases and stroke, kill more than breast cancer. 

When there are so many survivors, there are more people who try to advocate for the prevention and thereby raise awareness. It should be noted that I am not, in any way, trying to simplify the fatalities of breast cancer, because it is such a terrible disease. But I would make the argument that make the argument that breast cancer is way more publicized than other medical conditions which should receive equal, if not more, awareness. 

It was so eye opening, to me, to read that breast cancer wasn't the number one cause (nor was it close) of death in women. I think that like many Americans, I have gotten myself caught up in being charitable to the one cause, and never really gave a second thought to other causes that deserve as much attention. I would also make the claim that many Americans don't really question the facts behind such touchy subjects, and therefore never really receive the whole story when they think they do. No one would want to hold up a breast cancer awareness walk to say that they should also raise awareness for heart disease! While the survival rate of breast cancer was a pleasant surprise, I think the awareness and funds that its advocates have raised need to be similarly reflected in the advocacies of other diseases as well, so more people can survive these in the long run. 

The PAC to End all PACs?

        I have recently become quite the expert on Political Action Committees (PACs). PACs are orginizations that pool campaign donations from donors and give the funds to a specific candidate in order for the canidate to have success in their election. The people who run and contribute to the PACs contain beliefs that they want represented in congress, and by putting all their money to a common candidate's campaign, they are able to get these beliefs in the house (in the form of the elected official). While hearing this may make one feel giddy seeing teamwork being used in a productive manor; others understand that there comes a lot of possible corruption behind these PACs. 

        One such man opposer of these PACs is Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessing. Lessing has "long opposed 'big-money' in politics". And today, Lessing announced his plan to start his own PAC to end all PACs: he tells us to "laugh at the irony" (Derrek Willis). You can read the full article here with the details of how Lessing plans to make his dream PAC a reality. 

        Upon reading this article I quickly saw a link that made me question American morals. While I understand and appreciate the determination of the American people to fight for their say in congress, I do feel as if the monetary aspect of PACs tells us something. When we want something to be done, it is simple, just get a ton of money and throw it at the problem. Yes this is much easier said than done, but it seems to me that fundamentally this is what PACs are doing. It seems that a lot of times we have the mentality to make a connection between money and success. If we want our problem to be resolved in order for us to succeed we could try spending more. If we earn more we are more successful. Is it having money that grants us success, because we can then throw money at our problems. While it may sound a bit far fetched, I would argue that many people have this mentality. "If I were richer this wouldn't be a problem!" So can money really solve our problems?