Oh, what a tangled web

About Post-scarcity notes: As the staff of The Public Interest Network advocate for a cleaner, greener, healthier world, from time to time we’ll share observations on the larger challenge facing our network and our society: How do we shift the dominant paradigm — the very way in which we see and make sense of the world — from disposable to sustainable, from “never enough” to “enough,” from “making a living” to “living.” The views expressed in this space relate to our work, but do not necessarily represent the position of the network or its organizations.

Democrats, starting with new vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz, have taken to calling Donald Trump and JD Vance “weird.” Bernie Sanders, however, is not on board:

“60% living paycheck to paycheck”! That’s a lot! Can it be true?!

No. Actually, it’s not true:

So, Bernie Sanders, along with many others, have been repeating a claim that’s not true. (If you want more evidence that the 60% figure is wrong, you can check here, here and here.)

But what, you may ask, does it matter? Surely there are some Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck, unable to – as the original source of the claim asserted – afford a $400 emergency expense. Perhaps, one might argue, that a little exaggeration could go a long way toward helping those people.

Here are three reasons why I think that’s wrong:

1. Falsehoods breed cynicism.

Trust, as they say, is earned in drips and lost in buckets and right now we are experiencing a decades-long decline in trust in public figures and institutions. When leaders claim things that are untrue, people inevitably learn the truth and become more distrustful. And when people start believing that everybody lies, conspiracy theories find traction; authoritarians build followings; democracy teeters.

“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction … no longer exist.” — Hannah Arendt

2. The unintended consequences.

Two seemingly contradictory things can be, and in fact, are true in today’s America: a) The wealthiest Americans hold a disproportionate share of the nation’s wealth; and b) By any historical standard, the average American – and indeed, even many of the poorest Americans – live lives that are longer, healthier, more comfortable, more convenient and less dangerous than those of even the richest Americans of a century or so ago. (Not to mention how much freer the lives of Black Americans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, American women and LBGTQ+ Americans are today.)

Yet if you keep telling Americans how bad off they are, guess what? They start to believe it. This negativity activates a scarcity mindset: “If someone else wins, I lose.” And they look for someone to blame. Populism thrives in this environment. But, much to the chagrin of left-wing populists, most Americans aren’t prone to blaming the “millionaires and billionaires” for their troubles. Most Americans want to be millionaires. They look elsewhere for someone to blame. See Donald Trump.

3. The wrong conversation.

If you believe, as I do, that the most profound problems facing America stem from the fact that we keep producing and consuming too much stuff, even though we already have enough stuff to go around and meet everybody’s needs, then it doesn’t make sense to make most people feel bad about what they already have. And it certainly doesn’t make sense to stoke their jealousy of those who have more.

We’ve seen where it gets us when Trump and other politicians foster and exploit a culture of grievance and envy. That’s why advocates for economic security and a more equal distribution of wealth should rethink their strategy and message. For my money, they’d make more progress if they embraced a post-scarcity framing and agenda.

In the meantime, they should certainly stop saying things that aren’t true.