I was browsing around the CNN website and found a video of an NYU graduate, Ryan Durosky, who is nearly 300,000 dollars in debt after deciding to attend The New York University instead of going to a school that offered him a scholarship.
At the time, the decision made sense to him because of the amount of doors that could be opened after gaining a business degree at a prestigious school such as NYU. But, now Ryan calls his debt "depressing" as he was laid off almost immediately after business school due to the current economic crisis and must commute two hours a day to get to and from his job. Kurt Andersen, the author of the article we read in class today, titled "The End of Excess: Why This Crisis is Good for America" claims that the United States has "required a couple of centuries for the most extravagant version of the American Dream to take hold: starting with the California Gold Rush in 1849" and that we have been "in favor of the fantastic idea that anybody, given enough luck and liberty, can make a fortune overnight." At the beginning of the video, Ryan says he went to NYU for the opportunity and for the success he would find in business in Manhattan. At the end of the video, Ryan states that he wishes he could actually be living the American Dream - having a house, getting married, and having kids.
There are two conflicting opinions regarding the essence of the American Dream present. Granted, there are probably millions of interpretations. But to me, it boils down to money and happiness. Physical, tangible success and emotional and mental success. At what point will our generation be subject to compromising one of the two?
The two views made me wonder, when does the American Dream start to change? Only when things start to go wrong? Andersen argues that "Of course, when addicts finally quit, it feels awful for a while, and that's where we are now". It seems to me that Andersen argues that we should be happy we're off this drug and look for a new, advanced, equally as powerful one.
Are the cycles present in the article plain fact or an excuse to be equally as destructive as we have been, but this time under the umbrella of past withdrawal?
So many questions. Post please!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Clearly a passionate, post, Gooms. But I need clarification on what you mean by "Are the cycles present in the article plain fact or an excuse to be equally as destructive as we have been, but this time under the umbrella of past withdrawal?" Umbrella of past withdrawal? Explain, please.
ReplyDeleteYou propose some provocative questions to your readership, and I am glad to see you are taking Anderson to task!