The Monetization of Risk in Our Lives

I have been lucky enough to do a lot in my life so far. If I were to die tomorrow, my range of experiences could compete with the lifetimes of many people in the world. Certainly two of the main reasons for this are due to my personality and interests. However, it would be in extremely poor taste if I neglected to mention one of the other main reasons - my monetary risk in doing what I love is very low. And in America, monetary risk is everything, even if it shouldn’t be.

For all of the great things about the United States, certainly one of the country's national shames is the number of people living in poverty. According to recent census data, 46.5 million people, or about 1 out of 7 of the total US population lives below the national poverty line. To get a better sense of what this means, visit the Occupy movement website or the many progressive content curation sites online, which have done a thorough job of creating infographics explaining the income inequality in this country that underlies how a nation so rich[1] can have so many people who are so poor.

When compared to Western Europe, the UK, and Australia, the lack of social safety nets afforded to American citizens and residents is both obvious and astonishing. Sure, one could argue the quality of services and systems in the States is superior, but the fact remains that in order to get health care[2], a higher education, or to find access to reliable public transportation, most people living in America do not have a free or even cheap option. If you are living in America and do not have a certain level of income (be it your own or through someone who is supporting you), you could easily starve, drop out of school, or die of a treatable condition.

Opinions aside on what the solutions are to this rather abysmal problem, these lack of social safety nets present a phenomenon that seems to be increasing in intensity as the economy continues to stagnate and the GOP shuts down the government – the monetization of life risk. At the UN World Food Programme, I worked on a project that quantified drought risk in terms of dollars. That is to say, if a drought were to occur, what is the cost of dealing with its effects? For the insurance mechanism I was working on, this method of approaching risk makes sense. In life, monetization is only one way to approach risk, yet it dominates the way we think of success (and therefore success in mitigating risk).

I have had every incentive to work hard to build my own career, to live in a place I enjoy, and to buy the things and fund the experiences that I want. However, being an incredibly fortunate individual who was born to parents who are both willing and able to provide me with a roof, food and clothes whenever I'm in need, I have been able to approach the world with the idea that if all else fails, I will still survive with a decent quality of life. If I completely fail to financially support myself, I will not starve or be forced out on the street. In having this kind of freedom, I have been able to measure the risks of my life in ways other than monetarily – the risk of being unhappy, the risk of not pursuing a career I want, the risk of not helping others in my work, the risk of not being surrounded by a community I find desirable.

Of course approaching life this way has led to its ups and downs, though even in the lows, I have the mitigated the risk of unhappiness in that I have broken ground on something that is truly important to me. Of course many people who do not have the safety nets my family has provided have also approached life this way. And certainly what we desire in life shifts as what we have available to us changes; someone who was not born into a life that allowed for basic amenities may simply want to provide, may simply be happy in providing that security to their children.

However, it also stands to reason that in not living in a country that provides enough to survive (let alone have a decent quality of life) to everyone, a very significant portion – likely even the majority – of the American population has had to make decisions based primarily, if not entirely, on monetary risk. Put in a very cliché way, much of the American population has approached life knowing they cannot follow their dreams if their dreams do not pay enough. It doesn’t matter if someone in this segment of the population is an especially talented computer engineer, grief counselor, artist, or teacher. If they feel as though the monetary returns in their investment to pursue what they want cannot provide enough to survive, there is no adequate safety net on which to fall back.

Some would argue that the incentive to simply survive means that people work harder than they would otherwise. Indeed, The Economist reported in their latest issue that the Pew Research Center found only 59% of Americans feel as though the government has a responsibility to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves, down from 71% during the Reagan years (1980s). As an international development practitioner, to that I simply say, look at the world around you. The basic need to survive in countries of South Asia, West Africa and Central America is not enough to take care of everyone when there is not enough to go around or the reality in place systematically keeps people at the bottom. Creating more from something is much easier than creating something from nothing.

Optimistically, this country has not wavered on the idea that anybody can become successful, regardless of race, creed, religion, or background. Unfortunately, with the increase in people who do not want social safety nets for all and the ever-declining social services provided in the United States, putting non-monetized life risk ahead will always have the danger of potentially not surviving. Without any breathing room, someone who could have been the next Albert Einstein may never feel empowered to move beyond a life as a cashier. And why would they? The risk is too high.

---

[1] The 2012 GDP of the United States was USD 15.68 trillion.

[2] The States that have embraced the Affordable Health Care Act will be able to provide much cheaper options to more people starting in January 2014. Still, these options are much more expensive that our Western counterparts.

Now more than ever in America is a good time to be gay, but will it stay this way?

 "I support same-sex marriage."

In present-day, 2013 America, saying this statement means you are in agreement with about half of the country. When I said this statement my second year of university, I was at the extreme. 

Back in September 2004, I took a required public speaking class in college for which the final assignment was to make a 5-minute oral argument on a well-known issue. I picked same-sex marriage. My arguments were fairly straightforward talking points: 

1. The United States is a secular nation
2. The American Psychological Association has definitively concluded homosexuality is not a mental disorder, nor is it related to dangerous or "perverted" behavior
3. Same-sex marriage extends thousands of state and federal rights to law-abiding, tax-paying citizens in committed relationships with their partners
4. It protects children who have LGBTQ parents or guardians
5. Its economic benefits are widely recognized

In other words, my arguments were more or less what you hear nowadays. The difference between 2004 and today is the reaction. Any person who was old enough and paid attention to the rhetoric during the 2004 US Presidential elections likely recalls the vehemently negative portrayal the Republican party used against LGBTQ communities. Foreign policy, the economy, and war took a backseat to the backlash waged on the sexual orientation minorities. And the worst part of rhetoric? IT WORKED. George W. Bush won the election.

America is a country whose laws are based on the idea of historical precedence - that is, an argument for or against a law can be built on what was decided in the past. Of the many arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, a very compelling one follows suit with Brown v. Board of Education, whose ruling that overturned "Plessy v. Ferguson", and dismantled "separate but equal" laws allowing public places to be segregated by race. The mere fact that there were two different systems for two different sets people made the systems inherently unequal. 

Since gay and lesbian people cannot enter into the same kind of physical, emotional and mental commitment with the opposite sex as straight people, since same-sex marriage applies to two consenting adults, and since denying someone's rights based on archaic notions of what is right is simply wrong, the majority of the country now agrees that same-sex marriage should be allowed. The majority of the country now agrees with me.

Back then, giving a speech like I did in favor of same-sex marriage automatically relegated me to the "very liberal" or "socialist" category of the political spectrum. Those of us who were in favor of full same-sex marriage were often dismissed as extremists and therefore often written off. Even most of my so-called socially liberal friends would only go so far as to back civil unions, most moderates I knew didn't dare make a stand for any kind of same-sex rights, and most conservatives I knew were categorically against any LGBTQ rights, same-sex marriage and civil unions included.

Yet today, less than ten years since I made that speech, all of the points I made that were then tossed out as liberal banter are now seen as mainstream logic. Whether it's the media total embrace of an open and proud LGBTQ community, whether it's politicians finally recognizing the financial power of the LGBTQ community, or whether the power of the Internet making the LGBTQ more ubiquitous and visible, the tides have certainly changed in favor of same-sex marriage.

But will it stay this way?

In 2003, Supreme Court justice Scalia wrote in his dissent to the majority opinion of Lawrence v. Texas that striking down an anti-sodomy law would pave the way to same-sex marriage. Thus far, Scalia seems to be correct. The swing towards same-sex marriage equality is gaining momentum. The question that a lot of us then extremists, now normalists have is whether the upward swing towards fully embracing LGBTQ rights in America is here to stay or is simply a social trend that will oscillate back. Some may call this line of thinking paranoid. Given current events, however, I call it cautious optimism.

There's no doubt that since the Supreme Court since decision of Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973, the constitutional protection for women to abort the fetus(es) they are carrying up to the third trimester has fueled much controversy. Indeed, some now argue that part of the reason the pro-choice movement has taken a beating in recent years is because the Supreme Court decision was on the back of a temporary social movement. With the resurgence of a very socially conservative and very powerful Republican party, the movement to make abortion rights a moderate issue has faded. As a result, some states in the south have effectively closed all abortion clinics, and made abortion services nearly impossible to access. And they've done this with widespread voter approval.

In high school, I became a fan of a Russian pop duo known as t.A.T.u. Their schtick was that the two members of the group, who were young females, were gay and possibly in a relationship. Though the founder of the group went through very valid scrutiny of promoting a pedophilic image of the two girls (who were 16 when they started t.A.T.u.), the point is that this group was allowed to gain huge public momentum from their own country, and eventually became one of the best-selling Russian artists ever. English and Russian language t.A.T.u. albums have sold more than 15 million copies worldwide.

Twelve years later, Putin has taken the country back to the dark ages of LGBTQ rights, publicly humiliating gay men, beating peaceful Pride protestors, and issuing statements that gay athletes competing in the 2014 Sochi Olympics may be detained and jailed. Surely a musical act such as t.A.T.u. that openly displayed acts of lesbianism would not have survived or thrived in this environment.

 

Of course LGBTQ rights in America differs greatly than abortion rights. A gay person can be of any ethnicity, race, religion, gender or socioeconomic class, whereas the majority of people who receive abortion services tend to be of poor socioeconomic status, and are of course all women. With the power and visibility of online platforms, with the slow nature of establishing a long-term relationship, and with the sheer financial power many LGBTQ people have in major cities, one would think that as a greater community, positive change for LGBTQ people will have greater staying power.

Likewise, America is not Russia. Many politicians in this country certainly have incredible power at their whim, but as flawed as our democratic system can be, it is one of the most stable in the world. Waving a wand and summarily outlawing homosexuality (or any other attribute) across the country has very different consequences for our elected officials than it does for Putin, and will therefore not happen in such a swooping, unquestioned and uninhibited way.

Still, the backlash against pro-choice advocates and LGBTQ people in Russia does make me stop and question. 2004, after all, was not that long ago. The sweeping support the LGBTQ community has received in recent years is hard to explain by even the most informed political and media experts. Since we do not know how or why it happened so suddenly, and since present-day events are now telling us that social progress can be a temporary phenomenon, us then extremists now normalists are left to wonder whether this relatively golden era of being gay will indeed stay this way.