A Wall Street Journal survey last year found that a growing number of people no longer believe the American dream is possible. This pessimism was especially pronounced among younger respondents, who, although likely having benefited from the upward mobility achieved by their parents’ and grandparents’ generations, also recognize they will bear the brunt of our government’s poor policy choices in the years to come.

But is the American dream really dying? Or is our attitude toward it just changing?

That was the question of a debate hosted by the Steamboat Institute last week at the University of Tennessee. I was happy to moderate the discussion between the New York Times’s David Leonhardt, who argued that the dream itself, and not just our belief in it, is dying, and the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Strain, who argued the opposite. Notably, audience polls conducted before and after the debate showed more attendees had been persuaded to agree with Leonhardt than Strain.

It’s not difficult to understand why. As both Leonhardt and Strain acknowledged, inflation has been a constant burden on people for the past few years and it shows no signs of relenting anytime soon. Add to that a tightening housing market, stagnant wages, and mounting student loan debt, and it’s undeniable that young adults today are having a harder time buying their first home, starting a family, and building wealth than their predecessors did. 

However, it is also true that America remains the wealthiest nation in the world, far surpassing its allies and adversaries. And the average U.S. income, adjusted for purchasing power, only continues to grow. In 1990, for example, the average income of a U.S. household was 24% higher than in Western Europe and 17% higher than in Japan. Today, it’s 30% higher than in Western Europe and 54% higher than in Japan. Consider that even the poorest U.S. state, Mississippi, has a higher average income than France.

Leonhardt argued that America’s growing wealth is actually indicative of its growing income inequality. The United States continues to get richer because the rich keep getting richer, he said, while middle- and lower-class people fall further and further behind. And the further behind they fall, the more difficult it becomes for them to ever catch up.

Strain, on the other hand, argued that this emphasis on income inequality may be misplaced. For example, studies show real economic output in the U.S. has increased by 499% since 1962, raising the living standards for all people significantly. Data also show the percentage of those in poverty has decreased substantially and that technological advancements have shrunk the quality-of-life gap between the classes. 

But there is also a cultural factor in this debate that cannot be ignored. It is not a coincidence that people are expressing less optimism and certainty in their future prospects at a time when they are more removed from the institutions that tend to ground us. We do less with our neighbors, we’re less involved in religious activities, and we’re less likely to prioritize being with and raising a family. And technology, though it has made it easier than ever to connect with others socially, has managed to isolate us even further. All of this makes for a socially impoverished nation.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

I tend to agree with Leonhardt that until these issues are addressed, it will be extremely difficult for Americans to rediscover their optimism for the future. Faith, family, and community are just a few of the institutions that provide us with happiness and stability — without them, upward mobility is not just less likely but less meaningful.

Regardless, there is no question that America is still the land of opportunity. But as Leonhardt and Strain would agree, the U.S. can and should do more to make sure it stays that way.