Ideal vs. reality + Policy changes that can help us merge the two
Yes, there will always be roadblocks to living our most "ideal life." Some call those roadblocks reality, the real world, etc. etc. I buy into those terms, but I also like to think that those roadblocks exist so that we can become more innovating in creating a new reality (no, I'm not talking about "alternate facts" ;). What I mean is, if we're sufficiently discontent, the day-to-day constraints we call "reality" can actually force us to expand upon our strengths and outgrow the limitations we have set upon us.
But then there are other constraints that are a bit more difficult to overcome.
Let's say our hobbies and interests do not lend themselves to a very financially secure field. And let's face it, bills are always going to be there and so foregoing a dream that doesn't pay them isn't "cowardly," it's practical. There is no shame in being practical (on the contrary, there is tremendous strength in saying "you know what, this isn't my ideal but I have to do it so I can take care of XYZ.") But what slowly sucks the life out of us is staying where we are, in the name of practicality, without taking ANY forward movement toward the life we want to be living. Even if it's just baby steps every month.
But then there are the realities of things like...health insurance. Some people can feel comfortable without health insurance, but what if you have a chronic illness? or you're pregnant? or you have a dependent who falls in either of those categories? Those are not light issues to contend with. The way our health insurance system is set up in the United States, and with the ACA probably being on its way out or heavily revised (likely in a manner that does not help as many individuals get covered), it's a huge asset to have health insurance through your employer. And it's sometimes a major reason people stay at jobs they wouldn't otherwise want to be working at. Can you imagine how much happier workers would be if their work choices were guided more by inner aptitude/interest and market demand ONLY, rather than inner aptitude/interest, market demand, AND whether or not they receive necessary benefits as part of their jobs (health insurance, retirement security, etc.)?
Sounds like I'm advocating for a single-payer system in the United States. While I'm relatively knowledgeable about the ACA, I'm not nearly as well-versed on the economic implications of a single-payer, centralized health insurance system. There is ample evidence from other nations (e.g., Canada, Scandinavian countries) documenting the effectiveness of such systems, but I'm not sure how it would look in the United States at this point.
I think it is possible for us to collectively alter our current circumstances in a way that makes it easier for all people to follow their dreams with fewer constraints. Will it come at a cost? Definitely. We will likely need to be prepared to pay higher taxes for systems that enable us to have measures of security (i.e. health insurance, retirement benefits, access to education) regardless of our employment status/employer benefits. But will the benefits of having such a system confer greater happiness to everyone? At this point, I'm inclined to think so. What more can you ask for than to have the freedom to pursue work that more strongly corresponds to the talents and interests you truly possess? And you're still subject to the demands of the market, so it's not like the work itself would be subsidized.
And if you're thinking "well, I already have that level of contentment in my current job, and I don't really want to pay more to support these policy changes." Of course the counter-argument is more nuanced than that, but I also can understand that point of view. A more centralized system not perfect and it certainly may not be "the answer" (really, is anything ever "the answer"? If anything, it seems like any policy changes are simply temporary solutions to cyclical problems). But in this era, I think we all benefit when the masses are free to pursue work that truly works for them. Why? Because when you do work that matters to you, it will be of better quality, which benefits everyone. And if there's fear that people will be able to dabble in pursuits without financial or other consequence, that wouldn't be true either - their attempts to find work would not be subsidized.
But I get that this system's success largely rests upon the assumption that the average individual is motivated to be a productive worker, that they WANT to spend their time in ways that confer benefit to themselves and their communities. But the reality is that not everyone is like that. Some people are just simply not as motivated, or they have competing priorities or special circumstances. Much of the variability is cultural - there are some countries and cultures that highly value productivity and economic well-being more than other very important parts of life, like health or relationships (again, very simple examples and I don't meant to demean or elevate any culture over another) - but this variability plays a major role in why some policies that are highly effective in other countries may not necessarily be as effective in the United States, given our highly diverse and sizeable population.
Still, I don't think we can really know until we try, but we have to accept that there will be error and bumps along the way, just as in any attempt to create large-scale change. There's always a process involved. If we remember the larger goal, which is to create a society in which everyone, regardless of background, can have the opportunity to live a fulfilled life, then perhaps we can be more forgiving of "wrong turns" as we navigate the bumpy terrain toward getting there.
I have a ton more reading to do on this topic, but would welcome any thoughts/comments from any readers out there. Thank you for taking the time to read!
