Most people think of the 1950s as a golden age of white picket fences and booming factories. It was. But while everyone else was celebrating the suburban dream, John Kenneth Galbraith was worried. He wrote The Affluent Society in 1958, and honestly, it’s kinda eerie how much he predicted about our current obsession with consumerism and the weird way we handle public debt. He wasn't just some dry economist at Harvard; he was a guy watching the world get rich and wondering why we were still so stressed out.
Galbraith noticed something fundamental. The "conventional wisdom"—a term he actually coined in this very book—was stuck in the past. Economists were still acting like we lived in a world of scarcity, where the biggest problem was just surviving. But in post-WWII America, that wasn't the case anymore. We had enough. We were affluent. Yet, the machinery of production kept grinding away, creating needs we didn't even know we had.
The Myth of Productive Urgency
Why are we so obsessed with "Growth"? Ask any politician or CEO today, and they’ll tell you GDP growth is the holy grail. Galbraith thought this was basically a trap. He argued that in a truly affluent society, the urgency to produce more goods shouldn't be the top priority. We produce more so that people have jobs, so they can buy the things we produce. It’s a giant, circular treadmill.
🔗 Read more: Dan Gilbert and Rocket Mortgage: What Most People Get Wrong
He called this the Dependence Effect.
It’s a simple idea: production creates the very wants it seeks to satisfy. Think about it. Did you need a smartphone with three cameras before someone showed you an ad for it? Probably not. Modern advertising and marketing work overtime to make sure our desires keep pace with what the factories (or software companies) are pumping out. We aren’t satisfying innate human needs anymore; we’re satisfying needs manufactured by the industry itself. This creates a weird tension where we are objectively "richer" than our ancestors but feel just as pressured to work and consume.
Private Opulence vs. Public Squalor
This is the part of The Affluent Society that usually gets people fired up. Galbraith looked at the contrast between our private lives and our public spaces. He famously described a family driving a "mauve and cerise, air-conditioned, power-steered, and power-braked automobile" through streets that are "badly paved, made hideous by litter, blighted buildings, billboards, and posts for wires that should long ago have been put underground."
They go for a picnic with exquisitely packaged food from a portable icebox, only to sit by a polluted stream.
He was pointing out a massive imbalance. We spend billions on private luxuries—bigger TVs, faster cars, fancier kitchen gadgets—while we starve our public services. Schools, parks, public transit, and clean air get the leftovers. Galbraith wasn't necessarily a socialist in the way people use the word today, but he firmly believed that a truly civilized society needs to balance its private wealth with public investment. If you have a Ferrari but the roads are full of potholes, are you actually well-off?
The Conventional Wisdom Trap
Galbraith’s take on "Conventional Wisdom" is probably his most lasting contribution to the cultural lexicon. It’s the set of ideas that are acceptable to the public and the elite, not because they’re true, but because they’re comfortable.
In the late 50s, the conventional wisdom was that more production solved every problem. Unemployment? Produce more. Poverty? Produce more. Inequality? Produce more.
- Galbraith challenged this by saying that increasing production doesn't actually fix poverty.
- He argued that some poverty is "case poverty"—linked to specific individuals (health, education)—and some is "insular poverty"—affecting entire communities.
- Simply jacking up the GDP doesn't magically reach these people.
It takes targeted public spending. But because the conventional wisdom hated public spending and loved "production," those solutions were ignored. You’ve probably seen this today in debates over healthcare or climate change. We often stick to old scripts because they’re familiar, even when the reality on the ground has shifted completely.
Why the Critics Hated It (and Why They Still Do)
Not everyone was a fan. Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economics thought Galbraith was full of it. They argued that "wants" aren't manufactured; they’re a reflection of human choice. If people want a "mauve and cerise" car, who is a Harvard professor to tell them they’re wrong? The critics felt Galbraith was being elitist, looking down his nose at the tastes of the working class who were finally able to afford some nice things.
There's also the argument about efficiency. Markets are generally very good at figuring out how to make a toaster cheaply. Governments are... less good at that. By pushing for more public spending, critics argued Galbraith was inviting waste and bureaucracy.
📖 Related: Dow Jones Industrial Average Last 30 Days: What Most People Get Wrong
But Galbraith’s point wasn’t that we should stop making toasters. It was that we had reached a level of wealth where the marginal utility of another toaster was pretty low compared to the marginal utility of a better school system or cleaner water. He was talking about the "social balance."
Inflation and the Security Obsession
One of the deeper, more technical dives in the book involves the link between high production and inflation. Galbraith noticed that when you try to run an economy at absolute full tilt to ensure "full employment," you inevitably trigger price hikes.
Because we are so terrified of unemployment—which is the ultimate sin in a society based on production—we keep the engine revving in the red zone. This creates a cycle where wages and prices chase each other upward. His solution? He was actually a proponent of using things like a more robust social safety net (what we might now call a version of Universal Basic Income or better unemployment insurance) to decouple a person's survival from the constant, frantic need for 100% employment in the private sector.
It’s a radical thought even now. Imagine a world where we didn’t have to "create jobs" just for the sake of having jobs, but instead focused on doing work that actually improved the quality of life.
Applying Galbraith to the 2020s
If you look around today, Galbraith’s ghost is everywhere.
We have "Fast Fashion" brands like Shein and Zara that embody the Dependence Effect on steroids. We have social media algorithms designed specifically to manufacture "wants" every 15 seconds. And we still have that glaring "public squalor." Think about the state of the New York City subway versus the luxury condos rising above it. Or the fact that we can order almost any object on earth to our door in 24 hours, but many American cities don't have lead-free drinking water.
Galbraith’s work suggests that we haven't actually moved past the 1950s; we've just scaled the problem up. We are more affluent than ever, yet we feel more precarious.
📖 Related: Why 1 sgd to us dollar is the trickiest math in your wallet right now
Actionable Insights for the Modern Reader
You don't have to be a macroeconomist to take something away from The Affluent Society. It's really a book about perspective and how we value our time and resources.
- Audit your "manufactured" wants. Next time you feel a burning need to upgrade your phone or buy a new gadget, ask if that desire came from you or from a very clever marketing department. Recognizing the Dependence Effect in your own life can save you a fortune.
- Look at the Social Balance. When evaluating your quality of life, don't just look at your bank account or your possessions. Look at your "public" life. How's the air quality? How are the parks? How much time do you spend in traffic? Real affluence includes these things.
- Question the Conventional Wisdom. In your career or business, identify the "safe" ideas that everyone repeats just because they're comfortable. Are those ideas actually solving today's problems, or are they leftovers from a different era?
- Prioritize "Investment in Human Capital." This was a big Galbraith theme. Instead of just investing in more machines or more "production," the highest return often comes from investing in people—education, health, and well-being. That applies to companies and individuals alike.
Galbraith ended up being a bit of a prophet. He saw that a society obsessed only with the private accumulation of "stuff" would eventually lose its way. It’s not about being anti-wealth; it’s about being pro-civilization. We have the wealth. The question is whether we have the wisdom to use it for things that actually matter.
How to move forward with these ideas:
- Read the original text: If you can, grab a copy of the 40th-anniversary edition; the introduction alone provides a great deal of context on how his views evolved.
- Evaluate local policy: Pay attention to local budgets. Is the focus purely on "bringing in business" (production) or is it on "livability" (the social balance)? Support the latter.
- Practice "Selective Underconsumption": Experiment with ignoring the "replacement cycle" for tech or fashion for one year to see how it shifts your sense of well-being.