Most of us are more concerned with esteem, love, or security. Perhaps this is because incentives and rewards in our society are slanted to encourage conformity, uniformity, and security in schools, jobs, and relationships. However, it is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness. Poverty and wealth have both failed. Does money bring happiness? No, most of us would say. Ah, but would a little more money make us a little happier? Many of us smirk and nod. There is, we believe, some connection between fiscal fitness and feeling fantastic. Most of us tell Gallup that, yes, we would like to be rich. Three in four entering American collegians now consider it “very important” or “essential” that they become “very well off financially.” Money matters. It is the classic American dream: life, liberty, and the purchase of happiness. “Of course money buys happiness,” writes Andrew Tobias. Would not anyone be happier with the indulgences promised by the magazine sweepstakes: a forty-foot yacht, deluxe motor home, private housekeeper? Anyone who watched Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous knows as much. “Whoever said many can’t buy happiness isn’t spending it right,” proclaimed a Lexus ad. No wonder many people hunger to know the secrets of “the millionaire mind” and some would sell their souls to marry a millionaire. Well, are rich people happier? Researchers have found that in poor countries, such as Bangladesh, being relatively well off does make for greater well-being. We need food, rest, shelter, social contact. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18

However, a curious fact of life is that in countries where nearly everyone can afford life’s necessities, increasing affluence matters little beyond the short run. The correlation between income and happiness is “surprisingly weak,” observed the University of Michigan researcher Ronald Inglehart in one sixteen-nation study of 170,000 people. Once people are comfortable, more money provides diminishing returns. (Then why do they just not give it away to the poor or pay their employees better?) The second piece of pie, or the second $100,000, never tastes as good as the first, but with money comes status and power, so it is an inelastic good. Yet, even lottery winners, after adapting to their new wealth, and the Forbes’s 100 wealthiest Americas (when surveyed by the University of Illinois psychologist Ed Diener) have expressed only slightly greater happiness than the average American. Making it big brings temporary joy. However, in the long run wealth is like health: its utter absence can breed misery, but having it does not guarantee happiness. Happiness seems less a matter of getting what we want than of wanting what we have. Has our happiness, however, floated upward with the rising economic tide? Are we happier today than in 1940, when two out of five homes lacked a shower or tub? When heat often meant feeding wood or coal into a furnace? When 35 percent of homes had no toilet? Or consider that in 1957, when the economist John Galbraith was about to describe the United States of America as “the affluent society.” #RandolphHarris 2 of 18

Compared to 1957, we are now “the doubly affluent society”—with double what money buys. We now have twice as many cares per person. We eat out two and a half times as often. In the late 1950s, few Americans had dishwashers, clothes dryers, or air conditioning; today, most do. So, believing that a little more money would make us a little happier and that it is very important to be very well off are we indeed now—after nearly seven decades of fluctuating affluence–happier? Are we happier now—with espresso, caller ID, suitcases on wheels, and vaccines—than before? We are not. Since 1957, the number of Americans who say they are “very happy” has declined from 35 to 32 percent. Meanwhile, the divorce and teen suicide rates have doubled, the violent-crime rate have tripled (even after the recent decline), there is an immigration crisis, and more people than ever (especially teens and young adults) are depressed. This soaring wealth and shrinking spirit forms “the American paradox.” More than ever, Americans have big houses and broken homes, high incomes and low morale, apartments and no money for rent, cars and no gas money or insurance, unsecured rights and diminished civility, news and not much truth to it. We excel at making a living but often fail at making a life. We celebrate our prosperity but yearn for purpose. We cherish our freedoms but long for connection. In an age of plenty, we feel spiritual hunger. The radical individualism and materialism that marked the late twentieth-century America—what Garrison Keillor called our “elephantine vanity and greed,” or what Jesse O’Neill calls our “affluenza”—has afflicted other countries somewhat less. #RandolphHarris 3 of 18

Yet the paradox is not exclusively American. In Britain, for example, sharp increases in the percent of households with cars, central heating, and telephones have not been accompanied by increased happiness. These facts of life explode a bombshell underneath our society’s materialism: economic growth has provided no long-term boost to human morale. Moreover, individuals who strive most for wealth tend to experience less of a sense of well-being—a finding that “comes through very strongly in every culture I’ve looked at,” reports the University of Rochester psychologist Richard Ryan. His collaborator, Tim Kasser, concludes from their studies that those who instead strive for “intimacy, personal growth, and contribution to the community” experience a higher quality of life. Ryan and Kasser’s research echoes an earlier finding by H. W. Perkins. Among eight hundred college alumni surveyed, those with “Yuppie values”—those who preferred a high income and occupational success and prestige to having very close friends and a close marriage—were twice as likely and their former classmates to describe themselves as “fairly” or “very” unhappy. We know it, sort of. The Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow report that 89 percent of people say “our society is much too materialistic.” Other people are too materialist, that is. For 84 percent also wished they had more money, and 78 percent said it was “very or fairly important” to have “a beautiful home, a new care and other nice things.” #RandolphHarris 4 of 18

Two principles drive this psychology of consumption. The first is our human capacity for adaptation. Once we become adapted to a new level of affluence, it takes a higher high to rejoice the joy. I can recall the thrill of watching my family’s first Planar TVF Complete UHD4K 219 LED video wall solution. Now, if I misplace the remote control, I feel deprived. Having adapted upward, I perceive as negative what I once experienced as beneficial. Adaptation helps explain why, after a period of adaptation, lottery winners and paralyzed persons report roughly similar levels of happiness. It also explains why material wants can be insatiable—why many a child “needs” just one more feature on the BMW M3, they are satisfied with the Ultimate Driving, but also want it to come with the competition package which brings the grand total of the car up to $73,795 up from $70,895. Or why Imelda Marcos, surrounded by poverty while living in splendor as wife of the Philippines’ president, bought 1,060 pairs of shoes. When the victor belongs to the spoils and the possessor is possessed by possessions, adaptation level has run amok. (The phenomenon is, however, bidirectional: if forced to simplify our lives, we would eventually adapt and recover our normal mix of emotions. If another energy crisis curbs our “need” for gas-slurping sport utility vehicles, we would, after temporary feelings of deprivation, again adapt to more efficient cars.) The second principle is our penchant for social comparison. We are always comparing ourselves with others. And whether we feel good or bad depends on who those others are. #RandolphHarris 5 of 18

Only when others are smart or agile are we are slow-witted or clumsy. When one baseball player signs for $10 million a year, his $7-million-a-year teammate may now feel dissatisfied. Further feeding this “luxury fever” is our tendency to compare upward: as we climb the ladder of success or affluence we mostly compare ourselves with those who are at or above our current level. Upward comparison is not inevitable. Jus as comparing ourselves with those who are better off creates envy and consumerism, so comparing ourselves with those less well off boosts our contentment. (However, the danger with that is when something goes wrong, it is a real let down and one feels like their bad luck is a result of being prideful, boastful, and not humble.) In one study, even just imagining and then writing about various personal tragedies, such as being burned and disfigured, led the participants to express greater satisfaction with their own lives. “I cried because I had no shoes,” states a teen in Oakland, California; until I met a man who had no feet.” Moreover, one has to wonder, What is the point of luxury fever? “Why,” wondered the prophet Isaiah, “do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labour for that which does not satisfy?” What is the point of accumulating stacks of basketball shoes you will never wear, closets full of seldom-worn Gucci dresses, garages with Ultimate Diving Machines—all purchased in a vain quest for an elusive joy? And what is the point of leaving significant inherited wealth to one’s heirs, as if it could buy them happiness, when that wealth could do so much in a hurting World? (However, what is the point of feeding the World and leaving your own in a state of lack and limitations when they are your legacy?) #RandolphHarris 6 of 18

As social consciousness increases, more people are beginning to veer off the well-traveled road of materialism and individualism. A new American dream is taking shape, one that encourages initiative and restrains exploitation, thus building a more compassionate market economy that shrinks the underclass; welcomes children into families with parents who love them, and into an environment that nurtures families: protects both basic liberties and communal well-being, enabling diverse people to advance their common good in healthy surroundings; encourages close relationships within extended families and with supportive neighbours and caring friends—people who celebrate when you are born, care about you as you live, and miss you when you are gone; develops children’s capacities for empathy, self-discipline, and honesty; provides media that offers social scripts of kindness, civility, attachment, and faithful love; regards relationships as covenants and sexuality not as mere recreation but as life uniting and love renewing; takes care of the soul by developing a deeper spiritual awareness of a reality greater than self and of life’s resulting meaning, purpose, and hope. Harbingers of this renewal are already emerging, like crocuses blooming at winter’s end. People are beginning to understand the costs as well as the benefits of the unbridled pursuit of the classic American dream—individually achieved wealth. In increasing numbers, neigbourhoods are organizing, foundations are taking initiatives, youth are volunteering, scholars are discerning, faith-based institutions are tackling local problems, and civic-renewal organizations are emerging. #RandolphHarris 7 of 18

Government and corporate decision-makers are becoming more agreeable to family-supportive tax and benefit policies. The nonpartisan National Marriage Project aims to strengthen that state of our unions. And a new “positive psychology” movement aims to advance human happiness, strengthen character, and promote civic health. These various initiatives reflect a renewed appreciation for the importance of our human bonds. A new communitarian movement offers a “third way”—an alternative to the individualistic civil libertarianism of the left and the economic libertarianism of the right. It implores us, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “to choose between chaos and community,” to balance our needs for independence and attachment, liberty and civility, me-thinking and we-thinking. Fulfilling the new American dream need not return us to the impoverished past or destroy the incentives of a market economy. However, it will require our seasoning prosperity with purpose, capital with compassion, and enterprise with equity. Is it conceivable that there could occur such a transformation in consciousness—from materialism to postmaterialism and from radical individualism to more communal thinking? It has happened before (recall the civil rights, environmental, and women’s movements). And it could happen again. Hidden inside our advance to a new production system is a potential for social change so breathtaking in scope that few among us have been willing to face its meaning. To begin with, the shift from Second Wave manufacturing to the new, more advanced Third Wave manufacturing reduces, the number of workers who actually have to manipulate physical goods. #RandolphHarris 8 of 18

With less workers being needed to manipulate physical goods, this means that even in the manufacturing sector an increasing amount of work is being done that—given the right configuration of telecommunications and other equipment—could be accomplished anywhere, including one’s own living room. Nor is this just a science fiction fantasy. When Western Electric shifted from producing electromechanical switching equipment for the phone company to making electronic switching gear, the work force at its advanced manufacturing facility in northern Illinois was transformed. Before the changeover, production workers outnumbered white-collar and technical workers three to one. Today the ratio is one to one. This means that fully half of the 250,000 workers now handle information instead of things, and much of their work can be done at home. Dom Cuomo, former director of engineering at the Northern Illinois facility put it flatly: “If you include engineers, ten to twenty-five percent of what is done here could be done at homes with existing technology.” All told, in any industry, fully 35 to 50 percent of the entire work force in advanced manufacturing could even now could do most, if not all, their work at home, providing one chose to organize production that way. Third Wave manufacturing, Marx notwithstanding, does not require 100 percent of the work force to be concentrated in the workshop. Nor are such estimates found in electronic industries alone or in giant enterprises. The question now is not “How many can be permitted to work at home?” but rather, “How many have to work in the office or factory?” #RandolphHarris 9 of 18

In many industries, if provided the necessary communications technology, it has been discovered that fully 75 percent of employees would work at home. Clearly, what applies to electronics and pharmaceuticals also applies to other advanced industries. If significant numbers of employees in the manufacturing sector could be shifted to the home even now, then it is safe to say that a considerable slice of what the white-collar sector-where there are no materials to handle—could also make that transition. Indeed, an unmeasured but appreciable amount of work is already being done at home by people at several corporations because of the pandemic, from doctors and state workers, secretaries and even congress, designers and architects by phone visits, video calls, and only occasionally touching base at the office. Others include a burgeoning pool of specialized consultants in many industries; by large numbers of human-service workers like therapists or psychologist; by music teachers and language instructors; by art dealers, investment counselors, insurance agents, lawyers, and academic researchers; and by several other categories of white-collar, technical, and professional people. These are, moreover, among the most rapidly expanding work classification, and when we suddenly make available technologies that can place a low-cost “work station” in any home, providing it with a “smart” typewriter, mobile phone, Internet access, along with a facsimile machine and teleconferencing equipment, the possibilities for home work are radically extended. Given such equipment, who might be the first to make the transition from centralized work to the “electronic cottage”? #RandolphHarris 10 of 18

Whole it would be a mistake to underestimate the need for direct face-to-face contact in business, and all the subliminal and nonverbal communication that accompanies that contact, it is also true that certain tasks do not require much outside contact at all—or need it only intermittently. Thus “low-abstraction” office workers for the most part perform tasks—entering data, typing, retrieving, totaling columns of figures, preparing invoices, and the like—that require few, if any, direct face-to-face transactions. They could perhaps be most easily shifted into the electronic cottage. Many of the “ultrahigh-abstraction” workers-researchers, for example, and economists, policy formulators, organizational designers—require both high-density contact with peers and colleagues and times to work along. There are times when even deal-makers need to back off and do their “homework.” Future technology will increase the amount of “homework” significantly. Indeed, many companies are already relaxing their insistence that work be done in the office. When Weyerhaeuser, the great timer-products company, needed a new brochure on employee conduct not long ago, Vice-President R. L. Siegel and three of his staff members met at his home for almost a week until they had hammered out a draft. “We felt we needed to get out [of the office], to avoid the distractions,” says Siegel. “Working at home is consistent with our shift toward flexible hours,” he adds. “The important thing is getting your job done. It is incidental to us where you do it.” Weyerhaeuser is not alone. Even before the pandemic, many other companies were allowing their employees work at home. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18

Among one of the corporations letting its employees work at home, is United Airlines, whose director of public relations, at the time, allowed his staff people to write at home as much as 20 days a year. Even McDonald’s, whose lower-rung employees are needed to staff the hamburger grills, encourages home work among some top executive. Do you really need an office at all? Two-way communications capability has enhanced sufficiently to encourage a widespread practice of working at home. As information jobs proliferate and communications facilities improve, the number of people who may work at home or at local work centers will also increase. These corporate parks in suburban communities can be used for people from various corporations to meet in a central location and work on their assignments without comminuting to the congested central city. People will be more able to work at home, meeting their boss only periodically to talk over problems, and, of course to attend office parties. This may also allow the way suburban communities were built in the past to revert. When the model was the communities were built around corporations. And given the tools necessary, many of the present duties of the secretary could be done from home as well as in the office. Such a system would increase the labour pool by allowing married secretaries caring for small children at home to continue o work. There may be no overriding reason why a secretary could not just as well, in many instances, take dictation at home and type and text on a home terminal which produces a clean text at the author’s home or office. #RandolphHarris 12 of 18

Many of the tasks performed by engineers, drafters and other white-collar employees might be done from homes as readily as, or sometimes more readily than, from the office. Many part-time computer programmers already work in their own homes. As the Third Wave sweeps across society, we find more and more companies that can be described, in the words of one researcher, as nothing but “people huddled around a computer.” Put the computer in people’s homes, and they no longer need to huddle. Third Wave white-collar work, like Third Wave manufacturing, will not require 100 percent of the work force to be concentrated in the workshop. One should not underestimate the difficulties entailed in transferring work from its Second Wave locations in factory and office to its Third Wave location in the home. Problems of motivation and management, of corporate and social reorganization will make the shift both prolonged and, perhaps, painful. Nor can all communication be handled vicariously. Some jobs—especially those involving creative deal making, where each decision is nonroutine—require much face-to-face contact. We all need to be within a thousand feet of one another. The beginning of the twentieth century saw the earlier Victorian ideology of separate male and female spheres well on the way to being replaced by a newer Progressive household ideology. This ideology was not one of separateness, but one of shared domesticity. For those in the rising middle-class professions, the family, no just the mother and children, was now seen as the basic domestic unit. In practical terms this meant that husbands, as well as wives and children, were expected o share common time and space. This sharing was also encouraged by physical changes in the middle-class home. #RandolphHarris 13 of 18

Older Victorian homes had been divided by walls and doors into separate male rooms (the study) and female rooms (drawing and morning rooms). Drawing rooms, for example, were the rooms to which the women withdrew after dinner so men could have their port, cigars, and male conversation. (If the home were an elaborate one, the men might withdraw to smoking room or a billiard room.) Design of the rooms was to reflect their usage. Smoking rooms were to be heavy and masculine, while furniture in the drawing room was to be light, elegant, and “ladylike.” Regardless of its usage, each rom was heated by its own fireplace or stove, which encouraged designing a house with small rooms that could be closed off from unheated areas. Even central heating contributed to the success of the ideology of sharing space and activity. Central heating not only brought a new level of comfort, it helped change family patterns. Central heating and the removal of compartmentalizing walls meant that family members could now purse individual activities in common familial space. Here was an implicit acceptance that within the home, there was an interconnection between physical space and the moral environment. The social rationale was that open spaces promoted familial togetherness and communal activities. The larger family living room, in which all family members could gather, came to replace the parlour and reception rooms. Housing was being designed to be less gender-specific and to reduce gender segregation. More modern designed houses would produce more space for cohesive families to bond as a unit. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18

The modern suburban home, by encouraging familial activity, thus could ennoble those who inhabited it. Floor plans specifically were designed to strengthen family togetherness. In the middle-class house of a century and a quarter ago, father, mother, and children might still be doing separate activities, but they should all be gathered around the family hearth, not in separate partitioned rooms. Particularly in the evening, the family was expected to congregate informally in the living room. This image of living room family domesticity was widely portrayed in the homes advertisements as well as the women’s magazines of the day. It is also the picture of the “ideal” family publicized in the famous Dick and Jane elementary school readers. These readers, with their picture of father in his chair smoking his pipe, mother in her chair doing the sewing, and Dick and Jane playing on the rug with the cat, were still commonly in use until the 1960s. They provide the “official” middle-class view of proper family life. This image was echoed in the family-based TV shows of the 1950s and 1960s. (It might also be noted that following World War II, suburban homes underwent another physical metamorphosis. The living room grew smaller and took on more formal aspects of the earlier parlour. Everyday family activity and living now took place in a new, more informal, and specifically named, “family room.”). By the turn of the twentieth century, the new open floor plans and the idea of shared domesticity had achieved widespread acceptance. The living room, according to the early twentieth-century home magazines was the symbolic representation of family togetherness. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18

Frank Lloyd Wright would later claim the sole honour of removing the partitions and doors from first floors, but other architects were moving in the dame direction. Mr. Wright, however, did move further than others in removing segregated small spaces by making the whole first floor excepting the kitchen into essentially one large one. Family togetherness thus was not something invented after World War II and only found in postwar suburban housing developments. Over a century ago, shared domesticity or togetherness had already found suburban acceptance. By the beginning of the century, it already had been accepted by suburban men that males had a role in the home and men even had limited domestic duties and responsibilities for children, such as reading them bedtime stories. A suburban man’s place most evenings was at homes with his family rather than out with his clubmen or colleagues. There was, however, a limited sharing of domestic duties, rather than supporting early feminism, tended to blunt the power of feminist demands. It also should be noted that while the ideology of shared domesticity developed strong middle-class suburban roots, this ideology was not equally shared either by the very wealthy or by the working class. Both the rich and the urban working class continued to maintain sharper gender-defined roles both within their lives and within their homes. Upper-class men had their male club, and working-class men had the male-dominated saloon. By the 1920s the suburban ideal of the domestic family unit of father, mother, and children had become a mass-produced commodity. Home ownership had become part of the American middle-class ideology. #RandolphHarris 16 of 18

Having your own home, preferably in convenient suburb, meant that you had arrived and were part of the American Dream. Popular magazines such as Good Housekeeping and Ladies Home Journal constantly stressed the advantages of suburban environments for the proper rearing of children. The suburban home, not the city apartment, was touted as the place where small children would find a “normal” and “healthy” environment. Thus suburbs were where mothers could safely let children outside to play. One now moved to the suburbs “for the children’s sake.” Post-World War II versions of suburban domesticity as portrayed in TV shows such as Father Knows Best strongly reinforced traditional family patterns and values. In all this Christian Science teaching it is essential to note that the healer can utter these healing formulae, think these healing truths, either out of one’s intellect or out of one’s insight. In the first case one words and thoughts are merely like the map of a country. In the second case they are like an actual visit to the country. The first healer makes an unwarranted claim, does no see that one’s statements could be truly made only if one attained the stature and purity of Jesus. It is not enough that the patient should have faith; the healer oneself must have the requisite higher consciousness. For the divine power which actually effects the healing will not come from one’s ordinary self but out this higher one. Since other cults holding contradictory theories are also able to claim cures, and since there is a natural healing force in the body itself, the Christian Scientists should be cautious and realize that their own theory may be only partially and not wholly correct. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18

Whereas Christian Science denies the reality of the body and hence of the body’s ills, most other spiritual healing schools admit it. Whereas Christian Science nowhere speaks of man struggling upward through constant reincarnations on Earth to realize one’s highest possibilities, its most powerful rival—the Unity school of Christianity—proclaims this doctrine. Rudolf Steiner opposed psychic healing because, he said, it did not cure but merely drove the disease deeper inside, to reappear later in some other parts of the body. If the patient recovers, the system of healing—whether it be orthodox or unorthodox—gets the credit; but if he fails to recover, the system does not get the debit. The Vedantist and Christian Scientist who are determined to exclude the idea of the World-existence from their view, are nevertheless forced to yield and re-admit the exile when a simple toothache instructed them to the contrary. A cautious attitude to these cures may well find them to be the result of natural healing processes; they would have happened anyway. From bondage grim Thy power brought forth the pure, Thou, Gracious One, didst all their grief endure. So save Thou us! They passed between the deep divided sea; and with them for their guide, the light from Thee. So save Thou us! “He saved”: Thy stock with joyful singing told; then saved was He, who gave them birth of old. So save Thou us! “And I will bring you out,” the mandate said: “And I went out with you,” the mystics read. So save Thou us! Thy sons with circling step, (their guardian Thou!) Around Thine altar bore the will bough. So save Thou us! Thine Ark was won by marvels from the foe, Philistia, sinful, by Thy wrath laid low. So save Thou us! And with Thy banished throngs to Babylon journeyed in love Thy presence, Gracious One! So save Thou us! Helper of Jacob’s captive tribes of yore, return, and Jacobs exiled tents restore, and save Thou us! #RandolphHarris 18 of 18

MILLS STATION AT CRESLEIGH RANCH

Rancho Cordova, CA |

Now Selling!

Mills Station at Cresleigh Ranch is Rancho Cordova’s newest home community! This charming neighborhood offers an array of home types with eye catching architecture styles such as Mission, Mid-Century Modern, California Modern, and Contemporary Farmhouse.

Located off Douglas Road and Rancho Cordova Parkway, the residents of Cresleigh Ranch will enjoy, being just minutes from shopping, dining, and entertainment, and quick access to Highway 50 and Grant Line Road providing a direct route into Folsom. Residents here also benefit from no HOA fees, two community parks and the benefits of being a part of the highly-rated Elk Grove Unified School District. https://cresleigh.com/