Examples Of Prosperity In The Great Gatsby

Prosperity in America during the interwar period was defined by how much a family or person could have outside of the basics of food, shelter, and basic clothing. It was not a unit of measure, but instead a trait that a person or family either had, or did not have. A well known example of prosperity can be seen in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel The Great Gatsby set during the 1920’s. Yet, prosperity had less meaning to those not as well off during the Great Depression, as millions struggled to feed themselves and their families, let alone spend on superfluous luxuries. This was largely due to the stock market crashing, forcing FDR to introduce the new deal programs, which changed the process through which a person could reach such a status.

As a result of the events during the ‘Roaring Twenties’ and the Great Depression, the economy of the United States rose and fell, affecting every citizens prosperity and ability to become prosperous, regardless of socioeconomic status.

During the interwar period, prosperity was always equated to wealth. The larger the houses, parties, wardrobe, bank account, etc. the more prosperous one was seen as. The first two pages of Chapter 3 in The Great Gatsby show exactly what being prosperous meant:
“On weekends his Rolls-Royce became an omnibus, bearing parties to and from the city between nine in the morning and long past midnight, while his station wagon scampered like a brisk yellow bug to meet all trains. And on mondays eight servants, including an extra gardener, toiled all day with mops and scrubbing-brushes and hammers and garden-shears repairing the ravages of the night before.”

From Nick’s descriptions, it is quite clear just how affluent Gatsby is, from his Rolls-Royce to the extra gardener, he obviously has much left over after ‘covering the basics’. In The Great Gatsby, there is a huge contrast between life on the West Egg (where Gatsby lives) and the ‘Valley of Ashes’, a stretch of land between West Egg and New York where “ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens; where ashes take the form of houses and chimneys...”. It is a depressing place, one that lacks prosperity and gives off the image of poverty. The stark contrast can be seen between the bright lights and parties of West Egg to the grey dullness and melancholy of the ‘Valley of Ashes’. Unfortunately, due to the Great Depression, much of the United States became similar to that of the ‘Valley of Ashes’, especially the midwest. The midwest quite literally became a valley of ashes due to the Dust Bowl and the massive dust storms that occurred during that time. According to Melt White, the son of a texan farmer, the Dust Bowl started because: “[farmers] abused the land; they abused it something terrible...we don’t even think what the end results might be.” The conditions during the Dust Bowl were so extreme that the idea of being prosperous was nearly nonexistent, because everyone was focused on surviving, and making it until the next rainfall.
“I remember one time when we were so broke, that when Christmas rolled around, we didn’t have Christmas at our house. I had had it explained to me that we’d have some money 'fore long, a government check would come again, and then we’d have a little Christmas...About a month later, why, we got a government check for about 200 dollars. Boy, we were rich...I didn’t, I didn’t really feel bad about it at the time, because I’d had it explained to me...we just didn’t — didn’t have any money to spend for Christmas. It didn’t bother me.”

J.R. Davison’s explanation in an interview with PBS about his family missing christmas, despite having the money, brings to life the mentality of people during that time. Christmas celebrations were not a necessity, and 200 dollars could go a long way. However, others living outside of the Dust Bowl saw the Great Depression as a time to show off their wealth, and the gap between the rich and the poor was astronomical.

While many suffered and struggled to remain afloat, there were the few 1 per cent, e.g the Rockefellers, who still threw great parties and built lavish buildings despite the financial rut the United States was in.

According to PBS, “The Depression was simply an inconvenience especially in New York where the city’s glamorous venues...such as El Morocco and The Stork Club were heaving with celebrities, socialites and aristocrats.” The interwar period saw a considerable wealth gap formed between the upper class and the much larger lower class. As farmers in the midwest struggled to feed their families, the aristocracy in New York feasted like kings and held parties only the elite could afford. As early as 1923, the rich were getting richer whilst the poor stayed poor: “The Mellon Plan of 1923 lowered the income tax rate for the top income bracket from 77% to 24%” Those who were prosperous did all that they could to maintain their prosperity, while those ‘below them’ still struggled. Andrew Mellon was already one of the richest men in America before he was appointed as Secretary of Treasury during the Harding and Coolidge administrations, and his time in office only made him richer. The tax cuts he put into effect saved him and his brother over 1.4 million dollars combined (roughly 20 million dollars today). The interwar period demonstrated how hard it was for lower class people to achieve prosperity, while those who had already become prosperous did little to help the others. However, FDR’s New Deal program offered the lower class a way out, causing people to debate whether government contributions should be attributed as ‘prosperity’ or

not.
Due to the Great Depression, and a lack of useful help from the previous administration, FDR created the New Deal, which was a series of programs that assisted jobless and struggling people across the United States. In some cases, such as the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act), the government would pay farmers to not grow crops, thus limiting the supply of crops. This increased the price of crops, meaning farmers were earning more money. Many disagreed with this method, such as E. E. Lewis, who in 1935 wrote Black Cotton Farmers and the AAA. According to Lewis:
“The basic purpose of agricultural adjustment as conceived by the present administration runs in terms of farm prices, if we leave aside the supplementary credit program (The farmer’s R. F. C.). Increase the value of farm products (by raising prices) and add to these market prices certain benefit payments-that is to say, enhance the total income on individual farms, but take no thought concerning the distribution of these increased returns. Now this is a business man’s solution of farm relief; whereas a program aimed at the relief of our farm population as a whole would run thus: Increase the total income of each individual farm, and see to it that both farm capital and farm labor benefit from the same individual, receives the entire increased income.”

The AAA was seen as the ‘business man’s’ approach to solving a farmer's problem, yet the farmers seemingly were not bothered by the government's help. The idea that they would get paid for doing less work appealed to many, but to many outside of the farming world, it seemed incredulous. People would be building bridges and other public spaces through the PWA (Public Works Administration) or CCC (Civilian Conservation Corp) for roughly minimum wage while farmers were literally being paid to do nothing. The way for people to achieve prosperity differed depending on occupation and geography, something that apparently was not a concern for the president at the time, FDR. According to FDR: “[People] want two things: work, with all the moral and spiritual values that go with it; and with work, a reasonable measure of security—security for themselves and for their wives and children.” He was not concerned with ‘fairness’ or equal opportunities to achieve prosperity, he was only concerned with giving the people two basic needs. This effectively allowed people to just barely be above poverty, but not be prosperous, or have the potential to reach prosperity.
It could be argued that during the Great Depression, and FDR’s New Deal, prosperity was simplified into just being able to afford the basics, rather than how much more than the basics one could afford. There’s a good argument for that, in fact simply by looking at the various New Deal programs it seems quite evident. The NRA, PWA, CCC, AAA, TWA, etc were all programs that gave people the bare minimum to supply themselves and their families. Yet, it is hard to call barely surviving prosperity. Prosperity itself brings to the mind an image of riches and grandeur. Perhaps, surviving off of government designed programs could be considered success, but not prosperity. Success in providing for the self, success in providing for the family, but not prosperity.