"Standards of living in Western countries are going down in large part."

How so? How do we define this standard of living. When I compare what the average teenage owns with my own teenage years kids today have way more, just as I had way more than my parents in their teenage year.. I can understand that there has been a drop with the GFC and Europe's continuing economic woes but surely these ups and downs are normal. For example during the twentieth century there was a drop with the Great Depression but looking at the whole century the trend in the standard of living was up upward.

If the West is declining in *absolute* terms why is this so?
If we look at the early middle ages we can identify some reasons. For example the rise of Islam cutting Europe off from Trade in the east.
What is the equivalent for today (or the near future)?

If I had to guess what a possible reason could be I would say depletion of resources and the consequences of environmental degradation are factors exerting a downward pressure (while the growth in technology exerts an upward influence).

But what other reasons could there be? In Europe in the middle ages organizational skills were lost compared with the Romans. This surely is not happening today.
In what ways specifically are we going backward? Which skills are we losing that will result in a drop in a standard of living in the long term?

My generation will make less money in real terms than my parents'

So that's pretty... clear cut. Inequality is also through the roof here in the US, and European governments are bankrupt.

Look if you want argue whether or not the West must decline I'll make a new thread I'd appreciate just criticism of how to improve the paper - I'm not changing the thesis.

I think you should be extremely careful about defining the current state of affairs as a decline. By almost all measures of standard of living, we continue to be better off than we were before, albeit at a slower pace. The situation you are describing is the relatively more rapid rise of developing nations relative to the 'West' (another term that has little real meaning). This is something to be applauded generally, and not lamented. The tone of the essay is negative about the idea that countries would begin to catch up, when this is precicely what we hope would happen. Instead of focusing on the corresponding increase one would expect from expanding economic development (and I might add, the likely political liberalization that will accompany the rise of a middle class), you instead focus on a conspiracy theory about 'The Elites' and their future domination of world affairs. It is a pessimistic, confused argument that lingers on invented nomenclature with little relation to actual people, events, or statistics. Sorry to be so down on it, but it's just way too rhetorical and needs much more careful explanation of the terminology used and more support for your central thesis.

"My generation will make less money in real terms than my parents'"

Real buying power? In your parents day how much did a computer with the processing power of an average smart phone cost? Is this factored in your "money in real terms"?

What accounts for the rise of developing nations relative to the West?
The developing nations aren't rising because of a new, unique ideology.
Developing nations rise because they co-opted western economic ideas to fit the unique structures of their traditional societies.
Co-opting those ideas westernizes the developing nations. The ideas of private property, freedom of expression, economic freedom, etc. all pervade.
I would argue the demand for political rites by newly affluent groups in developing nations is not likely it is fundamental.
China, India, and Brazil are not enjoying economic growth in a system separate from the West's or as a rival to the West.
All three countries enjoy economic growth because of their embrace of the West.

What was the life expectancy of my parent's generation compared to mine?
What was the average educational achievement of my parent's generation compared to mine?
What was the level of racial discrimination in my parent's generation compared to mine?
What was the level of diversity regarding gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation my parent's generation compared to mine?
What was the level of women's pay compared to men's my parent's generation compared to mine?

Alright before I respond, I need to know the specs for this essay. What type of narrative voice can be used, how formal is it, how in depth, how long, etc. I honestly cannot comment on anything until I know all of that. Because imo the essay is too informal, not long enough, and needs to go a bit more in depth, but I may be wrong. Also, I agree with your argument in general, but there are a few places where you seem a bit too sure that many of the things you list only affect the West, and you ignore many things affecting other parts of the world. Here are a few articles, you don't have to read them but at least look at the titles.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43635475
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43591667/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43633608/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43629773/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, nor do I see it as a negative thing, how might you recommend changing the tone to avoid those impressions?

1200-1500 words, that's the only guideline i think, mine is 1300 or so

Also what is the purpose of the articles? Trying to prove the West is better because it's peaceful or something? Lol.

No, I'm just saying, the west isn't the only one going through a debt crisis, China is in the middle of a housing bubble, and there are financial woes elsewhere. I mean, this confirms the part of your thesis about an elite becoming the leaders of the world rather than other nations, but I think you slant your earlier argument towards the fact that only the West is facing these severe problems. I will comment thoroughly tomorrow, i must sleep now

Who said anything about better? How about accurate? The West is not in declination at all. In fact the rest of the world is turning to western ideas of government, economics, and rights. You can't "prove" anything. You simply make an argument to support a thesis. Start with a more accurate thesis.

For a thesis how about "The eclipse of unbounded self-confidence in government to effectively address social and economic issues in fiscally sustainable models."

Now that is a thesis you can argue positively and it's pertinent.

@Thucy - an interesting arguement well made. The pointers that others have given you should help you polish up the essay before submission.

I take your point (in response to another poster) that decline can be relative as well as absolute but would it be a 'decline' if power and financial clout were more evenly distributed? I think people are waking up to the notion that nobody 'wins' unless everybody wins. We need to tackle poverty, climate change, religious radicallism and more, and if this means the West seeing a relative or absolute dip in its living standards as a trade of for a more humane, secure and longer future then I don't see that as a decline.

Look I agree with all that, it doesn't change the fact that the West will decline as a result. This is not a normative paper - opinions on the good or bad of the decline of the West are not evaluated.

You're treating the word decline in a emotionally charged way - I take it to mean a relinquishing of power and nothing more.

The decline of the Roman Empire began to occur when it started getting less powerful, whether relative or absolute. That is happening with the West. I happen to agree with you Maniac about what you're saying but it doesn't affect the question I think.

How about if we examine the USA alone (forget the west)... not that long ago there we two superpowers, now there is just one. If anything hasn't American become even more powerful - relatively speaking?

typo... not that long there *were two superpowers

Can't, the topic is "is the decline of the west inevitable?"

@thucy - we are on the same page if we view the word decline as being unemotive but the usual use of the word "a failing or gradual loss, as in strength, character, power, or value; deterioration: the decline of the Roman Empire." does carry the negative conatation. If you are using it in a neutral sense then perhaps that needs ephasising somewhere in your essay.

Thucy if you are talking about relative decline then I think a compelling case can be made easily. However you approach the question you need to be very clear by what you mean when you say decline.
I know of a great book on this very subject:
Why the West Rules for Now by Ian Morris
Here is a review (and brief summary)
http://www.economist.com/node/17199546

Morris compares the West and East throughout history and grades them over time according to four key criteria:

1. Energy capture
2. Organization (large cities are an example of this and so are nation states)
3. War making
4. Information Technology

Thus for the East to overake the West it must exceed the west by those criteria. And it is clear that the East is catching up. But will it overtake the West and if so how and when? (not necessarilly useful for your essay but something I find interesting)

I need to reiterate again: this is not about decline. It's about other countries becoming better off. The United States (the West) continues to become materially better each generation than the last in absolute terms, as well as relative terms. Focus on the reasons you think other countries are effectively removing themselves from the poverty trap, and what the likely outcomes will be. I doubt that the development of a cabal of Oligarchs will be the result. I think more likely the greatest issue facing a world of improved material conditions and wealth will be an increase in potential conflict over limited resources, and not the conce mutation of wealth and power into the hands or a few. In fact, with more econOmicron and military clout from other countries, it is likely that the US will be more inclined to listen and negotiate with them rather than acting unilaterally.

...concentration .... (Argh phone!)

The answer to the topic's prompt is "No, the decline of the West is not inevitable."

Listening, negotiating, and acting cooperatively with China is exactly the policy that Kissinger proposes in his new book "On China." The Chinese are not pursuing the same attempt to expand communism that contributed to the Cold War. Enlightened leadership on both sides of the Pacific can work together as long as extremists in China remain at bay.

One more thing Thucy, are we talking about the west as in culture, as in ideas, or as in a certain set of countries and their influence on the world? Each of those different categories will have widely different answers.

The two, to the extent that they are related, but more closely the group of rich countries with European heritage, N. America, Aus/NZ and W. Europe.

And mscott the thing is, other countries overtaking the West does constitute a decline, in relative terms. And I think it is precisely because no one will any longer be able to act unilaterally that you will see these talking shops like the G20 and the World Economic Forum begin to resemble the "hegemon" to the extent that there will even be one.

tettleton look i dont want to mute you so can you please be constructive - i'm not changing the thesis so if you won't help me make it any better... stop posting here or make a new thread. lol

I still think the negative connotation is unhelpful. But primarily it is because you'll never get a listen out of someone like Tettleton. The key to a truly compelling essay is to draw everyone in, even if they strongly disagree, by recognizing that there are other sides to the story .... then BANG! you nail them with the kicker.
I know that there is a vibrant community of TC haters out there, but he's trying to make an argument against what you are saying, and he's doing it by providing data to back it up. You may disagree with his position, but you should recognize that there are many people out there who agree, in whole or in part, with what he is saying, and in an ideal world you would have a response to it that is based in a solid argument.
I think the following are ways to avoid that confrontation, especially if you have limited space within which to write you essay:
1) Make an extremely specific thesis, and do not stray from it. Do not generalize - you MUST be specific. No wasted words.
2) Be very clear about exactly how you are using vocabulary. As I have mentioned by harping on the word "decline" is that it has a negative connotation that is not necessarily consistent with the message you are trying to get across. So either change the word or make explicit how you are using it. (IMO you should change the word).
3) More to the specific argument: American "exceptionalism" as you describe is was brought about by the unique combination of characteristics that made America a world power - a vibrant democracy, accountability, rule of law, robust private business environment, and a will to succeed. If America is becoming less "exceptional" in that regard - i.e. other countries are succeeding primarily through many of those same approaches - then it should be applauded and encouraged. The idea that the rise of other nations will lead to a sort of "landed elite" jumped one more step than I could catch. I would have thought that with more real seats at the table, there would be less of the sort of "elitist" behavior you discuss. It is an interesting discussion (perhaps on another forum) about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing ...