- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
This only proves how fucking stupid people are. Just like you being a sucker for the propaganda machine. Why else do you suck on that corporate tit?
the u.s. middle class is being wiped out
- Thread starter MadJack
- Start date
This only proves how fucking stupid people are. Just like you being a sucker for the propaganda machine. Why else do you suck on that corporate tit?
You guys always talking religion in here! Ever talk politics or policy?
Today is the myth of the decline of the American middle class. A significant part of the faithful's dogma for many years.....
Sorry to let facts, yet again, intrude on your worship of this Democratic party credo.
DTB is correct. The explosion of even legal immigrants in recent decades has seriously decreased medians and means across the income percentages (except for the top 1%). Think of it like this: if Bill Gates and Warren Buffet in a room, you got very high median income in that room. And thiers increases every year. Say they hire me at $500,000 a year to shine thier shoes and take me in their room. Immediately the median income in room drops like a rock and progressives scream how it's all going downhill--even if all our income just increased 10%+!
Look up income of white middle class wage earners educated here (leave out the low-income immigrants who came in the room like me) and you see a nice increase over last few decades, like previous decades.
And these facts pass the smell test, as DTB sez. How many middle class folks you know were worse off in 2009, or little changed, compared to 10 or 20 or 30 years earlier? Very, very few!
Think of how much stuff folks have, compared to earlier. Especially expensive stuff that didn't even hardly exist 20 years ago--like LCD TV, laptops, cell phones and reliable American-built cars.
Here's some of my past posts dealing with size of this middle class, and the tremendous income mobility between the classes (so much of the middle class "shrunk" because they moved into higher classses), and some stuff on income inequality.
Terry Fitzgerald, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, has done some well-known research in this area (before the, ahem!, largely Fed caused Great Recession we're in) "the economic compensation for work for middle Americans has risen significantly over the past 30 years."
He adjusts the variables and finds that "inflation-adjusted median household income for most household types increased by roughly 44 percent to 62 percent from 1976 to 2006."
here's excerpt from a fine piece on this by economist Tom Cooley at NYU:
Here is a good story, often told: "Since the mid-1970s, however, income growth has been confined almost entirely to top earners" (Robert H. Frank, The New York Times, March 9, 2008). One might have thought that I agree, since my previous column was about the extraordinary growth of the top 1%. Inequality did increase because of the extraordinary increase at the top, but that doesn't say what happened to incomes in the middle.
Terry Fitzgerald, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has been researching this issue with considerable care. He has looked very carefully first at the behavior of wages and then at household incomes. His findings are more highly nuanced than the folklore would have you believe.
The microeconomic data on wage rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)--that is, real average hourly earnings or median (the middle) hourly wages--show little or no growth from 1975 to 2005, a finding consistent with the stagnation view. But aggregate data--national labor income per hour from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)--grew 39% over the same period, quite a different picture.
The difference is largely due to three things: differences in coverage--the BLS covers a narrower category of workers (non-agricultural non-supervisory workers); differences in the choice of deflater (the price index used to adjust for inflation); and the inclusion of fringe benefits.
When a common deflater is used, the average hourly wage increases by 10% over the period and the median wage rises by 20%. When benefits are added to the average and median wage series, they show growth over time of 16% and 28% respectively. These are still less than the growth rates of 39% in the aggregate data and are far from what you would consider robust growth--but it doesn't quite qualify as stagnation. The finding that much of the increase in compensation shows up as increases in fringe benefits is important. Fringe benefit increases reflect in part the rising costs of health care. Also, these benefits are not discretionary income, thus the fact that they have increased is not likely to make workers feel "better off."
Many people who responded to my earlier article pointed to data from the U.S. Census Bureau that show median household income adjusted for inflation increasing only 18% over the last 30 years. That is stagnation!
Again, however, aggregate data tell a different story--real income per person increased nearly 80% over the 30-year period. Now this could be consistent with the finding that the very top earners garnered all the gains, but it is more complicated than that. Fitzgerald of the Minneapolis Fed points out that the price index used by the Census Bureau overstates inflation and understates income gains. There has also been a dramatic change in the mix of household types--a decline in married-couple households and an increase in no-spouse households for both genders. This causes the Census data to understate significantly the median income gains for all categories of household.
Finally, the Census Bureau approach ignores several sources of income--benefits and transfers--that have grown significantly. When all of these pieces are out together, the data suggest that median Census income per person has risen by 50% over the past 30 years--not 18%.
There are two other pieces to this puzzle that deserve more extensive discussion. One is the observation that important changes have occurred in the composition and quality of the consumption of the median American consumer. Think back 30 years to the typical consumption bundle and ask how much better off you might feel with the current bundle and whether changes in median income reflect that.
The second piece of the puzzle is why the rise in inequality has been so dramatic--and why the skill premium has increased as much as it has. These issues are all connected.
Today is the myth of the decline of the American middle class. A significant part of the faithful's dogma for many years.....
Sorry to let facts, yet again, intrude on your worship of this Democratic party credo.
DTB is correct. The explosion of even legal immigrants in recent decades has seriously decreased medians and means across the income percentages (except for the top 1%). Think of it like this: if Bill Gates and Warren Buffet in a room, you got very high median income in that room. And thiers increases every year. Say they hire me at $500,000 a year to shine thier shoes and take me in their room. Immediately the median income in room drops like a rock and progressives scream how it's all going downhill--even if all our income just increased 10%+!
Look up income of white middle class wage earners educated here (leave out the low-income immigrants who came in the room like me) and you see a nice increase over last few decades, like previous decades.
And these facts pass the smell test, as DTB sez. How many middle class folks you know were worse off in 2009, or little changed, compared to 10 or 20 or 30 years earlier? Very, very few!
Think of how much stuff folks have, compared to earlier. Especially expensive stuff that didn't even hardly exist 20 years ago--like LCD TV, laptops, cell phones and reliable American-built cars.
Here's some of my past posts dealing with size of this middle class, and the tremendous income mobility between the classes (so much of the middle class "shrunk" because they moved into higher classses), and some stuff on income inequality.
Terry Fitzgerald, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, has done some well-known research in this area (before the, ahem!, largely Fed caused Great Recession we're in) "the economic compensation for work for middle Americans has risen significantly over the past 30 years."
He adjusts the variables and finds that "inflation-adjusted median household income for most household types increased by roughly 44 percent to 62 percent from 1976 to 2006."
here's excerpt from a fine piece on this by economist Tom Cooley at NYU:
Here is a good story, often told: "Since the mid-1970s, however, income growth has been confined almost entirely to top earners" (Robert H. Frank, The New York Times, March 9, 2008). One might have thought that I agree, since my previous column was about the extraordinary growth of the top 1%. Inequality did increase because of the extraordinary increase at the top, but that doesn't say what happened to incomes in the middle.
Terry Fitzgerald, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has been researching this issue with considerable care. He has looked very carefully first at the behavior of wages and then at household incomes. His findings are more highly nuanced than the folklore would have you believe.
The microeconomic data on wage rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)--that is, real average hourly earnings or median (the middle) hourly wages--show little or no growth from 1975 to 2005, a finding consistent with the stagnation view. But aggregate data--national labor income per hour from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)--grew 39% over the same period, quite a different picture.
The difference is largely due to three things: differences in coverage--the BLS covers a narrower category of workers (non-agricultural non-supervisory workers); differences in the choice of deflater (the price index used to adjust for inflation); and the inclusion of fringe benefits.
When a common deflater is used, the average hourly wage increases by 10% over the period and the median wage rises by 20%. When benefits are added to the average and median wage series, they show growth over time of 16% and 28% respectively. These are still less than the growth rates of 39% in the aggregate data and are far from what you would consider robust growth--but it doesn't quite qualify as stagnation. The finding that much of the increase in compensation shows up as increases in fringe benefits is important. Fringe benefit increases reflect in part the rising costs of health care. Also, these benefits are not discretionary income, thus the fact that they have increased is not likely to make workers feel "better off."
Many people who responded to my earlier article pointed to data from the U.S. Census Bureau that show median household income adjusted for inflation increasing only 18% over the last 30 years. That is stagnation!
Again, however, aggregate data tell a different story--real income per person increased nearly 80% over the 30-year period. Now this could be consistent with the finding that the very top earners garnered all the gains, but it is more complicated than that. Fitzgerald of the Minneapolis Fed points out that the price index used by the Census Bureau overstates inflation and understates income gains. There has also been a dramatic change in the mix of household types--a decline in married-couple households and an increase in no-spouse households for both genders. This causes the Census data to understate significantly the median income gains for all categories of household.
Finally, the Census Bureau approach ignores several sources of income--benefits and transfers--that have grown significantly. When all of these pieces are out together, the data suggest that median Census income per person has risen by 50% over the past 30 years--not 18%.
There are two other pieces to this puzzle that deserve more extensive discussion. One is the observation that important changes have occurred in the composition and quality of the consumption of the median American consumer. Think back 30 years to the typical consumption bundle and ask how much better off you might feel with the current bundle and whether changes in median income reflect that.
The second piece of the puzzle is why the rise in inequality has been so dramatic--and why the skill premium has increased as much as it has. These issues are all connected.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
They all went into debt to do it.
You guys are amazing. How can you possibly suggest that people are better off than they were 30 years ago. Fuck. Its no wonder we have idiots in politics. When the people are this fucking stupid, what else do you expect?
First Terryray, when you say things like "DTB is correct", it really hurts your credibility.
Secondly, what you fail to address is that there are big differences between the post WWII middle-class and today's middle-class. You and others here like to talk about all the "stuff" middle-class Americans have now. While this tends to be true, it's the direct result of "how" the middle-class had managed to survive: two income families and credit. It may give the appearance that the middle-class is stronger than ever, but I think the events of the last year of the Bush Administration revealed the soft foundation the American middle-class of today is built upon.
:shrug:First Terryray, when you say things like "DTB is correct", it really hurts your credibility.
Yes, yes, "debt" and "two income families" is the standard mantra I've heard for years.
How about some facts?
Despite a veritable explosion on single income families, income has still risen significantly (before our present Great Recession), most of these families are middle class and had nice increase in standard of living (inflation adjusted):
why they took on more debt, I dunno. They had more and growing income to work with, that's the fact you can't deny. Can't deny. More and growing income.
and those links I had above showed how they had more disposable income that previous decades too!
Many two family income homes did that to have bigger houses, fancier cars and grander vacations. I'm sure you've seen plenty of this. Just look at how the average square feet of US home has grown.
Some took on debt to buy houses. Home ownership is almost double--double! WWII generation. Cheaper credit makes it smart to take on more debt too. Various reasons for this debt, but not much of it 'cause they were forced to.
How about some facts?
Despite a veritable explosion on single income families, income has still risen significantly (before our present Great Recession), most of these families are middle class and had nice increase in standard of living (inflation adjusted):
why they took on more debt, I dunno. They had more and growing income to work with, that's the fact you can't deny. Can't deny. More and growing income.
and those links I had above showed how they had more disposable income that previous decades too!
Many two family income homes did that to have bigger houses, fancier cars and grander vacations. I'm sure you've seen plenty of this. Just look at how the average square feet of US home has grown.
Some took on debt to buy houses. Home ownership is almost double--double! WWII generation. Cheaper credit makes it smart to take on more debt too. Various reasons for this debt, but not much of it 'cause they were forced to.
Tramp
Your problem is you let personal experience reflect too heavily on "your opinion" of economics/politics.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Sorry dogs. Better try again.
Why do you think a man can no longer find a good union job and support his family? Why do you think we now need two income families? Why do you think people are working harder and getting less?
Its not rocket science. Come on. Even you Kentucky boys can figure this one out.
Look no futher than Detroit, that will tell you what the Unions did to America.
Look no further than Wall Street, that will tell you what greed and deregulation did to America.
Corporate tit-suckers like Skulnik and DTB like to knock the labor unions that helped build this country, yet they defend the Wall Street crowd who build nothing. They knock auto workers, steel workers, rubber workers, etc. for trying to make a living wage yet they have no problem with Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, where the average salary in 2009 was $743,000, and that doesn't even include bonuses! Skulnik and DTB then continue their corporate tit-sucking while the same Wall Street firms we bailed out, buy politicians with our tax dollars to fight financial reform.
These guys are beautiful... :142smilie
Do u think it might have something to do with those one sided anti American trade deals those republicans love to grab to kill the workers in this country? U get a guy like Phil Night of Nike who makes 50 million a year in this country but this isn't quite enuf for this cock sucker so he ups and heads out of the country to make even more.:0074 So he finds a nice little country where he can pay people five cents a day not giving two fuks about them as long as his thirst for greed gets the front seat. Now tell me genius how was it the unions fault that they fought for a decent wage for their families but they now have to compete against Republican shitbags who try to destroy that families wage by encouraging this nonsense? So now these rotten cock suckers are making billions more not giving a dam on how they are making it. Skulfuck I know guys like u and Dogs encourage making that last dollar no matter how u make it but some of us like to look out for Americans first. Skulfuck what union member has walked out with a 100 million package for his retirement? Do u think that mights have something to do with cost over in Detroit? Bottom line these no good anti American worker trade deals have created most of this mess and has forced families to have both spouses out there working which has also created these so called family values to deteriorate. U can thank both parties for this but the Republicans salivate when a trade deal pops up where we the workers, get the short end of the deal. Greed greed greed. Skully u keep on thinking it is unions and Welfare that is killing the country and those banksters will be high fiving in the backround laughing their ass off knowing they have guys like u and Dogs right where they need ya. Skully isn't it strange that these credit card companies charge around 30 percent and they use a straight face doing it?
Where does the real middle Start? 40000? I understand it,s getting smaller. WE need a strong middle so we can defend our country.
Me and TU hardly agree on anything however there is a first for everything.lol//.How many people are living beyond there means but due to sudden change circumstance ?/How many are being stretched thing on their budget?I personally had to take a job with less pay and less hours because my job which I have over 20 years in just wasn't cutting it business wise.There was no work.
TU bust my balls on that but the truth is I am worse of than I was when things were busy.
I had no choice but to take a less paying job with less hours.But the cost of living continues to go up, how can you argue his point??
Basically my bills haven't changed(not counting living expenses) ,but my pay has.It's a scary situation to be in.
Unions?
This area has more fictions and faith than almost any other in economics.
The most important fact to know is that unions do not increase wages going to US workers. Never have, never will.
Here's a chart of wages as percentage of National income in the United States, 1899-1937. Unions very weak and tiny influence in America 1899, vastly stronger by 1937--and the percentage of National income going to wages remains the same.
Here's a Fed publication (warning pdf) covering the years since then, and remarking on how stable has been this 60%, or so, percentage.
Very predictable 60%, despite eras of vast union weakness and union strength. Every economist knows this, understands why ("successful" unions end up decreasing demand for their labor, increasing labor supply in other sectors and thus driving down wages there). Strong union wage gains are therefore made at the expense of wages of non-union workers....and everyone being unionized wouldn't help, as it would just then be strong unions gaining against weak ones.
Because you see in historic chart how much of this national income goes toward other worker things, and taxes--leaving about 6% for profits. Even if workers somehow got all that 6% profit left after all this, it still wouldn't make a significant increase in the 60%---but taking all of it would, of course, totally remove the source of all wages!
Anyway, the significant fact here is that unions have not and cannot in any useful way increase the percentage of national income that goes toward workers' wages and salaries.
unions and inequality
David Card at the National Bureau of Economic Research, in a rather celebrated paper, estimated that maybe 10%, or bit higher up to even 20%, of the wage inequality we've seen in recent years is due to falling union membership
the consesus of economists' research is that the recent rise of wage inequality is mostly due to technological and demographic changes. Which was the explanation for similar occurence in the 1920s. Also because of some increase in wage inequality between firms and industries (warning, pdf). But as Card mentions in this interview (halfway down), it's is a rather complicated picture---but union representation isn't considered by virtually any researcher as a significant explanation.
union decline due to policy changes
Princeton labor economist Hank Farber finds (warning, pdf):
"the causes of the divergence in employment growth rates between the union and nonunion sectors are fundamentally related to the structure of the U.S. economy. Employment has shifted away from the sectors in which unions were strongest such as manufacturing, transportation, and communications."
also:
"Although this decline is often linked to President Reagan's showdown with the air traffic controllers' union (PATCO) in August 1981 and the installation of a Republican majority on the NLRB in May 1983, we find little evidence that either event precipitated the downward trend in organizing activity."
David Card at the National Bureau of Economic Research, in a rather celebrated paper, estimated that maybe 10%, or bit higher up to even 20%, of the wage inequality we've seen in recent years is due to falling union membership
the consesus of economists' research is that the recent rise of wage inequality is mostly due to technological and demographic changes. Which was the explanation for similar occurence in the 1920s. Also because of some increase in wage inequality between firms and industries (warning, pdf). But as Card mentions in this interview (halfway down), it's is a rather complicated picture---but union representation isn't considered by virtually any researcher as a significant explanation.
union decline due to policy changes
Princeton labor economist Hank Farber finds (warning, pdf):
"the causes of the divergence in employment growth rates between the union and nonunion sectors are fundamentally related to the structure of the U.S. economy. Employment has shifted away from the sectors in which unions were strongest such as manufacturing, transportation, and communications."
also:
"Although this decline is often linked to President Reagan's showdown with the air traffic controllers' union (PATCO) in August 1981 and the installation of a Republican majority on the NLRB in May 1983, we find little evidence that either event precipitated the downward trend in organizing activity."
Such fuking nonsense but what can u expect from a guy who calls the Davis Bacon act racist and lives in the biggest brainwashing anti union state in the union. I wish ur shitbag Governor would have acted and cut ur scab state right out of the union. What happen to that Terray? I thought he wanted out of the country or were the stimulus dollars to hard for him to turn down when he said he didn't want any? Bottom line Unions created the middle class and the Republicans have been hell bent for years to destroy them and the middle class. That is reality. Put fear in nitwits minds that the unions are destroying the nation while these companies jump ship, pay opressed people a dollar an hour, and laugh all the way to the bank.
not sure how ur bills are stayiing the same. Seems like i can't get by a week without something going up. Sewer the latest.
