5 Myths About the Poor Middle Class
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 4, 2008 20:04
VIEWED: 6018
PAGE 3 of 10
Quote:No, the way the formerly middle class have coped with middle-class meltdown is to have two people working three jobs. That means that "household" income rises even while hourly wages fall. Prolly the best way to determine the health of the middle class is not through household income, but through average hourly wages.
3. The only way people cope with the middle-class meltdown is by falling into debt.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, note that Geezer changed his original post- which defined the middle class as beginning at $50,000- to the middle class beginning at $30,000.
Nope. The quote is verbatim from the original Washington Post article. Nothing changed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007
122101556.html
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, this is isn’t really true. The author actually seem to be trying to be fair in his responses to these myths. Many people claim the middle class is shrinking to suggest that the nation is growing poorer, so when the author points out that the middle class is shrinking because the nation is actually growing richer, it is not an agreement with the previous statement. Are you sure you’re just not groping for a reason to dismiss something you’d rather not consider anyway?
Originally posted by mal4prez:Quote:My point being, the writer actually agrees with 2 of his 5 "myths" (that would be the "yes" and the "true") and almost agrees with the third ("not really") and the other two points are fuzzy numbers and heresay (sort of).
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Not if all you can do is read the first words of each paragraph.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I mean, am I supposed to feel newly informed after reading this?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This boggles my mind- if a small percentage is getting richer due to many factors, while segments of the middle class are getting poorer, you can say the GNP is up, but you can't say peeps as a whole are better off....*shakes head in confusion*
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Many people claim the middle class is shrinking to suggest that the nation is growing poorer, so when the author points out that the middle class is shrinking because the nation is actually growing richer, it is not an agreement with the previous statement.
Bottom line Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have two brief comments.
First, I am surprised to discover that I am no longer "middle class" according to this article I earn too much.... weird..
Second, I think you have to view income in relation to actual basic costs to see if things have improved or worsened. I think to do this properly you need a good estimate of all family none discretionary spending, food, taxes, transportation, healthcare, rent/mortgage etc as a proportion of income. Without that proportion worked in any assessment becomes worthless.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Enjoy your status, Fletch, and your gas guzzling Hummer...
Originally posted by Fletch2:
First, I am surprised to discover that I am no longer "middle class" according to this article I earn too much....
Four-cylander Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:According to this article the middle class is shrinking because middle class earners are getting richer, not poorer. It’s not that difficult to understand.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:This boggles my mind- if a small percentage is getting richer due to many factors, while segments of the middle class are getting poorer, you can say the GNP is up, but you can't say peeps as a whole are better off....*shakes head in confusion*
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Many people claim the middle class is shrinking to suggest that the nation is growing poorer, so when the author points out that the middle class is shrinking because the nation is actually growing richer, it is not an agreement with the previous statement.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The article changes the bases of comparison- for example "what would have been" to "what is", and "middle class" to "married middle class couples"- in order to do ONE THING: to jiggle the numbers until it comes up with good-sounding figures. Now, that is not sound economics or good science. But it IS good propaganda.
Well, this is isn’t really true. The author actually seem to be trying to be fair in his responses to these myths. Many people claim the middle class is shrinking to suggest that the nation is growing poorer, so when the author points out that the middle class is shrinking because the nation is actually growing richer, it is not an agreement with the previous statement. Are you sure you’re just not groping for a reason to dismiss something you’d rather not consider anyway?
But instead of responding point by point to a propaganda piece, maybe we should look at "the state of the middle class" and derive our own assessment.
The first thing we have to do is define "middle class" because right now there is no generally accepted definition. Do we look at the middle quintile (literally, the in-the-middle-class)? Household income adjusted for inflation? Individual income adjusted for inflation (to make up for the fact that households may remain in-place simple because more people in the household are working)?
My suggestion is that we look at individual per-hour wages, adjusted for increased in costs of goods and services.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, I don't believe you. So- whatever.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The article may not constitute scientific analysis, but propaganda isn’t an accurate description either. And I suspect the problems you have with its bases of comparison have a lot more to do with your disagreement with the author’s point then any kind of real problem with the author’s logic.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:The article changes the bases of comparison- for example "what would have been" to "what is", and "middle class" to "married middle class couples"- in order to do ONE THING: to jiggle the numbers until it comes up with good-sounding figures. Now, that is not sound economics or good science. But it IS good propaganda.
Well, this is isn’t really true. The author actually seem to be trying to be fair in his responses to these myths. Many people claim the middle class is shrinking to suggest that the nation is growing poorer, so when the author points out that the middle class is shrinking because the nation is actually growing richer, it is not an agreement with the previous statement. Are you sure you’re just not groping for a reason to dismiss something you’d rather not consider anyway?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME