5 Myths About the Poor Middle Class

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 4, 2008 20:04
VIEWED: 6018
PAGE 9 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Friday, December 28, 2007 9:48 AM

You do not take into account the influence of legal drugs....

Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Friday, December 28, 2007 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Are the European GDP figures

1) Current --- last time I checked the Eurozone had a higher GDP than the US, seems strange that it should appear less. Also seems strange that Luxembourg "makes the list" and Norway doesnt, especially as Norway has one of the best economies in the world according to Forbes.

2) Is this "corrected" GDP? Per capita GDP for Europe doesn't usually take into account shorter work weeks and longer vacations. Factored in the GDP per capita of US and EU as GDP/per worked hour tends to be the same.

Having worked under both systems I would take the standard of living hit for the flexibility of lifestyle.

I'm not sure you can use living space between countries as an indicator either. The UK has less living space than the US, because it has a much higher population density. The UK has a population density of ~246 (based on July 2005 UN figures) while the US averages 31, less living space isn't because we're poorer, it's because we have left space to live in. I've done some research actually, I can buy a huge mansion in some places in the states for less than what I paid for my one bedroom flat.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GEEZER

Friday, December 28, 2007 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't really see your point about perceptions here Geezer. I'm sure people who have always been well off like you and lawyer types like Hero think the economy is doing great. (I'm only assuming based on your previous post that you have always been privelaged.)

Perception is what it's all about, since most folk don't go into the figures, and, as we see here, figures can still tell you whatever you want to hear. We can't even agree on a definition of "middle-class".

Hardly privileged, not excessively well-educated, or above average. Just worked for 37 years, did my job well, and moved up the payscale.

Quote:
Sure... who said inflation didn't hit everybody? Not me. But $3.09 for gas and $6.89 for a pack of smokes sure kills the guy making $30,000 a year much more than the guy who's making $90,000 a year.

But the guy making a steady $90G has moved from upper class to middle class.

Quote:
We'll see about the AMT Geeze... I don't buy it for a second. I know there was a one year repreive, which incidentally is going to delay tax returns for most people this year,

Yep, we'll see on AMT. And I bet no one's refunds are delayed. IRS has experience with these late-breaking bills, and already had programmers working on contingency fixes while the AMT legislation was still in committee.

Quote:
What of my grandfather who raised a family of 7 on a single income as a grocery store manager? Will you concede that this is not possible today?

No. Just a quick Google and here's job offerings for supermarket managers at up to $95K. Even the lowest starting salary of $48K isn't too bad for a job requiring only 2 years experience.
http://www.lawrence-james.com/storemanager.htm

Quote:
And sure... smoking is my choice Geeze. I am in no short supply of people who tell me that, but all of those fat fuckers choose to eat more than their share, or they pop their prozac or viagra or they watch too much TV or indulge in too much porn. Whatever...

And that's their choice too. But you want Mr. Corpo to pay for the results of your addiction, but not for theirs. See what I mean about perception being important?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, December 28, 2007 3:22 PM

Quote:
What I saw was you dismissing it as propaganda.

Bullshit. I dismissed the opinion piece as propaganda because it is. I stand by my opinion that the author deliberately obfuscated the underlying facts to prevent any sort of analysis. In my book, that's propaganda. (BTW- Most opinion pieces are propaganda. And if you think about it, commercials are propaganda. I have a definition of propaganda that cuts in all directions. You should too.)

HOWEVER- I didn't reject the tenet of the opinion piece. I still don't. I had gotten as far as deciding which measure to assess the health of the middle class. Doing that in an honest way actually takes research, which I haven't had time for. The figures for inflation-adjusted individual yearly income distribution are surprisingly hard to come by, as well as the figures for an invariant basket of goods for checking the CPI (inflation) adjustments. Really, this kind of analysis could be a thesis, so I invite you all to chip into the discussion, and if you have any facts to add to the pile, and useful links to post feel free!

Quote:
It’s not a secret that you’re an ardent and diehard proponent of the welfare state. I know this not what you want to hear.

Not really. What I would REALLY like to see is what is called "economic democracy". Look it up, I don't have time to explain it.

Quote:
Right off the bat, this is not even remotely close to being true. The bottom half of the US population does not divide only 3% of the wealth between them. I don’t know where you get your numbers, but actually, the lowest quintile, that’s lowest 20%, not bottom half, divide around 5% of the wealth in the US and in Sweden they divide about 10% of the wealth.

First of all, I grabbed my figures off the web from the nearest study on income distribution by quintiles. It turns out that not all European nations provide comparable income distribution data. But what you're saying.... pardon me if I got this wrong... is that the bottom quintile of the Swedish population gets TWICE AS MUCH of the GDP as the bottom quintile of the USA population. Gee, who said that? I think that was..... ME! In other words, YOUR figures support my conclusion.

Quote:
But this still doesn’t address the assertion as provided by the research in this document that 40% of the households in Sweden would be defined as poor by the US Census Bureau.

That's something else I'd need to look into. Because yanno I don't pull these figures outta my *ss like some people, I actually try to make sense of what they're saying. By many measures (life expectancy, happiness, education, homelessness, crime rate etc) the Europeans are better off. By other measures we are. It all depends on what measures the US Census Bureau uses to define "poverty" (example- car ownership) and whether it applies to Europe.

Since you're the one touting the article, instead of making me write a Master's thesis on YOUR chosen article, why don't you tell us? I mean, you're the one who posted this, so why don't YOU explain it?

In the meantime... speaking of finances... I'm going to close our family books for 2007. So I won't see you for a while. That should give you some time to gather information.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

GEEZER

Friday, December 28, 2007 3:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Here's the math: If the USA's per capita GDP is- say- "1.0" that would make Europe's per capital GDP "0.65". If half the USA population has only 3% of that "1", their per capita GDP is 3%. But if the bottom half of Europe's population shares 12% of the GDP, their per capital share of the GDP is 12% * 0.6= 7%. So half of their population is richer than ours by about a factor of two. I) 'll double check this tomorrow- this was just a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

I'm not sure that your correlation of "wealth" to GDP is valid. I'd think Income to GDP would be more reasonable. US income for the bottom 40%(just using 40% because Nationmaster's stats are in 20% increments) is around 28% of total income. http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/us-united-states/eco-economy&a
ll=1
For Ireland it's around 29%
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/us-united-states/eco-economy&a
ll=1
Sweden is 32%
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/sw-sweden/eco-economy&all=1
And Norway about 32% as well
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/no-norway/eco-economy&all=1
for a 31% (your chosen country)European average.

Now for GDP(rounding down to the nearest hundred).

Norway - 39,900
Sweden - 29,900
Ireland - 29,900

Avg - 33,200

US - 37,200
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_per_cap_con_2000_us-per-capi
ta-constant-2000-us

(note: can't help but notice that the three European countries you picked are all in the top 10 GDP, so the European average is a bit high. Hmmm)

Europe's Best - $33,200 X .31 = $10292
United States - $37,200 X .28 = $10416

Also note that the middle 60% of US population takes in almost 50% of the income.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, December 28, 2007 3:26 PM

I picked GDP because that's what Finn chose to post about. Ask him, don't ask me. :shrugs shoulders:

Thanks for posting the link to nationmaster. I forgot all about it. But I really do have to do something productive today.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, December 28, 2007 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Are the European GDP figures

1) Current --- last time I checked the Eurozone had a higher GDP than the US, seems strange that it should appear less. Also seems strange that Luxembourg "makes the list" and Norway doesnt, especially as Norway has one of the best economies in the world according to Forbes.

Most of the GDP numbers date from between 2000 and 2004. The article, itself, was published in 2004.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
2) Is this "corrected" GDP? Per capita GDP for Europe doesn't usually take into account shorter work weeks and longer vacations. Factored in the GDP per capita of US and EU as GDP/per worked hour tends to be the same.

The article does not use GDP corrected for labor supply, but does address this in Section 4.4. The author does not seem to believe that the work done in European countries (or at least Sweden) is actually less, because of a great deal of unpaid labor in the home that is not accounted for.

For me, I’m not really sure that is a point that should be considered. There are lots of people in the US who choose not to work very much and are poor for that reason. It’s entirely possible they enjoy their leisure time amidst their poverty more then I enjoy my big house and plasma screen amidst my 40-55 hour work week. But that doesn’t mean they have a high standard of living - it means they enjoy a lower standard of living, and we still classify them as “poor.”

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

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, December 28, 2007 3:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Since you're the one touting the article, instead of making me write a Master's thesis on YOUR chosen article, why don't you tell us? I mean, you're the one who posted this, so why don't YOU explain it?

I think the article probably explains it. You might try reading it, before you immediately start trying to debunk it with misconstrued numbers you pulled off the web. You’re throwing a fit me, because I assume you’ll dismiss it, but that’s what you’re doing.

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

SIGNYM

Friday, December 28, 2007 4:13 PM

Ach! FINN! I haven't dismissed the article. I intend to look at it rather closely. But YOU asked why the Census Bureau would classify so many Swedish households as being impoverished. I dunno- maybe because Swedes don't have AC? (That's a joke BTW) I know enough to know that the Census Bureau uses a different set of measures than the CBO, BEA, or any number of other economic analyses. I haven't looked into what the Census criteria is. But since it's your article, figure it out and let us know.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Friday, December 28, 2007 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ach! FINN! I haven't dismissed the article. I intend to look at it rather closely. But YOU asked why the Census Bureau would classify so many Swedish households as being impoverished. I dunno- maybe it's because Swedes don't have AC. (That's a joke BTW) I know enough to know that the Census Bureau uses a different set of measures than the CBO, BEA, or any number of other economic analyses. I haven't looked into what the Census criteria is. But since it's your article, figure it out and let us know.

I have read the article. I’m not an expert, but I think it explains itself fairly well, and I’ve been to Europe. I’ve seen first hand what qualifies as “middle class” in Europe, and we can throw around all kinds of accusations about cultural differences (which I think are not insignificant), but in the end, it’s a lower standard of living, in general.

But I'm glad that you'll read and consider the article. That's all I ask.

Also I'll be out of time for a little while. Several days in fact.

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE