5 Myths About the Poor Middle Class
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 4, 2008 20:04
VIEWED: 6018
PAGE 1 of 1
By Stephen Rose
Sunday, December 23, 2007; Page B03
The American middle class is fighting for its life -- or at least that's what Lou Dobbs would have you believe. The CNN anchor's rants about "the war on the middle class" are probably the most prominent examples of such economic doom-saying, but he isn't alone. Democratic presidential candidates pepper their debates with references to the assault; leading liberal thinkers argue that supply-side conservatives captured the Republican Party during the Reagan administration and implemented policies that continue to privilege the super rich today. They tell a compelling tale of middle-class decline. Pity it isn't true.
1. The middle class's standard of living stagnated while the dot-com boom made the super rich even richer.
Not really. In fact, the U.S. economy hands out wealth far more evenly. Per capita gross domestic product has increased by more than 65 percent since 1979 -- growth that translates to $26,000 per household. If all that money had gone to the richest 10th of the population, it would now hold more than 60 percent of the national income. That's nearly twice as much as the super rich actually have, according to the best census surveys available.
To be fair, demographic changes have sparked many misunderstandings about the economic health of the middle class. For example, Americans today are more likely to live in single-adult households than they were 30 years ago. Adjust incomes to take into account this shift, along with increasing employer contributions to retirement savings and to health insurance premiums, and you find that the real middle-class median income has risen 33 percent, or $18,000, since 1979. Of course, that's a third less than the $26,000 that those households would have gotten if the growth had been distributed equally. But the middle class didn't stand still, either.
2. The middle class is shrinking.
True, fewer people today live in households with incomes between $30,000 and $100,000 (a reasonable definition of "middle class") than in 1979. But the number of people in households that bring in more than $100,000 also rose from 12 percent to 24 percent. There was no increase in the percentage of people in households making less than $30,000. So the entire "decline" of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder. For married couples, median incomes have grown in inflation-adjusted dollars by 25 percent since 1979.
3. The only way people cope with the middle-class meltdown is by falling into debt.
You've probably heard that the average U.S. household carries $9,300 in credit card debt. But that misleading statistic includes the debt of the self-employed and some small businesses. The 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances, which does not include business debt, showed that 54 percent of households had no credit card debt after paying their monthly bill and that the average household credit card debt was just over $2,300.
Mortgages, which represent 79 percent of all debt, are the more pressing concern. But even according to the most pessimistic estimates, only 1 to 2 percent of homeowners will be forced into foreclosure in the next few years. Assets have grown faster than debts for most middle-class families. Median net worth has grown 35 percent since 1989, according to the Federal Reserve Board, and only 15 percent of households have debt payments worth more than 40 percent of their income or are 60 days late on any debt payment.
4 With the rise in trade with China and India, the United States has become a nation of low-paid service workers destined for a high rate of unemployment.
The claim that automation and international trade will create a large class of permanently unemployed American workers remains as fuzzy as ever. Certainly, in the churn of the modern economy, more firms are closing or reducing their labor forces. Every week for the past several years, nearly 1 million workers either quit or lost their jobs. But a slightly higher number were also hired in a typical week.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Are all of these figures adjusted for inflation? The article doesn't say, but if not it's worthless.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I now have hope that I, too, can be a journalist! You only need faulty figures, a bent agenda, and a blinders to everyday reality- I can do that! Hell, any idiot could!
My next article: How comics prices have risen over 1600% since 1970 proving that all today's comic-buying kids are rich!
Duhisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Huh. My income is zero, when I was paid $4,000 a month 10 years ago. My wife's income is $800 a month, when she earned $50,000 a year 15 years ago. New home forclosed on when no payments late. Two cars stolen by copkilling chopshopping towtruckers employed by Gangsta Govt. Incompetent medical insurance cancelled and blacklisted as "uninsurable" for being sick. Credit reports blacklist employment for being disabled. No Christmas gifts for us. Thanks for 6-months Unemployment "Insurance" and Food Stamps. But hey, at least I've got no credit card debt, only 3 months debt to my slumlord.
It was nice going back to college for retraining, until my professors told us there would be no more engineering jobs in USA in 10 years. That was in 2000. This year GM and Ford announced they were planning to close ALL factories in USA.
And Veternas Administration stole my wife's military retirement pension, as perped against 95% of all disabled retired veterans. But Jews in Congress plan to give all Russian military veterans full retirement pension in USA, paid by US taxpayers (and borrowed from Communist China).
My Social Security disability pension has been stolen for the past 10 years, despite overpaying over 100 years of insurance premiums into the SS Trust Fund. But at least Jewish illegal aliens get $60,000 a year Social Security after paying no taxes, with immunity from deportation (Jewish Lautenburg Amendment).
Of course the Jews censored that legislative news report off Youtube.
Quote:
Lautenberg Amendment
H.R. 1685 -- Freedom from Religious Persecution Act of 1997
http://burmalibrary.org/reg.burma/archives/199709/msg00230.html
http://www.visalaw.com/98oct/49oct98.html
http://www.vdare.com/allen/lautenberg.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/prm/rls/fs/44171.htm
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0302/article_233.s
html
http://www.jfsla.org/index.php?/article/details/435/
http://www.skokienet.org/american/index.html
And restaurant managers in Tennessee are required to speak Spanish, for hiring illegal alien gangmembers (no US citizens allowed), and for speaking Spanish to ALL customers.
Here's George W Bush singing Happy Christmas, Suckers:
Ron Paul: The $6-Million Man
RonPaulRevere.com Canvassing DVD
http://ronpaulreveres.com/DVDIntroVideo
Ron Paul Radio Ad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_Deng
Hanoi Hannity: "I voted for the Sino-American Alliance."
"US ports owned by Commie China is good for me."
"Dead and disabled US soldiers are good for me."
"Outsourcing your job is very good for me."
"Sir Rupert dines with Hillary every week."
"Ron Paul does not exist in my 'Verse."
"As far as Chinese goes, I resented it."
-Adam Tudyk, The Making of Firefly
FOX, MYSPACE & FIREFLY OWNED BY COMMUNIST CHINA!
www.piratenews.org/pntv-schedule.html
Does that seem right to you?
Firefly Music Video: Tangerine dream - Confrontation, Thief soundtrack
www.megavideo.com/?v=JVT35GR8
www.scifi.com/onair/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't forget the Illuminati, PN; or the Elders of Zion. Not to mention the International Conspiracy of Guys Named Dave.
"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, Rocketdoof- the Illuminati are real; I saw them in Tomb Raider!!!
Check your sources Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No they don't, and neither do the commie nazi jews. Anyone who says different, erm, won't be erm, crushed, at all, oh no.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting. The headline says 5 MYTHS, but the discussions are basically:
1. Not really...
2. True, but...
3. You've probably heard, but... [inconclusive pseudo-numbers follow]
4. It's fuzzy, but... [more fuzzy numbers that may show good signs if you squint at them]
5. Yes, but...
I mean, am I supposed to feel newly informed after reading this? Cause, honestly, not so much.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
But at least I produced 5 hours of deprogramming by Ron Paul, broadcast into 110,000 homes of Christmas zombies, to kill the IRS, income and Federal Resrve Counterfeit Banksters:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8574970266374349347&hl=en
Here's why the borders are wide open for 50-million criminal aliens. Seems US Dept of Homeland Security and Immigration Customs Enforcement are busy running coke for the CIA. That's 2 jets captured with 9 tons of Uncle Scam's cocaine:
http://www.narconews.com/Issue48/article2941.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1. Inflation plus the fact that penalties, such as the alternative minimum tax are not adjusted for inflation (while there's no suprise that social security payments at the same time are) largely, if not altogether, dismiss this entire point.
This is not exclusive to the dot-com boom. Bottom line, my grandpa was able to raise 5 kids and put a roof over their heads on a grocery store manager's salary in Chicago's south suburbs. Impossible today.
I do agree that demographic changes have occured that have greatly effected the marketplace though. There were a lot more jobs to go around when the only people who were working were anglo males. Funny how I've never heard how the effect that women in the job market has effected your average male's chance of getting a decent job in this country. Of course it's politically incorrect to even mention it, but usually the things that are politically incorrect and offensive to someone are true.
2. This point is nullified for the reasons that I've stated above. Because of inflation, any family with under $50,000/yr today is basically poor (particularly because of the unaffordability of housing today), and by as soon as 2010 nearly 16 million more homes will be impacted by the alternative minimum tax as our incomes increase (at a rate slower than TRUE inflation, of course).
An excerpt from MSN money on the AMT:
Right now, the number of taxpayers who are exposed to this morass is relatively small -- about 1.3 million taxpayers, or about 1% of the total, the GAO says. But by the year 2010 (and probably regardless of the Bush tax cut), the number of taxpayers affected by the AMT will rise to as many as 17 million, or about one in six. The revenue gain for the Treasury: from $5.8 billion a year to $38.2 billion a year.
The reason more of us will be affected by the AMT in 2010 than now is that the AMT, unlike normal tax brackets, isn’t indexed for inflation. If it were indexed, as much of the tax code is, the projected increase would only be to 2.1 million taxpayers.
Among the taxpayers increasingly exposed will be those with large families because of exclusions of such items as child credits.
Source: http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/tax/basics/6647.asp
3. I can't disagree with the fact that the debt average has been manipulated any more than a lot of your figures have been manipulated. Whichever side of the fence someone is on, they are going to cherry pick stats in such a way to make their intended audience believe the sky is falling. Fortunately for me, I lost everything 7 years ago and really learned what it meant to have a good job and to use that time wisely to prepare for a dark future. Not only did I erase all of my debt, but according to your figures, I could pay off around 20 households credit card debt today. I will be using that money to purchase a house for cash money when the housing market bottoms out, which it will.
People who own their house to live there and can manage to keep their jobs will be okay, even if they go upside-down on their mortgage and the house is only worth half of what their loan was for. I feel sorry for those who got into real estate as a means of making a quick buck and didn't dump their properties fast enough.
4 I don't really have an opinion on this point one way or another. That's not to say I don't contemplate it, or wonder why for 5 years I couldn't find a good job, but they are out there. And as China and India keep coming up in the world, their wages get less competetive, considering all of their cultural and linguistic barriers on top of it. Many jobs have actually been brought back on shore from India because the greedy corpo idiots figured out that the money they were saving wasn't worth their customer base hating them because their customer service was only capable of reading a script because at most the customer service people knew 850 words of basic English, or Newspeak, as I prefer to call it. http://ogden.basic-english.org/basiceng.html
5. Well thank you very much Mr. Cor
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer and PirateNews both spat out the very definition of propaganda.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. Anyone who believes that making $49,999/yr makes you poor has no fathomable clue what being poor is.
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
But meanwhile I still don't know if the figures have been adjusted for inflation. 'Cause if not, the article isn't even worth addressing.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Totally agree. That might put you at the lower end of middle class, or dip you into working class, but it ain't 'poor'. Unless you spend your money on 65" plasma TV's, cable, and other such things so that you have no money left for those pesky foodstuffs...
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Wow. Anyone who believes that making $49,999/yr makes you poor has no fathomable clue what being poor is.
Budget Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But assuming that the article isn't citing "funny money" (something of a stretch, since right-wing articles like the Heritage Foundation's often don't adjust for inflation) let's take the article piece by piece.
----------------------
Quote:Okay, far more evenly than what? I charge the writer with bad English because that sentence fell off a cliff. The phrase far more than is usually followed with some sort of benchmark comparison. I'm assuming they mean far more evenly than at the beginning of the dot-com bubble. So, using that assumption, let's move along.
1. The middle class's standard of living stagnated while the dot-com boom made the super rich even richer. Not really. In fact, the U.S. economy hands out wealth far more evenly.
Quote:First of all. nobody is saying that "ALL" of the money has gone to the top 10%, just a disproportionate amount. There is a problem with this paragraph, since it shifts the base of comparison several times, and it does so simply to be able to say 65% and 30%. Makes you think that the rich have gotten poorer doesn't it? But they are just hiding this:
Per capita gross domestic product has increased by more than 65 percent since 1979 -- growth that translates to $26,000 per household. If all that money had gone to the richest 10th of the population, it would now hold more than 60 percent of the national income. That's nearly twice as much as the super rich actually have, according to the best census surveys available.
In 1979, the top 10% had an approximately 26% share of the economy and now it's over 30%. In fact, the ultra rich... the top 1%... has climbed even faster. Their share of the economy used to be about 6% in 1979, now it's over 12%.
www.nber.org/papers/w8467.pdf pp 74, 76.
In fact Income Inequality Hits Record Levels, New CBO Data Show
Quote:
Real after-tax incomes jumped by an average of nearly $180,000 for the top 1 percent of households in 2005, while rising just $400 for middle-income households and $200 for lower-income households, according to new data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
www.cbpp.org/12-14-07inc.htm
Now comes the hemming and hawing...
Quote:Nobody has said that the middle class has "stood still". But in terms of maintaining an equitable percentage across the board, even the article says that the middle class got a third less than that.
To be fair, demographic changes have sparked many misunderstandings about the economic health of the middle class. For example, Americans today are more likely to live in single-adult households than they were 30 years ago. Adjust incomes to take into account this shift, along with increasing employer contributions to retirement savings and to health insurance premiums, and you find that the real middle-class median income has risen 33 percent, or $18,000, since 1979. Of course, that's a third less than the $26,000 that those households would have gotten if the growth had been distributed equally. But the middle class didn't stand still, either.
It's Xmas eve. I have things to do, I'm going to finish this much later. Finn and Geezer, thank you for being such wonderful propagandists.
Have a Merry Christmas for those that celebrate it, Happy Kwanzaa, and general good cheer to all!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That 50k doesn't go so very far when the Gov takes damn near half of it in taxes, then your state and local, and all those extra little taxes on everything down to your utility bills, and then throw on sales and property taxes on top of that...
Then throw in the expenses of mortgage, car payment, utilities, wardrobe upkeep for a job of that level, and heaven help you if you've got kids, not to mention that for all those premiums most health insurance covers virtually nothing with hefty co-pay on top of it and massive deductibles... oh yes, and auto insurance, homeowners, both of which will immediately file against YOU in court using YOUR money to pay the lawyers to beat down your nearly-broke ass if you dare even try to file a claim.
Get with the program serfs, shut up and bend the knee like you're supposed to for your corporate masters...
*SNARK*
Even though I work an unpleasant, "subsistence-level" job, I find it awfully damned ironic that most low to mid level corporate drones, once you adjust for expenses, inflation and taxes, ain't really any better off than me, in spite of the fact that they surrendered a good bit of their personal freedom to climb that ladder, and from what I have seen here in the whole auto industry and satellite economy, mostly wind up working 60-90 hour work weeks on a damned 40 hour "salary" as an employer dodge to avoid paying overtime, and if they DON'T put in the time, are quickly replaced by equally desperate fools with a mortgage to pay... and forget those pensions and benefits, they'll "spin off" a subsidary company, dump the obligations on it, then deliberately mismanage it to throw it into bankruptcy with the stunningly *generous* terms of such (but not for YOU peons, suck it up and deal!) in the corporate world, liquidate it and siphon the remnants back into the main company, conveniently disposing of those pesky obligations...
A medieval serf actually got to keep more of his stuff, and had more freedom than your typical corporate drone, and we act like we've improved upon our lot since the dark ages ?
HA!
About the only thing going for us THESE days is enough general education to realize how screwed we really are if we dare face up to it.
And I won't even "go there" about the increasingly-difficult and soon to be dangerous practice of trying to live outside of the little debt-slave pen they want us in, but Jack understands what the hell I mean by that, at least.
-Frem
(Oh yeah, and as an aside - no, this ISN'T the college debate team, and I don't really give a shit about some set of arbitrary rules dammit, I make common sense, heartfelt arguments from a point blank perspective, and when I offer my opinion you ain't obligated to share it, but for the love o mercy realize the stupidity and futility of trying to force such a set of rules at an anarchist who's offering you a unique viewpoint on a situation even if you do not share it.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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?
Now, if these opening statements were followed by strong numbers and hard facts (yes, I did read all of it)... wait, the writer wouldn't have begun his statements this way if he actually had hard facts, don't you think?
Oh well, after all, it is an opinion piece. It's just not terribly convincing.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BZZZZZZZ, Frem, I resent that 'drone' crack, BZZZZZ-
I work hard, but not for the man, I just love the honey, BZZZZZZZ, I just wish the Queen would let me keep more of it...BZZZZZZ...
Hey! BZZZZZ, big bees in black are taking me away- they say my opinions are detrimental to the hive...
BZZZZZ, my wings are being pulled off by a giant KID!!!!! ARGHHHHHH!!!!!
Bee-that-wasisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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 ... something I think we all could agree in as being borderline-poor for a family of four. (The official poverty level is $25,000 for a family of four.)
2. The middle class is shrinking.
True, fewer people today live in households with incomes between $30,000 and $100,000 (a reasonable definition of "middle class") than in 1979. But the number of people in households that bring in more than $100,000 also rose from 12 percent to 24 percent. There was no increase in the percentage of people in households making less than $30,000. So the entire "decline" of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder. For married couples, median incomes have grown in inflation-adjusted dollars by 25 percent since 1979.
So my first question is whether this definition is in inflation-adjusted dollars. If not, then it's sheer propaganda, since today's $100,000 is more like 1979's $30,000. The actual facts are that the three lowest quintiles.... Q1, Q2, and Q3 (which is the "modal class") have lost ground in terms of the percent GDP since 1967 through 2006, and the bottom two quintiles lost ground in real wages through that same time period, while the "modal class" gained slightly (from $32,000 to $36,000) top two quintiles have zoomed ahead.
www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Income-inequality.html
Quote:This is another one of those shifting bases of comparison. What about non-married heads of household? I guess they don't count because their numbers don't look so good! According to the Census, real household income has declined 5% in the last 5 years.
So the entire "decline" of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder. For married couples, median incomes have grown in inflation-adjusted dollars by 25 percent since 1979.
http://jec.senate.gov/Documents/Reports/08.29.07Income.pdf
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I don't believe you. So- whatever.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Anybody with the ability to read the text I quoted and then read the actual article in the Post can see that I changed nothing.
Too bad that you can't let such a simple exercise get in the way of your preconceptions.
In response to your standard 'What About Inflation?' comment, note that only two of the five Myths and answers are impacted by inflation, and the answer to myth #2 includes "For married couples, median incomes have grown in inflation-adjusted dollars by 25 percent since 1979."
I gotta agree with Finn. "...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."
You just can't stand anything that might make it seem like the world isn't going to hell in a handbasket, and will reflexively attack anything that tends to disagree, even to making up baseless charges about folk changing the facts.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Simply comparing economic statistics from 1979 and today doesn't tell the whole story. Adjusted for inflation I earn about the same today as I did In 1979. The difference in my standard of living has come from the benefits of free trade and technological advancement. Low interest rates and cheap foreign products mean I can own twice as big of home and fill it with big screen TVs and other items that there is no way I could have afforded in 1979. Technology has displaced some manufacturing workers but individual productivity has grown at an incredible rate. The productivity increases in the jobs I have had means that the prices for the products I produce have remained stable or even dropped in some cases since the early 80's. New technology also means that there is less need for skilled workers in the manufacturing sector but more need for educated and none skilled workers in the technology and service sectors. Most of the dissatisfaction of the American people is because of the growing pains associated with the change in the US economy from a labor intensive manufacturing economy to a technology and service based economy.
Just as a side note, the US manufacturing sector alone is still larger than the entire Chinese economy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Okay then, I'll write an article that states that most baby-boomers live on Mars- then it'll obviously be true...
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
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.
Get your ass to Mars Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, Finn... I tried to get a real picture out of the stats, but it's like having five unknowns and three equations... the article keeps shifting the base of comparison so frequently that it's mathematical hash. It's impossible to get ANY sort of coherent view out of it. So I went back to common measures to see what I could see, and I found serious flaws in most.
Here's what I found:
You can look at percentage of GNP in quintiles. The story is that the top two quintiles are taking in a way higher precentage of the GNP than they used to and the top decile is doing spectacularly better, which means that income disparity is increasing (the GINI index tell the same story). But it doesn't describe the quintiles in any objective sense. For example, is the central quintile doing "better than" before? (Which would be the case if the GNP were rising faster than the amount being skimmed off at the top) Or is the central quintile doing "worse than" they used to? (Which would be the case if the GNP were falling, or not rising as fast as the "skim off the top" is rising.)
Or, you could look inflation adjusted household income. You would have to define your "middle class" by income, and then look very carefully to see if your inflation adjustment was in-line with the official inflation rate (Sometimes the official inflation rate isn't truly reflective of increased costs, so you might want to double-check your adjustments with a "basket" of major purchases like housing, cars, electricity costs per KWH, and major appliances like refrigerators etc.) But then you'd have to take into account two competing factors: There are more single heads of household than before, but married couples have two working people instead of one. (Which is why "married couples" have increased their household income 25%. Of course they've also increased their work hours by 70%. That's just some of the "hash" from your article.)
So of all the measures, probably the best is distribution of inflation-adjusted hourly (or yearly) individual income. (Again with the caveat that you'd have to check the official inflation rate against some common sense measures, because they "adjust" the "basket" of goods used to measure CPI fomr time to time. For example, they dropped steak from the basket because it was too expensive.)
I'm willing to look at the numbers in some realistic fashion. But not from some shitty opinion piece written by a guy with an axe to grind, and not through discussion with folks who apparently know nothing about economics or math.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A shrinking middle class often precipitates societal collapse.
Surely if everyone is getting richer it should be the poor and working class that would be shrinking, not the middle class?
Doesn't a shrinking middle class show a widening gap between rich and poor?
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't care what the numbers say, all I know is that as a married man, with 4 kids, and a wife who stays at home, I can't survive on the same dollar amount that my father made, with 4 kids,back in the 70's and 80's. I would need to make at least 40k a year just to break even. That is my reality, and whether the middle class is growing or shrinking means bupkus to me. How does one survive the increasing costs of food, gas, housing, clothing, etc, when wages don't keep up to the increase? Answer me that.
I have 6 locks on my door and bolt every other one. I figure no matter how long somebody stands there picking the locks, they're always locking 3 locks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:By taking any jobs available- even honest ones...
Originally posted by gorramgroupie:
How does one survive the increasing costs of food, gas, housing, clothing, etc, when wages don't keep up to the increase? Answer me that.
Malisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So I guess Finn and Geezer are just going to ignore my post then?
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What, are you nuts ?
Common sense, logic, and rational debate is like garlic, silver and sunlight to that bunch, besides which, even if they did bother to address it, would it really be anything but more of the same with a double heaping of idealogical nastiness of some type as a slam for daring to disagree with their proclaimations, and some snark thrown in on the top like candy sprinkles ?
If you're arguing the point for the benefit of other folks who read RWED and don't post cause of how rough it gets, by all means, go for it...
Otherwise, just accept the futulity of arguing with the brick wall of a zealots faith, and just bait them into revealing their true selves and agendas, which is also more fun, as well.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well that sums up your participation on this board fairly well, if somewhat hypocritically.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Otherwise, just accept the futulity of arguing with the brick wall of a zealots faith, and just bait them into revealing their true selves and agendas, which is also more fun, as well.
And I did read and respond to sixstring's post. I'm not exactly sure what he expects me to say, but I said all I'm going to on it. If for no other reason then that there are plenty of discussion I can have that doesn't involve childish taunting.
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
Hey, like I told Rap... you wanna discuss, we'll discuss... you wanna play mindgames, or just spout off, don't be surprised at the return fire, ehe ?
I gave all the input my knowledge of economics allows on the situation, truthfully it's outta my league, but dude, I can smell BS a mile away and when folks are telling me something rather blatantly at odds with what my own eyes tell me...
Imma call em on it, yanno.
The dude who wrote the piece we're discussin did a piss poor job of making his argument, even *I* can see that, so it was a really bad job of it, I've no position on the argument itself other than taxes and expenses have far outstretched any economic benefits we've seen up here in Detroit, that's for damn sure.
I may snark and mock, but I *WILL* discuss, if discussion is possible and it's likely to accomplish anything - I am sayin do something to prove your point beyond the apalling rubbish that's been offered so far, and do it in a fashion that makes SENSE to someone without a college degree.
Dealer takes one and stands pat, your bet.
Raise/Fold/Call ?
-F
Addendum, Oh come now Finn, I make no secret of not being a very nice person, and none whatever of my agendas, in fact, if I don't think they're getting across, I will go back and clarify!
So it's not like the inherent dishonesty of hiding blind hate behind a mask of reason and logic, like some do.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
So I guess Finn and Geezer are just going to ignore my post then?
Nope. Just limited free time right now.
Quote:
1. Inflation plus the fact that penalties, such as the alternative minimum tax are not adjusted for inflation...largely, if not altogether, dismiss this entire point.
Inflation hits everyone, and the upper limit of "middle-class" (whatever that limit is) moves up as steadily as the lower limit. Incomes which used to be in the 'upper' class now fit firmly in middleclass. Also, after years of dodging the issue, the AMT is now being addressed by Congress. I'd expect indexing to be in place permanently by the end of next year.
Quote:
2. This point is nullified for the reasons that I've stated above. Because of inflation, any family with under $50,000/yr today is basically poor (particularly because of the unaffordability of housing today), and by as soon as 2010 nearly 16 million more homes will be impacted by the alternative minimum tax as our incomes increase (at a rate slower than TRUE inflation, of course).
I provide the same response as above. AMT will be indexed. Congress passed a one year reduction this year, and will get indexing in place soon.
Quote:
3. I can't disagree with the fact that the debt average has been manipulated any more than a lot of your figures have been manipulated....Fortunately for me, I lost everything 7 years ago and really learned what it meant to have a good job and to use that time wisely to prepare for a dark future.
I seem to see a trend in this thread. The folk who have lost a job, or don't make as much as they'd like, or have had other financial trouble, think that the economy is tanking and the middle class shrinking. Folk who have never been out of work, made good money, and always had enough think things are going OK. only natural, I suppose.
Quote:
5. Well thank you very much Mr. Corpo. I'll need that insurance because I've had to go smoke outside in 2 degree winds tonight.
Your choice. And Mr. Corpo does provide health insurance for you, regardless of your behavior, doesn't he?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except me and my SO. We're doing OK financially. We both have good, stable, well-paying jobs (which are near-to-impossible to come by nowadays). My investment in gold and currency baskets has paid off nicely, and I'm looking for the next big wave to ride. (Hint: It isn't real estate. BTW, when comparing investment strategy success, the macroeconomic approach actually works best.) But even WE think the economy is tanking, because we don't confuse our personal situation with overall reality.
seem to see a trend in this thread. The folk who have lost a job, or don't make as much as they'd like, or have had other financial trouble, think that the economy is tanking and the middle class shrinking. Folk who have never been out of work, made good money, and always had enough think things are going OK. only natural, I suppose.
I found an interesting macroeconomic website called the RGE Monitor. Unfortunately it's so pricey that only institutions like banks, universities and investment houses would want to subscribe. And like all websites, you have to take their information with a grain of salt. But you can access the founder's blog for free, and this is what he said as of Dec 25, in brief
Quote:
In recent weeks, the global liquidity and credit crunch that started last August has become more severe. This is easy to show: in the United States, the euro zone, and the United Kingdom, spreads between Libor interest rates (at which banks lend to each other) and central bank interest rates – as well as government bonds – are extremely high and have grown since the crisis began. This signals risk aversion and mistrust of counterparties. ... The recent announcement of coordinated liquidity injections by the Fed and four other major central banks is, to be blunt, too little too late. ...
The US is now headed towards recession regardless of what the Fed does. The build-up of real and financial problems – the worst US housing recession ever, oil at $90 a barrel or above, a severe credit crunch, falling investment by the corporate sector, and savings-less and debt-burdened consumers buffeted by multiple negative shocks – make a recession unavoidable. Other economies will also be pulled down as the US contagion spreads.
... Today’s financial markets are dominated by non-bank institutions – investment banks, money market funds, hedge funds, mortgage lenders that do not accept deposits, so-called “structured investment vehicles,” and even states and local government investment funds – that have no direct or indirect access to the liquidity support of central banks. All these non-bank institutions are now potentially at risk of a liquidity run. Indeed, US legislation strictly forbids the Fed from lending to non-depository institutions, except in emergencies.... So the risk of something equivalent to a bank run for non-bank financial institutions owing to their short-term liabilities and longer-term and illiquid assets, is rising... There is little chance that banks will re-lend to these non-banks the funds they borrowed from central banks, given these banks’ own severe liquidity problems and mistrust of non-bank counterparties.
www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini
Well, this is somewhat more dire than my own prediction, but definitely a head's up for my investment future.
Cheerio.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[B Except me and my SO. We're doing OK financially.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
I think it's interesting that when the American people are polled a large majority say exactly what you say. People who are doing well see others not doing as well and assume things are bad in spite of their own situation. People's personal perceptions are not very useful when looking at the overall economy. If you ask the "poor" about their personal situation they are generally optimistic about their own future but pessimistic about the future of those around them. We tend to see the economy based on our own personal misconceptions and seek statistics to prove ourselves correct.
It also amazes me how people talk about a recession as if it's the end of the world. In many cases a recession is just a sign of the beginning of another economic cycle. Next time the economists call a recession it's time to load up on stocks that do well in the early stages of the cycle.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I...actually agree with you on this, K.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It also amazes me how people talk about a recession as if it's the end of the world. In many cases a recession is just a sign of the beginning of another economic cycle. Next time the economists call a recession it's time to load up on stocks that do well in the early stages of the cycle.
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm well aware that most people see their situation as somehow better than others see it. The vast majority of parents of children in the worst school in the District still think their school is 'alright'. People who live in the least safe neighborhoods often think that the problem is 'really' the next block over. Polls of 'the insured' for the most part (95%+) think their insurance is OK, even if it has a horrible experience rate. Still, I know where our household income and assets are in the quintiles. Believe me when I say we're doing okay. You OTOH are prolly not doing as well as you think, if you think like most people. (And you prolly do.)
I think it's interesting that when the American people are polled a large majority say exactly what you say.
-------------------
You have a couple of bogus assumptions behind your sanguine reaction towards recessions.
1) If you're prepared for a recession.... unemployment, erosion of purchasing power .... and you've protected yourself against asset loss, then you've got nothing to fear. Swing away, and take advantage of the opportunities ahead. It's like Baron Rothschild said: The best time to buy is when there is blood in the streets. But most people are NOT Baron Rothschild. Most people don't have the resources jigger the markets to their advantage. A recession for most people means real pain. And that's what we're talking about, right? Most people. The middle class. Most likely you, and everyone reading this post including me. You have what's known as a "false identity": You really don't know where you are in the pecking order.
2) Secondly, it's stupid to accept cycles of boom and bust as somehow "necessary" for growth. It's not necessary. Growth is growth, and recession is not "negative growth" it's destruction of capital... most often accompanied by a further shift of resources to the wealthy. (Did you know that luxury goods never sold so well as during the Great Depression?)
So I'm glad you're feeling optimistic about the future, but think I know exactly where I am in the pecking order.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Secondly, it's stupid to accept cycles of boom and bust as somehow "necessary" for growth. It's not necessary.
Many of those reading this aren't even old enough to have experienced a deep recession. I agree that recessions aren't "necessary" but our understanding of macroeconomics hasn't reached the level were we can avoid them entirely. Thanks to the work of the great Milton Friedman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman recessions have become less severe in recent years and most recessions would pass unnoticed except for the political posturing.
That "the rich get richer" BS just doesn't fly with me because while the "rich" get richer the "poor" get richer too. As much as I would love to believe we can take money from the "rich" an give it to the "poor" and everything will be just dandy, I know it's not true. Redistribution of wealth by the government will result in a smaller "pie" to divide among the rich and poor and everyone looses in the end.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not always. I think I've made a good case showing that the poor have gotten poorer in the past seven years, not just in a relative sense but also objectively. And AFA redistribution of wealth leading to a smaller "pie" for all, much of the Eurozone has been growing well and they redistribute wealth pretty aggressively. And macroeconomics would explain why that should be the case. But I've spent way too much time on the board, so I'm afraid I'm gonna have to duck out of this discussion and come back to it later.
That "the rich get richer" BS just doesn't fly with me because while the "rich" get richer the "poor" get richer too.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Howz about we just limit government's ability to facilitate the rich TAKING money (Haliburton, Blackwater, anyone?) instead of making money? I'd be okay with that, wouldn't you, Kirk? Jong? Or do you guys really have no clue JUST HOW concentrated the wealth has become in this country?
Originally posted by Kirkules:
As much as I would love to believe we can take money from the "rich" an give it to the "poor" and everything will be just dandy, I know it's not true. Redistribution of wealth by the government will result in a smaller "pie" to divide among the rich and poor and everyone looses in the end.
I could envision a time when peeps here say, "Most homeless get regular meals at the soup kitchens, and have portable 20" flat screen tv's to watch in their cardboard boxes- they're doing fine compared to the poor in the third and fourth worlds!"
A matter of perspective Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Eh, one LAST post!
If government had not specifically meddled in the war between the classes- the owners on the one hand and the employees on the other- we would prolly be seeing huge international labor unions battling it out with huge megacorps. I'm not sure there would be peace. (Watch Harlan County some day.) In some ways, politics is better than the alternative.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good point, Signy...
It has all happened before, and will again Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Howz about we just limit government's ability to facilitate the rich TAKING money (Haliburton, Blackwater, anyone?) instead of making money? I'd be okay with that, wouldn't you, Kirk? Jong? Or do you guys really have no clue JUST HOW concentrated the wealth has become in this country?
The Jong part of the Kirk/Jong unit would like to know JUST HOW concentrated it is. Please enlighten me Chris.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*Frem takes a magic marker and writes on a 2x4 BAILOUTS, S&L CRISIS, SUBSIDIES, NO BID CONTRACTS, and then bashes Jong over the head with it... several times*
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
*Frem takes a magic marker and writes on a 2x4 BAILOUTS, S&L CRISIS, SUBSIDIES, NO BID CONTRACTS, and then bashes Jong over the head with it... several times*
As I wipe the blood away from the cut in my head caused by your terrorist magic marker, I'd ask if you knew that these "things" you cited have been around for decades....under Admins of both parties, through good times & bad. Are they only an indicator of a possible recession NOW because the Dems & their media mouthpieces think it's a good strategy to divide and scare the American people?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jong, us frogs have been sitting in this pot with the water getting hotter for a damned long time under quite a few administrations of either party, it's just that now we're beginning to feel the heat, is all.
For the love o mercy, learn some HISTORY, kid.
-F
*don't forget lead poisoning, since the magic marker was made in china.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:By taking any jobs available- even honest ones...
Originally posted by gorramgroupie:
How does one survive the increasing costs of food, gas, housing, clothing, etc, when wages don't keep up to the increase? Answer me that.
Malisall
Actually, I have a great job, one I enjoy and I make the most I ever had, but even price of living in my neck of the woods make it hard to get by, especially if money is not the best thing you're good at. I guess my point was that point of view is everything. Even Hitler didn't think he was bad(Snerk, couldn't help myself). And chrisisall, if you know of any "under the radar" jobs in Idaho, let me know.
I have 6 locks on my door and bolt every other one. I figure no matter how long somebody stands there picking the locks, they're always locking 3 locks.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
That "the rich get richer" BS just doesn't fly with me because while the "rich" get richer the "poor" get richer too. As much as I would love to believe we can take money from the "rich" an give it to the "poor" and everything will be just dandy, I know it's not true. Redistribution of wealth by the government will result in a smaller "pie" to divide among the rich and poor and everyone looses in the end.
Actually, look what happened in Russia when it became the Soviet Union. Same premise, but the wealth never made it down, it just got rearranged between the leaders of the revolution. And you can't just TAKE it either, that's called theft.
I have 6 locks on my door and bolt every other one. I figure no matter how long somebody stands there picking the locks, they're always locking 3 locks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Howz about we just limit government's ability to facilitate the rich TAKING money (Haliburton, Blackwater, anyone?) instead of making money? I'd be okay with that, wouldn't you, Kirk? Jong? Or do you guys really have no clue JUST HOW concentrated the wealth has become in this country?
I could envision a time when peeps here say, "Most homeless get regular meals at the soup kitchens, and have portable 20" flat screen tv's to watch in their cardboard boxes- they're doing fine compared to the poor in the third and fourth worlds!"
A matter of perspective Chrisisall
I'm with you on eliminating "rich TAKING money" but I think the examples you give are poor ones. We need to start were the real money is, Archer Daniels Midland and Exxon Mobil. The corporate welfare money the Gov. hands out in farm and oil exploration subsidies is obscene.
I'm well aware of the distribution of wealth in this country and world wide. It's been that way long as I can remember. Any suggestions on what to do about it other than take form me and give to you.
I never can figure out who you guys are talking about when you talk about the "poor". The definition changes every few years. Early in my lifetime the "poor" were living in rural areas with not enough to eat and no plumbing, refrigeration, cars, etc. or in slums in the cities. Nobody born in the last 20 years in the US has ever seen a real slum here. I drive through areas that used to be slums and I see new public housing and crack dealers on every other street corner. When I was young the "poor" couldn't afford crack they had to spend every penny on food and housing.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I grew up about as poor as it’s possible to be in this country, and I still had a higher standard of living then probably half of Europe, or at least a third. A lot of people like to throw a lot of crap around about this country, but the fact is that many Americans don’t seem to have any clue how good they’ve got it.
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I never can figure out who you guys are talking about when you talk about the "poor". The definition changes every few years. Early in my lifetime the "poor" were living in rural areas with not enough to eat and no plumbing, refrigeration, cars, etc. or in slums in the cities. Nobody born in the last 20 years in the US has ever seen a real slum here. I drive through areas that used to be slums and I see new public housing and crack dealers on every other street corner. When I was young the "poor" couldn't afford crack they had to spend every penny on food and housing.
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:Like? When did you grow up? What did you have that "half" of Europe didn't have?
I grew up about as poor as it’s possible to be in this country, and I still had a higher standard of living then probably half of Europe, or at least a third.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You apparently don't know history. Before the Revolution of 1917 Russia was a destitute backward nation with an ultra-wealthy nobility... gold toilets, 500-room palaces, the works... and a lot of starving peasants and workers. To see what the USSR did, fast forward eighty years and look at what happened when the USSR became Russia again.
Actually, look what happened in Russia when it became the Soviet Union. Same premise, but the wealth never made it down, it just got rearranged between the leaders of the revolution. And you can't just TAKE it either, that's called theft.
Most people became instantaneously impoverished. A few people became VERY wealthy as former national assets were given to a very few. Life expectancy dropped more than 10 years. Infant mortality zoomed. People started pining for the GOOD OLD DAYS OF COMMUNISM.
You really should read history.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well instead of going into detail about my life, I’ll give you research at the Heritage Foundation which compares the American poor as defined by the Census Bureau to the Average Europe.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Like? When did you grow up? What did you have that "half" of Europe didn't have?
I grew up about as poor as it’s possible to be in this country, and I still had a higher standard of living then probably half of Europe, or at least a third.
The whole article can be found here:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm
For convenience this is the conclusion:
Conclusion
The living conditions of persons defined as poor by the government bear little resemblance to notions of "poverty" promoted by politicians and political activists. If poverty is defined as lacking adequate nutritious food for one's family, a reasonably warm and dry apartment to live in, or a car with which to get to work when one is needed, then there are relatively few poor persons remaining in the United States. Real material hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity.
The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
But the living conditions of the average poor person should not be taken to mean that all poor Americans live without hardship. There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. Roughly a third of poor households do face material hardships such as overcrowding, intermittent food shortages, or difficulty obtaining medical care. However, even these households would be judged to have high living standards in comparison to most other people in the world.
Moreover, the United States can readily reduce its remaining poverty, especially among children. The main causes of child poverty in the United States are low levels of parental work, high numbers of single-parent families, and low skill levels of incoming immigrants. By increasing work and marriage, reducing illegal immigration, and by improving the skill level of future legal immigrants, our nation can, over time, virtually eliminate remaining child poverty.
Incidentally, I was actually poorer then the average poor in the US according to this article. I didn’t have a microwave or two color televisions, in fact we often didn’t have a tv, or a VCR or DVD (but DVDs didn’t exist then either.) We did have medical care and a house in good repair. Most of the time, we ate very well, but usually not fancy, however sometimes we did have to limit lunches to things like mustard sandwiches.
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:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:You apparently don't know history. Before the Revolution of 1917 Russia was a destitute backward nation with an ultra-wealthy nobility... gold toilets, 500-room palaces, the works... and a lot of starving peasants and workers. To see what the USSR did, fast forward eighty years and look at what happened when the USSR became Russia again.
Actually, look what happened in Russia when it became the Soviet Union. Same premise, but the wealth never made it down, it just got rearranged between the leaders of the revolution. And you can't just TAKE it either, that's called theft.
Most people became instantaneously impoverished. A few people became VERY wealthy as former national assets were given to a very few. Life expectancy dropped more than 10 years. Infant mortality zoomed. People started pining for the GOOD OLD DAYS OF COMMUNISM.
You really should read history.
As much as I hate to interrupt your pining for the "GOOD OLD DAYS OF COMMUNISM" , I think you've left a false impression of the success of the Soviet system. Soviet economic growth peaked about 1960 and it was all down hill since then. You seem to suggest that things were all fine and dandy till evil capitalists came along. Sure things have gotten temporarily worst sense the Wall came down but that's because they didn't enact economic reforms fast enough due to entrenched bureaucracy and many other factors to numerous to mention. Things have turned around in Russia in recent years and they expect economic growth of 7% or more this year. I predict that sometime in the near future Russia will be an economic threat to the US again for the first time since the 1950's.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:* Under Putin.
Things have turned around in Russia in recent years* and they expect economic growth of 7% or more this year. I predict that sometime in the near future Russia will be an economic threat to the US again for the first time since the 1950's.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I read the article. When it compares American poor to the average European, it uses only one measure: square feet of housing. Nothing about health care, education, food security, transportation, etc etc. I find that misleading.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242
As we saw in the preceding section, for example, 40 per cent of all Swedish* households would rank among low-income households in the USA, and an even greater number in the poorer European countries would be classed as low income earnings by the American definition.
*Sweden is one of the richest nations in Europe.
http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf
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
Finn- I found some weird figures in the article. But I'll have to get to that tomorrow.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In the immortal words of Nomad, I must re-eval-uate...
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita.
Open to being corrected Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Don't strain yourself, signym. I actually expect you to dismiss everything here outright. But there are others on this board whom I think would like to see something of what I have seen first hand, in my many trips to Europe. I thought I knew what poverty was, having lived it in the US, but the first day you get off the train in Naples, Italy will redefine any honest person's assessment of what being poor in the US means. And while Italy is not the wealthiest European nation, it is also not the poorest. Compared to the average person in a poor European country, like Poland or Rumania, I grew up filthy rich.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- I found some weird figures in the article. But I'll have to get to that tomorrow.
I'm not saying anyone has to change their political or economic sympathies, I just want you to appreciate how lucky you are to be an American. I think you owe it to those who are not as lucky as you, to at least be grateful for what you have.
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:Well, I'm grateful, as I believe most here are...it's just that we could be doing better if not for the greedy peeps in power, but I suspect this has always been the case in most societies. I love that we have as much freedom as we do to even talk openly about this, and I appreciate your POV on this, Finn, we need all views on things to have a balanced discussion, else we'd be all "Nothing's wrong with our government/Everything's wrong with our government", and that'd be just boring, not to mention inaccurate.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I'm not saying anyone has to change their political or economic sympathies, I just want you to appreciate how lucky you are to be an American. I think you owe it to those who are not as lucky as you, to at least be grateful for what you have.
Appreciative Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why? I went through the first opinion piece pretty carefully... carefully enough to realize that their numbers didn't square up because they were changing the base of comparison each time they quoted a figure.
I actually expect you to dismiss everything here outright.
I do intend to go thru the paper, but the factor I intend to look at rather closely is the fallacy of the average. For example: You have ten baseball players sitting on a bench. Nine make $10,000 a year and the tenth makes $5 million. The average salary is $500,000, but that's a misleading figure. The USA has a very uneven distribution of wealth- far more than Europe. It's possible for the USA to have a high average, while still having most of the population here living below the typical standard of living elsewhere. Not saying that it's true, just that it's possible.
BTW- I know a lot of people that our society wouldn't even call "poor'. They rent. They live in really dangerous neighborhoods and send their kids to dangerous, crappy schools. And their biggest headache is reliable transportation, because they drive old beaters that're constantly breaking down and making them late for work, and their kids really do miss out on things like eyeglasses. Maybe things are so much worse because housing expenses in LA are so high, and maybe the high illegal immigrant population is driving down wages but... these are married couples where both work. I'm having a hard time matching that up with the description of the "typical" poor person who owns a house. From my experience it just don't make no sense.
FYI- My SO grew up in Hungary just after WWII. He likes to recall that there were just a few working trucks and most of the bridges had been destroyed. He told me about the old stone buildings in Budapest... listening to 50-caliber rounds walking across the walls in 1956. They're very protective, those old buildings. But they're a bitch to retrofit, because there's no place to put in AC after the fact.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, as a quick comment on wealth distribution: The bottom half of people in the USA divide about 3% of the total wealth between them, while in Ireland, Sweden, Norway etc they share about 12%. Even if the European average per capita GDP is lower than the USA's by about 35%, MOST of the European population 's wealth is greater than MOST American's wealth by a factor of two.
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.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.) Unfortunately for your argument, there are many, many more people in the country who either are currently going through employment/health/divorce/debt issues which make the overall situation look a whole lot more grim, or they have certainly felt the pinch in the past. So I guess it comes down to which opinion is more valid.... that of the blessed upper-middle class who have a long way to go down before they could be considered poor, and also have the option at any time to have one parent live at home to raise the children, or the majority lower-middle class/poor/and poverty striken people who inflation really effects?
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. The pain of runaway inflation is only felt by those who are on the lower end of the spectrum... the guys who make so little they actually have to make a choice between smoking and eating, or eating and driving to work. Fuck you if you can't afford a new engine for your yacht.
Inflation is much more than the 3 or so percent has been reported this year. $2.00 for frozen concentrate, $1.89 for a dozen eggs and $ 3.69 for a gallon of off brand skim milk when 2 years ago it was $1.29, $1.19, and $2.29 respectevely, not to mention the price at the pump, make any inflation statistic you've heard in the mainstream media a blatent lie. Just those 3 products alone do that.
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, but there are a lot of politicos who were banking on that extra cash coming in within the next 5 to 10 years to infinity and now they're just going to come up with other wonderful schemes like taxing my cigarettes even more to fund midget resizing to make up the difference.
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?
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...
Don't you think it's amazing that all this anti-smoke legislation and smoking taxes have been passed on all government levels when Repubs had all three seats? I just can't imagine how much worse that will get when the Dems have all three seats a year from now.
BTW... corpo is not paying for my insurance. I'm getting paid less to fund increased health insurance premiums. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy come through with the numbers...
Open to confirmation Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
...and Six brings it home on a personal level....
In the air Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What I saw was you dismissing it as propaganda. 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.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Why? I went through the first opinion piece pretty carefully... carefully enough to realize that their numbers didn't square up because they were changing the base of comparison each time they quoted a figure.
I actually expect you to dismiss everything here outright.
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. 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.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, as a quick comment on wealth distribution: The bottom half of people in the USA divide about 3% of the total wealth between them, while in Ireland, Sweden, Norway etc they share about 12%. Even if the European average per capita GDP is lower than the USA's by about 35%, MOST of the European population 's wealth is greater than MOST American's wealth by a factor of two.
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:Whoah (to use a Keanu phrase), that's a jump, why not just call her a Commie? To have our gov't look out for our best interests (including our health as a population) just keeps us going as consumers and tax-payers, right?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s not a secret that you’re an ardent and diehard proponent of the welfare state.
Economy-driven Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because I don’t think Signym is a communist.
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Whoah (to use a Keanu phrase), that's a jump, why not just call her a Commie?
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s not a secret that you’re an ardent and diehard proponent of the welfare state.
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:But she hates America...*just bein' snarky*
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Because I don’t think Signym is a communist.
Maoisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You do not take into account the influence of legal drugs....
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.)
What I saw was you dismissing it as propaganda.
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: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.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Most of the GDP numbers date from between 2000 and 2004. The article, itself, was published in 2004.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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?
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
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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.
You were talking about wealth distribution compared to GDP: "The bottom half of people in the USA divide about 3% of the total wealth between them, while in Ireland, Sweden, Norway etc they share about 12%.", but I think that Income is a more valid correlation.
Nationmaster is pretty useful, isn't it?
WHAT!?! You don't think that RWED is productive??
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A few notes since Sweden is somewhere I know about.
1) Most urban Swedes dont own cars, in part because public transport is good in part because the government makes it very hard to get licences (for safety and congestion purposes.) The Swedish driving test has 3 manitory parts, a theoretical, a practical and a "slippy test" which is conducted on a rig that can simulate a car skiding. Since the slippy rigs are in short supply it's not uncomon to have to wait several months to attempt that part of the test. Very few people actually pass the test first time. You REALLY have to want a licence to dedicate the time and money needed to get it.
Consequently if "middleclassness" assumes the ownership of a car, then there are problems.
2) Swedish municiple taxes are calculated in part on the square meterage of your property (minus some areas that you get for free like corridors, kitchens and bathrooms. Because the state of the property does not enter into the floorspace calculation a rundown loft or a palacial mansion can pull in the same taxes. Since people dont like paying taxes they tend to live in the smallest homes they can get away with. My own house had the following characteristics.
1) Large kitchen
2) Large bathroom
3) very wide corridors (people tend to use "free" corridor space for other things, I used the hallway as an office.)
So if "middleclassness" assumes large houses then you wont find them in Sweden. Oh but most Urban Swedes also maintain a summer house -- a cottage somewhere in the country many of which get quite large --- ironically these seasonal holiday houses are not taxed if they are not used all year, so it's fairly normal that the summer house is far bigger than the primary home.
3) Swedes have a concept called Lagom, which means "enough" is an important cultural idea. There isnt really conspicuous consumption for example people wont have a TV in a room where it would rarely be used even if it was dirt cheap to buy. If total number of TV's or none essential discresionary spending is an example of "middleclassness" then you might find that missing in Sweden.
It is in short very different. When we moved to the US we went to Target to get towels for our new second (but mostly unused) bathroom. There was no shop like Target in Stockholm and nothing that sold things quite that cheaply. On the other hand the Target towels quickly became threadbear and were replaced while our more expensive Swedish bought towels are still going strong. A Swede won't buy things just because they are cheap, all the textiles and soft furnishings we brought with us are still going strong. A Swede may not have as many TV's or towels or cars but the ones he does have are generally better quality. If you look just at the amount of stuff and not at what it is then you can be missled.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
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?
I want one or the other Geeze....
Either pay for my lung cancer treatments, or stop taxing the shit out of my cigarettes and let me worry about that on my own dime.
I don't think you'd disagree with that sentiment, would you?
BTW.... glad you didn't take offence to my last post. The "Fuck you if you can't afford a new engine for your yacht" remark wasn't directed towards you, but anyone who whines about the cost of a yacht engine increasing because of inflation.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
BTW.... glad you didn't take offence to my last post. The "Fuck you if you can't afford a new engine for your yacht" remark wasn't directed towards you, but anyone who whines about the cost of a yacht engine increasing because of inflation.
Not a problem. Besides, my yacht doesn't have an engine, just illegal immigrants chained to the oars.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think I'm a misplaced Swede. If I had my 'druthers, we'd have a lot less "stuff" in this house.
Swedes have a concept called Lagom, which means "enough" is an important cultural idea.
Many years ago, when I was young.... We were in the process of moving. My SO was already in our new location, and I stayed back to sell the house. Since we didn't want to move a lot of crap, we decided to sell everything: our trials bikes, what little furniture (mostly second-hand) we'd accumulated... and ship only the necessities (which I had boxed up). My SO took the car since I was within walking distance of work. I had a safe place to sleep, a cool job, lots of friends in my research group, a sleeping bag, a pot, a dish, a mug, a knife, a spoon, a fork, a working kitchen and bathroom, and my clothes. And I had the best time of my life.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Not a problem. Besides, my yacht doesn't have an engine, just illegal immigrants chained to the oars.
If you let me smoke on that job, it may just move up from "job American's don't want" to "freedom is slavery.... sweet smokey slavery".
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finally, to the article that Finn linked.
Quote:www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf
The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.
First, an introduction to Timbro. Timbro is a Swedish think-tank, but it’s not socialist as one might think. According to Timbro’s own website, they are "devoted to…. free market principles" www.timbro.se/EnglishDefault.aspx Timbro seems approximately equivalent to the Heritage Foundation. Timbro’s report begins with this
Quote:The intro makes two points: one is about the value of real percapita GDP, and the other is about GDP growth rates. Are both of these points true, and if so what does it mean?
America’s GDP is far higher than Europe’s and has been so for a long time now, and the American economy has been growing faster than the economies of many European countries in recent decades, not least those of countries like France, Germany and Sweden.
According to the latest figures, the EU is significantly behind the USA in per capita GDP: 10 of 15 EU nations cluster between 29,000 and 32,000, while the same proportion of USA states falls between 34,400 to 43,200. So on the face of it, this point is TRUE. However, as we’ve discussed before, this does not necessarily translate to typical living standards. Since income distribution is far more even in the EU, most people in the EU get more of their GDP than most people in the USA. http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2005/12/eu-vs-usa-two-years-
of-economic-data.html In addition, since a large proportion of USA budget goes to the military, more EU GDP goes into direct services like education, health care and transportation. So comparing ‘living standards’ based on per capita GDP is a dicey proposition. Aside from using per capita GDP as a rough estimate of living standards, is there any other possible signifince to this figure? In other words, does this article claim that per capita GDP affects productivity or some other economic measure? I'll have to finish reading to find out.
It would be more indicative if the EU growth rate or productivity rate were falling behind, because that is a portent of the future. And looking at GDP year-to-year growth, the USA growth rate is indeed higher than the EU (but not higher than Sweden, BTW) www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____75432.asp. But this leaves out one important factor: population growth. One should expect to see an economy growing along with the population. Since USA population growth is about 0.9% while EU population growth rates are -0.1 to +0.4%, adjusting GDP growth for population growth brings the EU to parity with the USA. According to this website
Quote:www.taurillon.org/Europe-vs-USA-Whose-Economy-Wins
Expressed on a per capita basis, GDP growth rates in the US and the EU are virtually the same over the past decade. The same is true of labour productivity growth.
And speaking of productivity.... lunch is over. Back to work.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow, thanks for that VERY (to me anyway) informative post Fletch!!!!
Originally posted by Fletch2:
A few notes since Sweden is somewhere I know about.
1) Most urban Swedes dont own cars, in part because public transport is good in part because the government makes it very hard to get licences (for safety and congestion purposes.) The Swedish driving test has 3 manitory parts, a theoretical, a practical and a "slippy test" which is conducted on a rig that can simulate a car skiding. Since the slippy rigs are in short supply it's not uncomon to have to wait several months to attempt that part of the test. Very few people actually pass the test first time. You REALLY have to want a licence to dedicate the time and money needed to get it.
Consequently if "middleclassness" assumes the ownership of a car, then there are problems.
2) Swedish municiple taxes are calculated in part on the square meterage of your property (minus some areas that you get for free like corridors, kitchens and bathrooms. Because the state of the property does not enter into the floorspace calculation a rundown loft or a palacial mansion can pull in the same taxes. Since people dont like paying taxes they tend to live in the smallest homes they can get away with. My own house had the following characteristics.
1) Large kitchen
2) Large bathroom
3) very wide corridors (people tend to use "free" corridor space for other things, I used the hallway as an office.)
So if "middleclassness" assumes large houses then you wont find them in Sweden. Oh but most Urban Swedes also maintain a summer house -- a cottage somewhere in the country many of which get quite large --- ironically these seasonal holiday houses are not taxed if they are not used all year, so it's fairly normal that the summer house is far bigger than the primary home.
3) Swedes have a concept called Lagom, which means "enough" is an important cultural idea. There isnt really conspicuous consumption for example people wont have a TV in a room where it would rarely be used even if it was dirt cheap to buy. If total number of TV's or none essential discresionary spending is an example of "middleclassness" then you might find that missing in Sweden.
It is in short very different. When we moved to the US we went to Target to get towels for our new second (but mostly unused) bathroom. There was no shop like Target in Stockholm and nothing that sold things quite that cheaply. On the other hand the Target towels quickly became threadbear and were replaced while our more expensive Swedish bought towels are still going strong. A Swede won't buy things just because they are cheap, all the textiles and soft furnishings we brought with us are still going strong. A Swede may not have as many TV's or towels or cars but the ones he does have are generally better quality. If you look just at the amount of stuff and not at what it is then you can be missled.
Part Swede actually Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, just letting you know I'm getting to that article.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meanwhile, Bush says Markets 'strong' despite slowing economy. President is upbeat about the economy after meeting with financial advisors. You know you're in trouble when the President has to be a cheerleader for the economy.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME