>>I'm always annoyed at the invocation of the logical fallacy that the source of an argument renders it inadmissible. Not only is it a fallacy, but it's typical

>>I'm always annoyed at the invocation of the logical fallacy that the source of an argument renders it inadmissible. Not only is it a fallacy, but it's typically (but not in your case, especially since you're offering a specific criticism!) invoked by someone simply assuming that their own source is sacrosanct. I didn't say it is inadmissible. I simply pointed out that it is significantly biased as a source, and proved it by pointing out the author's willful omission of important information and misrepresentation of facts. Another issue with the AIE article is that defining the middle class purely by income is fallacious. Paul Krugman explained this wonderfully [1]. He makes the point that being middle class is really about two things: security and opportunity. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21841-paul-krugman-redefining-the-middle-class http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21841-paul-krugman-red... So a $60,000 family with good health insurance, high labor mobility and job security can be middle class, whereas a $90,000 family with no health insurance and terrible job security may not be. Economist Miles Corak also elaborated on the opportunity aspect: http://milescorak.com/2013/06/18/income-inequality-equality-of-opportunity-and-intergenerational-mobility/ http://milescorak.com/2013/06/18/income-inequality-equality-...