4 ms·

I found the following graph from the same pew research pretty interesting. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2016/05/ST_2016.05.12_middle-class-geo-ch1-02.p

by npalli 10y ago

I found the following graph from the same pew research pretty interesting. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2016/05/ST_2016.05.12_middle-class-geo-ch1-02.png http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2016/05/ST_2016.05.12_m... Essentially, the middle class shrank from 55% of the population in 2000 to 51% of the population in 2014. However, the upper class absorbed 3% (3/4th) of the shrinking middle class growing from 17% to 20% of the population, while the lower class absorbed only 1% (1/4th) of the shrinking middle class. Having said that, you will not hear that 3/4th of the middle have disappeared and become upper class, you will only hear 4% of middle class has disappeared subtly implying everyone has become lower class.

astazangasta 10y ago
Take this with a grain of salt. The definition of "middle income" is flexible. For example, in the Pew analysis "middle income" is defined as between $45,115-$135,346 in 2013-2014 dollars for the year 2000, but as between $41,641-$124,924 for the year 2014. Given this difference it's unsurprising the Pew analysis finds the upper class grew, but since the definition shifts we should be suspicious of the meaning of this statistic.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The definition of "middle income" is flexible. The definition used is consistent: an household income of 2/3 to double to the national median income. The range shifts because the median income (even in inflation-adjusted terms dollars) shifts over time. Aside from the complaints I've made about conflation of class and income elsewhere in this thread, the Pew definition is a reasonable and consistent way of defining a middle income tier over time, in a way which makes sense to talk about changes in size of that tier as an indicator of polarization of the income distribution, and which is a bit more intuitively understandable than some other distributional measures that relate to the same broad distributional concepts (e.g., the Gini coefficient of income.)
  - astazangasta 10y ago
    Do you think this is intended to summarize the shift in median income (generally downward since 1997)? If so, why not just discuss that? If not, the effects of that shift are surely confounding whatever it is they ARE trying to summarize (some nebulous quantity called "the middle class").
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Do you think this is intended to summarize the shift in median income (generally downward since 1997)? No, its intended to discuss the move of the income distribution to be less-tightly clustered around the median with more at the extremes (the particular release the NYT article is about talks about the by-metro-area effects of this, but the broader trend is succinctly illustrated in this graphic [0] from the December 2015 national-level report which preceded the metro-area-level one the article is based on.) [0] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/st_2015-12-09_middle-class-03/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middl...
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- refurb 10y ago
  Why would it be unsurprising? The upper class income range went up, so it's actually even more surprising that of the 3% that went from the middle to the upper class they had a higher bar to reach.
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    It went down: $135K in 2000 => $124K in 2014.
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      ... which leads me to think there's a general growth-lacking/deflationary process at work. And this is due to bad monetary policy.
      - nostrademons 10y ago
        Not necessarily. According to a sibling commenter, upper end of the range is set at double the median income. If it's dropping, it indicates that the inflation-adjusted median income is dropping. One explanation for that is a contracting economy, but another one is simply that income is becoming more concentrated in the upper end of the distribution. Shift a large number of dollars from the bottom half of the income distribution to the upper half and the mean will stay the same, but the median will fall. Given the other findings in this infographic and general zeitgeist around income statistics, I think the latter explanation is a lot more likely.
        ArkyBeagle 10y ago
        Effectively, we have two economies - the two modes ( really, complete Pareto distributions ) that seem to have come unmoored to each other. The "upper" mode is much more ephemeral and paper-based than is the "lower" mode. It's a frothy stew of bubbly paper goodness. But it's effect on the "lower" mode is not as we would like it to be. So we treat the "lower" mode as its own ( not quite independent but not fully coupled ) distribution, raise inflation and wait. And although the "upper" mode does have real effects, it being more fictional than the "lower" mode means it's much more volatile and less ... real.

by npalli 10y ago

astazangasta 10y ago

Take this with a grain of salt. The definition of "middle income" is flexible. For example, in the Pew analysis "middle income" is defined as between $45,115-$135,346 in 2013-2014 dollars for the year 2000, but as between $41,641-$124,924 for the year 2014. Given this difference it's unsurprising the Pew analysis finds the upper class grew, but since the definition shifts we should be suspicious of the meaning of this statistic.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The definition of "middle income" is flexible. The definition used is consistent: an household income of 2/3 to double to the national median income. The range shifts because the median income (even in inflation-adjusted terms dollars) shifts over time. Aside from the complaints I've made about conflation of class and income elsewhere in this thread, the Pew definition is a reasonable and consistent way of defining a middle income tier over time, in a way which makes sense to talk about changes in size of that tier as an indicator of polarization of the income distribution, and which is a bit more intuitively understandable than some other distributional measures that relate to the same broad distributional concepts (e.g., the Gini coefficient of income.)
- astazangasta 10y ago
  Do you think this is intended to summarize the shift in median income (generally downward since 1997)? If so, why not just discuss that? If not, the effects of that shift are surely confounding whatever it is they ARE trying to summarize (some nebulous quantity called "the middle class").
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Do you think this is intended to summarize the shift in median income (generally downward since 1997)? No, its intended to discuss the move of the income distribution to be less-tightly clustered around the median with more at the extremes (the particular release the NYT article is about talks about the by-metro-area effects of this, but the broader trend is succinctly illustrated in this graphic [0] from the December 2015 national-level report which preceded the metro-area-level one the article is based on.) [0] http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/st_2015-12-09_middle-class-03/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middl...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
refurb 10y ago
Why would it be unsurprising? The upper class income range went up, so it's actually even more surprising that of the 3% that went from the middle to the upper class they had a higher bar to reach.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  It went down: $135K in 2000 => $124K in 2014.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    ... which leads me to think there's a general growth-lacking/deflationary process at work. And this is due to bad monetary policy.
    - nostrademons 10y ago
      Not necessarily. According to a sibling commenter, upper end of the range is set at double the median income. If it's dropping, it indicates that the inflation-adjusted median income is dropping. One explanation for that is a contracting economy, but another one is simply that income is becoming more concentrated in the upper end of the distribution. Shift a large number of dollars from the bottom half of the income distribution to the upper half and the mean will stay the same, but the median will fall. Given the other findings in this infographic and general zeitgeist around income statistics, I think the latter explanation is a lot more likely.
      - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
        Effectively, we have two economies - the two modes ( really, complete Pareto distributions ) that seem to have come unmoored to each other. The "upper" mode is much more ephemeral and paper-based than is the "lower" mode. It's a frothy stew of bubbly paper goodness. But it's effect on the "lower" mode is not as we would like it to be. So we treat the "lower" mode as its own ( not quite independent but not fully coupled ) distribution, raise inflation and wait. And although the "upper" mode does have real effects, it being more fictional than the "lower" mode means it's much more volatile and less ... real.