4 ms·

Real income for even the top 5% has been flat since 2000: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/census/household-incomes-growth-real-annotated.gif h

Real income for even the top 5% has been flat since 2000: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/census/household-incomes-growth-real-annotated.gif http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/census/hous... Yes, the upper middle class hasn't been hit as hard as the middle and the lower classes (particularly in social ills like illegitimacy, which has gone critical among lower and middle class whites, in particular) but it's idiotic to say that the upper middle is thriving. College costs, medical costs and housing costs are all skyrocketing, the children of the upper middle class are entering an economically uncertain world where what were previously solid paths to financial security are suddenly precarious and intensely competitive. And, believe it or not, some of us upper middle class folks actually care if the rest of America is doing well, and don't feel like we are thriving when we are watching reasonable, hard working middle and lower class folks sink into poverty due to our feckless leaders.

dang 10y ago
It's good to bring up other sources, but not good to start off with "bullshit" and finish with "some of us [...] actually give a shit", as if others don't. That is rage rhetoric, and we don't want it in HN comments. Even if what you say is all true, the effect of the truth is drowned out by that of the rage, which is infectious. Here's a summary of what we do want, written by the founder of this community: Comment[s] should be written in the spirit of colleagues cooperating in good faith to figure out the truth about something, not politicians trying to ridicule and misrepresent the other side. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7445761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7445761 I've always found that to be an excellent way of putting it, and it's on the short list for additions to the HN guidelines.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
That's not contradictory at all. The report says that the number of people making more than twice the median income has increased, not that those in the upper middle class are doing better.
- nickbauman 10y ago
  So... is it a bad article title?
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    Looks like dang fixed it, "thriving" to "growing"
- dang 10y ago
  Ok, we'll s/thriv/grow/ the title to nudge it towards accuracy.
whamlastxmas 10y ago
Would be nice if these articles (the TFA) linked their sources. I am sure I could Google and find it but too much effort. I am so tired of misleading, wrong, and clickbait news. I have almost stopped nearly all news consumption because of it. I still come to HN and it helps filter a lot of it, but you still see it sometimes like here.
jacobolus 10y ago
Your “flat since 2000” (speaking of top 5% incomes) looks to me like a massive bubble from 1992–2000, then a dip after the dot com bust / aftermath of the asian financial crisis / repeated interest rate hikes (/ maybe september 11?), followed by recovery from 2003–2006, another sharp decline from 2006–2010 caused by the worst recession in 70 years, and then growth again from 2010–present. The top 5% now has just about as high an income as they’ve ever had (incomes almost doubled since 1980!), despite some rocky times for the country. By contrast, the bottom 3 quintiles are all right where they were in 1988, and ~{0%, 5%, 15%} above 1980 levels, respectively. Using the peak of the 2000 bubble as your baseline causes some dramatic distortion. If you used a 5 year moving average to smooth out some of the natural cycles, you’d get a better idea. And note: this chart is showing income, not wealth, which is where disparities have really started to pile up.
- jazzyk 10y ago
  The 2010-present "growth" (under 2%) has been bankrolled by a massive increase in debt, rising rapidly from 2010. The chart below [1] shows the national debt of the US, but the overall debt of the population is just as depressing. (Yes, credit card/mortgage debt is down from 2010, but college and auto loan debt have skyrocketed) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

dang 10y ago

It's good to bring up other sources, but not good to start off with "bullshit" and finish with "some of us [...] actually give a shit", as if others don't. That is rage rhetoric, and we don't want it in HN comments. Even if what you say is all true, the effect of the truth is drowned out by that of the rage, which is infectious. Here's a summary of what we do want, written by the founder of this community: Comment[s] should be written in the spirit of colleagues cooperating in good faith to figure out the truth about something, not politicians trying to ridicule and misrepresent the other side. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7445761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7445761 I've always found that to be an excellent way of putting it, and it's on the short list for additions to the HN guidelines.

bryanlarsen 10y ago

That's not contradictory at all. The report says that the number of people making more than twice the median income has increased, not that those in the upper middle class are doing better.

nickbauman 10y ago
So... is it a bad article title?
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  Looks like dang fixed it, "thriving" to "growing"
dang 10y ago
Ok, we'll s/thriv/grow/ the title to nudge it towards accuracy.

whamlastxmas 10y ago

Would be nice if these articles (the TFA) linked their sources. I am sure I could Google and find it but too much effort. I am so tired of misleading, wrong, and clickbait news. I have almost stopped nearly all news consumption because of it. I still come to HN and it helps filter a lot of it, but you still see it sometimes like here.

jacobolus 10y ago

Your “flat since 2000” (speaking of top 5% incomes) looks to me like a massive bubble from 1992–2000, then a dip after the dot com bust / aftermath of the asian financial crisis / repeated interest rate hikes (/ maybe september 11?), followed by recovery from 2003–2006, another sharp decline from 2006–2010 caused by the worst recession in 70 years, and then growth again from 2010–present. The top 5% now has just about as high an income as they’ve ever had (incomes almost doubled since 1980!), despite some rocky times for the country. By contrast, the bottom 3 quintiles are all right where they were in 1988, and ~{0%, 5%, 15%} above 1980 levels, respectively. Using the peak of the 2000 bubble as your baseline causes some dramatic distortion. If you used a 5 year moving average to smooth out some of the natural cycles, you’d get a better idea. And note: this chart is showing income, not wealth, which is where disparities have really started to pile up.

jazzyk 10y ago
The 2010-present "growth" (under 2%) has been bankrolled by a massive increase in debt, rising rapidly from 2010. The chart below [1] shows the national debt of the US, but the overall debt of the population is just as depressing. (Yes, credit card/mortgage debt is down from 2010, but college and auto loan debt have skyrocketed) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]