3 ms·

Your video argues that it's complicated to measure the growth of the middle class. But the best number shown is 23% growth over 31 years, 1979-2010. I think tha

by allenz 8y ago

Your video argues that it's complicated to measure the growth of the middle class. But the best number shown is 23% growth over 31 years, 1979-2010. I think that qualifies as lack of growth. For reference, the GDP grew 230% in those years. A followup video argues that lower household income is due to smaller households, but fails to mention that individual income also trends down.[1] Though your video appears neutral, it is presented by a libertarian and the key 23% statistic comes from a conservative economist. The argument that we shouldn't trust numbers is misleading when there is well-documented evidence across a range of measures that growth is concentrating in the upper class.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time,_by_ethnicity_and_sex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite...

icc97 8y ago
> But the best number shown is 23% growth over 31 years, 1979-2010. I think that qualifies as lack of growth. For reference, the GDP grew 230% in those years. The video states this too near the end - that 23% over 31 years can also be seen as not much. I think the main argument is that using the CPI-U or the PCE changes things significantly (from -7% to +23%). There's so many variables in any economic analysis that it's hard to trust any figure that someone shows you.
- allenz 8y ago
  That looks like a big difference if you take the numbers out of context. But consider how much the economy has changed since the 70s: there has been a doubling of output through revolutions in technology, finance, energy, medicine, everything. Equitable growth would be 100% growth over that period. True, there is a margin of error between different methodologies. CPI shows about half a percent more inflation per year than PCE. Similar arguments apply to measurements of climate change. They miss the forest for the trees.
allenz 8y ago
Correction: the GDP grew 130%, not 230%.

by allenz 8y ago

icc97 8y ago

> But the best number shown is 23% growth over 31 years, 1979-2010. I think that qualifies as lack of growth. For reference, the GDP grew 230% in those years. The video states this too near the end - that 23% over 31 years can also be seen as not much. I think the main argument is that using the CPI-U or the PCE changes things significantly (from -7% to +23%). There's so many variables in any economic analysis that it's hard to trust any figure that someone shows you.

allenz 8y ago
That looks like a big difference if you take the numbers out of context. But consider how much the economy has changed since the 70s: there has been a doubling of output through revolutions in technology, finance, energy, medicine, everything. Equitable growth would be 100% growth over that period. True, there is a margin of error between different methodologies. CPI shows about half a percent more inflation per year than PCE. Similar arguments apply to measurements of climate change. They miss the forest for the trees.

allenz 8y ago

Correction: the GDP grew 130%, not 230%.