3 ms·

Roughly 40% of households have an income between 35k and 100k. This makes your statement that "there is hardly a middle class" absurdly wrong.

unethical_ban 8y ago
In a given area, someone making 35k and someone making 100k have very different options at their disposal.
zjaffee 8y ago
The broader point I'm getting at is that the middle class historically didn't struggle in the way they do now. They used to be able to afford homes, vacations, college, and now that is only available to the upper middle class.
- phreeza 8y ago
  Important to note that 'historically' here probably refers to the 4 or 5 decades following the second world war, which may well turn out to have been a historical anomaly in the grand scheme of things.
- surfmike 8y ago
  Agreed that homes and college are getting insanely expensive. But as a counterpoint, a higher % of the population own homes and go to college than in decades past (though certainly accruing higher debt than was needed before).
- 5DFractalTetris 8y ago
  Simply untrue. Do not change the definition of middle class. A single-wide prefab of real lumber for a family of three costs a year of wage or two for a high school graduate. Resourceful individuals can develop land cooperatives. Vacations and college aren't strictly necessary for many, nor particularly unattainable. A road trip anywhere in the USA or continental Europe is nearly free, and a four-year degree at a State U in eight years will barely touch the discretionary income of the sort of individual who has decided to pursue that objective. The idea of a "middle-class struggle" is confused with changing standards and lifestyles of the middle class. Certainly the regular use of jet airplanes, hotel accommodations, and full-service dining may be out of reach for some, but an urban-agrarian lifestyle with the use of a motorcar and modern conveniences such as electricity and indoor plumbing is cheaper and more accessible than ever.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    While I agree with you, people compare themselves to their neighbors not their ancestors so in that sense the goal posts have moved. The bar for "middle" class is higher than it used to be.
- the_gastropod 8y ago
  Homes today are roughly twice the size they were in the 1970s [1]. Despite that, home ownership rates are higher than they were in the '70s [2]. More people today have college educations in the U.S. than any time in U.S. history [3]. I'm not fond of the rhetoric about the poor middle class. There are issues we need to solve w/r/t poor economic mobility. We should be focusing our attention more on solving those problems, and less on complaining about things that aren't true. [1] http://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-the-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/ http://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-squ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_States#Historical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_S... [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attai...
  - dnomad 8y ago
    The economy is a "forward-oriented enterprise." What matters is not so much where we are but where we are going. To that end it's important to understand that homeownership rates are falling fast [1], birth rate is falling [2] and "80s babies" (ie the Millenials) are much, much poorer than their parents were in their 20s and 30s. If you're an investor (and everybody's an investor whether they like it or not) the question you should be asking is what things will be like in ten years. That said the article (like pretty much all economics that comes out of The Atlantic) is pretty silly. The dire condition of the American middle class is completely the fault of the US government. In the last 30 years (while China has achieved world historic growth) the US has dumped trillions into wholly unnecessary wars and giveaways to international investors. The $20 trillion dollars the US government has wasted is the greatest malinvestment in the history of the world. All the money that should've been spent on vital innovations and critical investments and infrastructure was used to blow up brown people and inflate asset prices. 2008 was just the beginning; the consequences of this extraordinary malinvestment will take decades to ripple through the global economy. The 9.9% or any other arbitrary percent of Americans are only to blame to the extent that they haven't overthrown their government and executed a few politicians. Over and over electorate have failed to correct the system and so politicians like John McCain -- who helped push America into the greatest crime of the 21st century -- are widely lauded instead of arrested. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/51771766-7c7c-11e7-9108-edda0bcbc928 https://www.ft.com/content/51771766-7c7c-11e7-9108-edda0bcbc... [2] https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/22/17376536/fertility-rate-united-states-births-women https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/22/17376536/fe... [3] https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/Files/PDFs/HFS/essays/HFS_essay_2_2018.pdf?la=en https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/Files/PDFs/HFS/essays/HFS...
slg 8y ago
This is nothing specifically against you or your comment, but it highlights the problem with how we talk about these things. A single 25 year old making $75k in the suburbs of Youngstown, Ohio is in no way comparable to a family of 4 making $75k living in the San Francisco. We really should frame the numbers in relation to the per capita poverty line for that city/region. For example, middle class should be something approximating 2x-5x the per capita poverty line rather than any specific dollar amount.
- therealdrag0 8y ago
  I like that idea. Have you seen someone do this before? Would be interesting to see some numbers.

unethical_ban 8y ago

In a given area, someone making 35k and someone making 100k have very different options at their disposal.

zjaffee 8y ago

The broader point I'm getting at is that the middle class historically didn't struggle in the way they do now. They used to be able to afford homes, vacations, college, and now that is only available to the upper middle class.

phreeza 8y ago
Important to note that 'historically' here probably refers to the 4 or 5 decades following the second world war, which may well turn out to have been a historical anomaly in the grand scheme of things.
surfmike 8y ago
Agreed that homes and college are getting insanely expensive. But as a counterpoint, a higher % of the population own homes and go to college than in decades past (though certainly accruing higher debt than was needed before).
5DFractalTetris 8y ago
Simply untrue. Do not change the definition of middle class. A single-wide prefab of real lumber for a family of three costs a year of wage or two for a high school graduate. Resourceful individuals can develop land cooperatives. Vacations and college aren't strictly necessary for many, nor particularly unattainable. A road trip anywhere in the USA or continental Europe is nearly free, and a four-year degree at a State U in eight years will barely touch the discretionary income of the sort of individual who has decided to pursue that objective. The idea of a "middle-class struggle" is confused with changing standards and lifestyles of the middle class. Certainly the regular use of jet airplanes, hotel accommodations, and full-service dining may be out of reach for some, but an urban-agrarian lifestyle with the use of a motorcar and modern conveniences such as electricity and indoor plumbing is cheaper and more accessible than ever.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  While I agree with you, people compare themselves to their neighbors not their ancestors so in that sense the goal posts have moved. The bar for "middle" class is higher than it used to be.
the_gastropod 8y ago
Homes today are roughly twice the size they were in the 1970s [1]. Despite that, home ownership rates are higher than they were in the '70s [2]. More people today have college educations in the U.S. than any time in U.S. history [3]. I'm not fond of the rhetoric about the poor middle class. There are issues we need to solve w/r/t poor economic mobility. We should be focusing our attention more on solving those problems, and less on complaining about things that aren't true. [1] http://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-the-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/ http://www.aei.org/publication/todays-new-homes-are-1000-squ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_States#Historical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_S... [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attai...
- dnomad 8y ago
  The economy is a "forward-oriented enterprise." What matters is not so much where we are but where we are going. To that end it's important to understand that homeownership rates are falling fast [1], birth rate is falling [2] and "80s babies" (ie the Millenials) are much, much poorer than their parents were in their 20s and 30s. If you're an investor (and everybody's an investor whether they like it or not) the question you should be asking is what things will be like in ten years. That said the article (like pretty much all economics that comes out of The Atlantic) is pretty silly. The dire condition of the American middle class is completely the fault of the US government. In the last 30 years (while China has achieved world historic growth) the US has dumped trillions into wholly unnecessary wars and giveaways to international investors. The $20 trillion dollars the US government has wasted is the greatest malinvestment in the history of the world. All the money that should've been spent on vital innovations and critical investments and infrastructure was used to blow up brown people and inflate asset prices. 2008 was just the beginning; the consequences of this extraordinary malinvestment will take decades to ripple through the global economy. The 9.9% or any other arbitrary percent of Americans are only to blame to the extent that they haven't overthrown their government and executed a few politicians. Over and over electorate have failed to correct the system and so politicians like John McCain -- who helped push America into the greatest crime of the 21st century -- are widely lauded instead of arrested. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/51771766-7c7c-11e7-9108-edda0bcbc928 https://www.ft.com/content/51771766-7c7c-11e7-9108-edda0bcbc... [2] https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/22/17376536/fertility-rate-united-states-births-women https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/22/17376536/fe... [3] https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/Files/PDFs/HFS/essays/HFS_essay_2_2018.pdf?la=en https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/Files/PDFs/HFS/essays/HFS...

slg 8y ago

This is nothing specifically against you or your comment, but it highlights the problem with how we talk about these things. A single 25 year old making $75k in the suburbs of Youngstown, Ohio is in no way comparable to a family of 4 making $75k living in the San Francisco. We really should frame the numbers in relation to the per capita poverty line for that city/region. For example, middle class should be something approximating 2x-5x the per capita poverty line rather than any specific dollar amount.

therealdrag0 8y ago
I like that idea. Have you seen someone do this before? Would be interesting to see some numbers.