4 ms·

The data on this topic really changed my entire worldview. I ran into this [1] when actually searching information on the chiseling out of the middle class. And

The data on this topic really changed my entire worldview. I ran into this [1] when actually searching information on the chiseling out of the middle class. And that paper does describe that chiseling of the middle class. In 1979 the middle class controlled 46% of all income, and the upper/rich classes controlled 30%. Today (well at least today as of 2014) the rich and upper class control 63% with the middle class left with 26%. There's even been a chiseling out of the middle class as a whole declining from 38.8% of society to 32% of society. But the eye opener is this. This is the change in the size of each economic group between 1979 and 2014 as a percent of the total population: - Rich: 0.1% -> 1.8% - Upper Middle Class: 12.9% -> 29.4% - Middle Class: 38.8% -> 32% - Lower Middle Class: 23.9% -> 17.1% - Poor or Near-Poor: 24.3% -> 19.8% Such tremendous progress in just 35 years is absolutely remarkable. Statistics like this are certainly subject to biased interpretation and 'massaging'. If one is curious about the source, wiki has a section on the political stance of the Urban Institute [2]. Though the paper itself is very transparent in their methodology and extremely readable. I found it all eye opening to the point that it actually changed my worldview. [1] - https://www.urban.org/research/publication/growing-size-and-incomes-upper-middle-class https://www.urban.org/research/publication/growing-size-and-... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute#Political_stance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute#Political_stan...

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Such tremendous progress in just 35 years is absolutely remarkable No, it's just a product of bad methodology that adopts a operationalization of economic class that is incompatible with the general use of the term. “Absolute income thresholds adjusted for inflation” don't have much correlation to the way anyone defines economic class outside the context of that specific piece of research. The classic definitions of class in capitalist society have to do with economic roles (labor, mixed, or capital); the common modern American use is based around income percentiles.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  So you don't think inflation adjusted spending power defines class? Income percentiles can't really define progress as of course there will always be e.g. 20% in the bottom 20% of society and their relative income to the top is meaningless as it could just as well mean that the top of society has nothing as it could that the bottom of society has lots. So you need to measure spending power, which is exactly what this paper did.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
Eh, so by this calculation we should all be doing great? How do you square that with the fact that most families couldn't spare $500 in an emergency? That is absolutely "poor" in my opinion. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#2e5010464e0d https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-...
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  The problem with relying on media is that they're prone to sensationalism and hyperbole. Your link is no exception, though fortunately they had the courtesy of linking to their source [1]. Generally it's probably a good idea to rely on the first party over the third party. Key points: - What is stated is not what was asked. The question asked, 'How would you pay for an unexpected expense?' 37% said use savings, 23% said reduce spending, 12% use credit cards, and 21% would borrow from family/friends. Presumably that remaining 7% answered other/do not know. That was converted into "63% of Americans don't have enough savings to cover $500." Thanks Forbes, thanks. - The question was not asked of Americans families, as implied. It was asked of millennials. Income is obviously strongly linked with age. It's self selecting to a young demographic that will not only be earning much less but also be less inclined to save. That said, Americans certainly aren't saving as much as they should be but that's probably more of a social than an economic issue. A relatively large percent of Americans have $0 savings when the current median household income is a hair above $59,000. Even just saving $1000 a year would be a game changer in the longrun, but people are of course not doing that - even though most have the ability to do so if they tried.
  - alexandercrohde 8y ago
    So I'll give you that the bankrate study is garbage. But regardless, it's my understanding that American wealth and savings are actually lower than the 1970s, even if the income is higher.
gowld 8y ago
How did your worldview change? It convinced you that because scientific, technical, and business progress has brought gains, that we should ignore the loss caused by business owners and managers siphoning off of it?
- tossaccount1284 8y ago
  --Tango here. For whatever reason, my account seems to have been prevented from replying. But ignoring the strawman, I think you asked a really interesting question. I was looking into information on the chiseling out of the middle class. I had assumed that most people were becoming poor (as many in this thread also assume). But it turns out that we, as a whole, are becoming far wealthier than ever before while the number of people living in society with minimal spending power continues to decline. This reality is not even remotely accurately reflected by the media and I'd imagine the vast majority of Americans have no idea about the economic trajectory of this country. In particular I've been fairly involved in socio-political discussion for years now and it came as a jaw dropper to me! I suppose the most fundamental change I had was in realizing that what we've been doing the past decades has been doing a phenomenally good job of improving society. Of course we can always do better, but we're at least on the right track.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Such tremendous progress in just 35 years is absolutely remarkable No, it's just a product of bad methodology that adopts a operationalization of economic class that is incompatible with the general use of the term. “Absolute income thresholds adjusted for inflation” don't have much correlation to the way anyone defines economic class outside the context of that specific piece of research. The classic definitions of class in capitalist society have to do with economic roles (labor, mixed, or capital); the common modern American use is based around income percentiles.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
So you don't think inflation adjusted spending power defines class? Income percentiles can't really define progress as of course there will always be e.g. 20% in the bottom 20% of society and their relative income to the top is meaningless as it could just as well mean that the top of society has nothing as it could that the bottom of society has lots. So you need to measure spending power, which is exactly what this paper did.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

Eh, so by this calculation we should all be doing great? How do you square that with the fact that most families couldn't spare $500 in an emergency? That is absolutely "poor" in my opinion. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#2e5010464e0d https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-...

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
The problem with relying on media is that they're prone to sensationalism and hyperbole. Your link is no exception, though fortunately they had the courtesy of linking to their source [1]. Generally it's probably a good idea to rely on the first party over the third party. Key points: - What is stated is not what was asked. The question asked, 'How would you pay for an unexpected expense?' 37% said use savings, 23% said reduce spending, 12% use credit cards, and 21% would borrow from family/friends. Presumably that remaining 7% answered other/do not know. That was converted into "63% of Americans don't have enough savings to cover $500." Thanks Forbes, thanks. - The question was not asked of Americans families, as implied. It was asked of millennials. Income is obviously strongly linked with age. It's self selecting to a young demographic that will not only be earning much less but also be less inclined to save. That said, Americans certainly aren't saving as much as they should be but that's probably more of a social than an economic issue. A relatively large percent of Americans have $0 savings when the current median household income is a hair above $59,000. Even just saving $1000 a year would be a game changer in the longrun, but people are of course not doing that - even though most have the ability to do so if they tried.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  So I'll give you that the bankrate study is garbage. But regardless, it's my understanding that American wealth and savings are actually lower than the 1970s, even if the income is higher.

gowld 8y ago

How did your worldview change? It convinced you that because scientific, technical, and business progress has brought gains, that we should ignore the loss caused by business owners and managers siphoning off of it?

tossaccount1284 8y ago
--Tango here. For whatever reason, my account seems to have been prevented from replying. But ignoring the strawman, I think you asked a really interesting question. I was looking into information on the chiseling out of the middle class. I had assumed that most people were becoming poor (as many in this thread also assume). But it turns out that we, as a whole, are becoming far wealthier than ever before while the number of people living in society with minimal spending power continues to decline. This reality is not even remotely accurately reflected by the media and I'd imagine the vast majority of Americans have no idea about the economic trajectory of this country. In particular I've been fairly involved in socio-political discussion for years now and it came as a jaw dropper to me! I suppose the most fundamental change I had was in realizing that what we've been doing the past decades has been doing a phenomenally good job of improving society. Of course we can always do better, but we're at least on the right track.