3 ms·

On top of the studies within the article, there are other really interesting papers. Some time back I was searching information on the chiseling out of the midd

On top of the studies within the article, there are other really interesting papers. Some time back I was searching information on the chiseling out of the middle class, and I found this paper [1]. And the paper does describe that chiseling out. In 1979 the middle class controlled 46% of all income, and the upper/rich classes controlled 30%. 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. That's where most media outlets leave it. It sounds grim. 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% 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 literally changed my worldview. This change is only since 1979! We are doing something incredibly right from an economic point of view. I don't understand the media motivations in choosing to omit these crucial, and greatly encouraging, data when writing on this topic. [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...

moduspol 8y ago
> I don't understand the media motivations in choosing to omit these crucial, and greatly encouraging, data when writing on this topic. Surely you do understand them, though, right?
- amelius 8y ago
  Question: would the numbers change if the media had a different stance? In what direction and by how much?
refurb 8y ago
This is the change in the size of each economic group between 1979 and 2014 as a percent of the total population Then aren't your numbers a positive sign? The size of the poor, lower middle class and middle class have shrank and the upper middle and rich have grown. Doesn't that suggest that people are generally moving up in economic class?
JAlexoid 8y ago
What does Upper Middle Class mean?
- JAlexoid 8y ago
  Yep. I read the definitions... And boy are these people LAAAAZZYYYYYY!!! They could actually scale the data and compare adequate areas. I mean... California is 20% of the population and has median income 20% higher than average across US. But sure... 200k earning family of two in NYC, Bay Area, Seattle, DC are Upper Middle Class apparently. I mean... Read this bullshit! Washington DC is 3x more populous that Des Moines, even in 2016. "However, inaccurately placing people from Washington, DC, as upper middle class because they have incomes just above $100,000, even though they have high local costs and would not generally be considered as being upper middle class in that location, is offset by categorizing Des Moines, IA, families with incomes just below $100,000 as being middle class, even though those families could be considered upper middle class because costs in their area are low."
someone7x 8y ago
There's a popular book called "Factfulness" that explores the dynamic you're describing: the world is generally getting better and the media is institutionally incapable of reporting it (because they thrive on sensation instead of facts). If you are swayed by facts and data, it's probably right up your alley.
fzeroracer 8y ago
I'm more curious as to why you chose to omit the critically important data behind the study. What exactly is your motivation there? First, let's look at how they define the income brackets: -Poor and near-poor $0 $29,999 -Lower middle class $30,000 $49,999 -Middle class $50,000 $99,999 -Upper middle class $100,000 $349,999 -Rich $350,000 None A quote from the publication: "The study did not adjust for regional differences in the cost of living, the underreporting and exclusion of certain sources of material support, or taxes." As with all statistics it is incredibly easy to look at one and yell out 'The economy is doing FINE!' while ignoring the economic realities for many people. Income levels may rise, but the average costs for middle-class workers has skyrocketed as well. Someone living in SF earning over 100k would count as upper-middle despite likely barely being able to survive.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Indeed. And similarly, as the paper mentions, there are many places in the US where someone earning just under $100k would only be counted as middle class, even though they'd be well into the upper middle class. So the important question then is there a big bias in one direction or another? The paper concludes that the answer to this is no. So why would they use such an ostensibly broad metric in the first place? The paper also goes into this. The reason is that on a micro level there are often extreme quality of living differences that are not accurately reflected by any data. For instance the CPI inflation rate of San Francisco, according to California, is only 11% higher than the US average. By any metric you'll be able to point to various little bubbles throughout the nation and indicate, accurately, that the macro level data does not hold true. So you need to try to pick aggregate data that most likely balances out the biases so much as possible. Do you think this fails to do so?

moduspol 8y ago

> I don't understand the media motivations in choosing to omit these crucial, and greatly encouraging, data when writing on this topic. Surely you do understand them, though, right?

amelius 8y ago
Question: would the numbers change if the media had a different stance? In what direction and by how much?

refurb 8y ago

This is the change in the size of each economic group between 1979 and 2014 as a percent of the total population Then aren't your numbers a positive sign? The size of the poor, lower middle class and middle class have shrank and the upper middle and rich have grown. Doesn't that suggest that people are generally moving up in economic class?

JAlexoid 8y ago

What does Upper Middle Class mean?

JAlexoid 8y ago
Yep. I read the definitions... And boy are these people LAAAAZZYYYYYY!!! They could actually scale the data and compare adequate areas. I mean... California is 20% of the population and has median income 20% higher than average across US. But sure... 200k earning family of two in NYC, Bay Area, Seattle, DC are Upper Middle Class apparently. I mean... Read this bullshit! Washington DC is 3x more populous that Des Moines, even in 2016. "However, inaccurately placing people from Washington, DC, as upper middle class because they have incomes just above $100,000, even though they have high local costs and would not generally be considered as being upper middle class in that location, is offset by categorizing Des Moines, IA, families with incomes just below $100,000 as being middle class, even though those families could be considered upper middle class because costs in their area are low."

someone7x 8y ago

There's a popular book called "Factfulness" that explores the dynamic you're describing: the world is generally getting better and the media is institutionally incapable of reporting it (because they thrive on sensation instead of facts). If you are swayed by facts and data, it's probably right up your alley.

fzeroracer 8y ago

I'm more curious as to why you chose to omit the critically important data behind the study. What exactly is your motivation there? First, let's look at how they define the income brackets: -Poor and near-poor $0 $29,999 -Lower middle class $30,000 $49,999 -Middle class $50,000 $99,999 -Upper middle class $100,000 $349,999 -Rich $350,000 None A quote from the publication: "The study did not adjust for regional differences in the cost of living, the underreporting and exclusion of certain sources of material support, or taxes." As with all statistics it is incredibly easy to look at one and yell out 'The economy is doing FINE!' while ignoring the economic realities for many people. Income levels may rise, but the average costs for middle-class workers has skyrocketed as well. Someone living in SF earning over 100k would count as upper-middle despite likely barely being able to survive.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Indeed. And similarly, as the paper mentions, there are many places in the US where someone earning just under $100k would only be counted as middle class, even though they'd be well into the upper middle class. So the important question then is there a big bias in one direction or another? The paper concludes that the answer to this is no. So why would they use such an ostensibly broad metric in the first place? The paper also goes into this. The reason is that on a micro level there are often extreme quality of living differences that are not accurately reflected by any data. For instance the CPI inflation rate of San Francisco, according to California, is only 11% higher than the US average. By any metric you'll be able to point to various little bubbles throughout the nation and indicate, accurately, that the macro level data does not hold true. So you need to try to pick aggregate data that most likely balances out the biases so much as possible. Do you think this fails to do so?