3 ms·

Sorry, if you want to turn this into a flame war, I'm out. I understand that it's difficult to see or admit flaws in a system and an industry that has personall

by bonaldi 14y ago

Sorry, if you want to turn this into a flame war, I'm out. I understand that it's difficult to see or admit flaws in a system and an industry that has personally benefitted you, but the flaws remain nonetheless. In particular, you have not provided evidence for your contention that the middle class has shrunk solely because people have moved "from 65k to 85k", you have shown only that they have not dropped below 25k. The facts -- income stagnation and wealth inequality -- are in direct opposition to your "the disappearance of the middle class is fine, they're just getting rich" fantasy. People have either gone to exceptionally above 85k, are stagnant, or are dropping towards the lower end. What they are not doing is just edging into "rich". That's not a supportable claim. And, ultimately, irrelevant. The problem is income inequality, the shrinking middle class is its symptom. If you have evidence that a society can survive this level of wealth inequality, please present that.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
...you have not provided evidence for your contention that the middle class has shrunk solely because people have moved "from 65k to 85k", you have shown only that they have not dropped below 25k. True - $65k -> 85k was an example. Let me be more precise: the middle class has only shrunk because people have moved from X to Y, where $25k < X < $75k and Y > $75k. I.e., no one became poorer, and some people became richer. The facts -- income stagnation and wealth inequality -- are in direct opposition to your "the disappearance of the middle class is fine, they're just getting rich" fantasy. People have either gone to exceptionally above 85k, are stagnant, or are dropping towards the lower end. No one is dropping towards the lower end. The number of people at the lower end (below $25k) is the same (about 25%). Since the number of people between $25k and $75k shrank, it must be because the number of people above $75k increased. That's just basic arithmetic. You still have yet to show how people's income exceeding $75k causes any harm at all, short of vague hints that it's almost impossible for them to spend anything like what they make.
- bonaldi 14y ago
  "Let me be more precise: the middle class has only shrunk because people have moved from X to Y, where $25k < X < $75k and Y > $75k. I.e., no one became poorer, and some people became richer." Again, you haven't shown this, either. Many people could have gone from $65k to $35k while a few moved from $65k to $650k on the same set of facts. That nobody has dropped below the baseline of the middle class does not mean it is not shrinking or that nobody in it has gotten poorer. "You still have yet to show how people's income exceeding $75k causes any harm at all" This is not the point. The point is that massive wealth inequality causes the harm. A shrinking middle class is a symptom of that inequality. Whether or not you continue to deny or justify the symptoms is not going to change the facts of the underlying disease. I'm not going to show you how dying causes cancer.

by bonaldi 14y ago

yummyfajitas 14y ago

...you have not provided evidence for your contention that the middle class has shrunk solely because people have moved "from 65k to 85k", you have shown only that they have not dropped below 25k. True - $65k -> 85k was an example. Let me be more precise: the middle class has only shrunk because people have moved from X to Y, where $25k < X < $75k and Y > $75k. I.e., no one became poorer, and some people became richer. The facts -- income stagnation and wealth inequality -- are in direct opposition to your "the disappearance of the middle class is fine, they're just getting rich" fantasy. People have either gone to exceptionally above 85k, are stagnant, or are dropping towards the lower end. No one is dropping towards the lower end. The number of people at the lower end (below $25k) is the same (about 25%). Since the number of people between $25k and $75k shrank, it must be because the number of people above $75k increased. That's just basic arithmetic. You still have yet to show how people's income exceeding $75k causes any harm at all, short of vague hints that it's almost impossible for them to spend anything like what they make.

bonaldi 14y ago
"Let me be more precise: the middle class has only shrunk because people have moved from X to Y, where $25k < X < $75k and Y > $75k. I.e., no one became poorer, and some people became richer." Again, you haven't shown this, either. Many people could have gone from $65k to $35k while a few moved from $65k to $650k on the same set of facts. That nobody has dropped below the baseline of the middle class does not mean it is not shrinking or that nobody in it has gotten poorer. "You still have yet to show how people's income exceeding $75k causes any harm at all" This is not the point. The point is that massive wealth inequality causes the harm. A shrinking middle class is a symptom of that inequality. Whether or not you continue to deny or justify the symptoms is not going to change the facts of the underlying disease. I'm not going to show you how dying causes cancer.