3 ms·

The article points out a 3 reason why the "flat-wage of the middle class" idea is a myth: 1. CPI underestimating product improvements. 2. Increase in fringe be

The article points out a 3 reason why the "flat-wage of the middle class" idea is a myth: 1. CPI underestimating product improvements. 2. Increase in fringe benefits. 3. Influx of lesser skilled workers. Product improvements and fringe benefits effect both middle and upper class living standard equally. These two improvements would increase both upper and middle classes equally, so I can't see how these would make middle income workers better of relative to upper income workers. The third point, an influx of lesser skilled workers "women and immigrants" as the article puts it, does not change the fact that the middle class's wages are stagnent, it just is a changing of demographics.

pdonis 14y ago
The third point, an influx of lesser skilled workers "women and immigrants" as the article puts it, does not change the fact that the middle class's wages are stagnent, it just is a changing of demographics. But it does change a key consequence of the claim that middle class wages are stagnant. That claim is often used to argue that "the middle class is no better off"; but if the stagnant wages are due to changing demographics, then all the individual people in the middle class may in fact be better off. Some used to make the average wage and now make more; some used to make nothing at all or made the average wage in a much poorer country, and are now making less than the average wage here, which is still an improvement for them. The point is that "average wage" is a poor measure of how individual people are actually doing, since it really reflects changing demographics, not changes in individual fortunes.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
...does not change the fact that the middle class's wages are stagnent, it just is a changing of demographics. Right, but that suggests it's not a problem. If you want to reason from a composition change, there is a very simple solution: increased immigration by high income people only. That'll raise our average wages, albeit without necessarily making anyone better off.

pdonis 14y ago

The third point, an influx of lesser skilled workers "women and immigrants" as the article puts it, does not change the fact that the middle class's wages are stagnent, it just is a changing of demographics. But it does change a key consequence of the claim that middle class wages are stagnant. That claim is often used to argue that "the middle class is no better off"; but if the stagnant wages are due to changing demographics, then all the individual people in the middle class may in fact be better off. Some used to make the average wage and now make more; some used to make nothing at all or made the average wage in a much poorer country, and are now making less than the average wage here, which is still an improvement for them. The point is that "average wage" is a poor measure of how individual people are actually doing, since it really reflects changing demographics, not changes in individual fortunes.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

...does not change the fact that the middle class's wages are stagnent, it just is a changing of demographics. Right, but that suggests it's not a problem. If you want to reason from a composition change, there is a very simple solution: increased immigration by high income people only. That'll raise our average wages, albeit without necessarily making anyone better off.