3 ms·

In the early 1970s, WSJ writers could have written an article pointing at how much better the middle class in the US had done over the past 40 years. You reall

In the early 1970s, WSJ writers could have written an article pointing at how much better the middle class in the US had done over the past 40 years. You really think you'd rather be the median income 25 year old in 1973 vs. 2013? It's not sophistry to point out that today's median 25 year old has massive advantages in health, education, technology and basic quality of life over his 1973 equivalent. The real average wage captures none of this improvement, which is the point of the piece.

malyk 14y ago
What about happiness? Hope for the future? Ability to have your spouse raise the kids at home while you earned enough to pay for a house and car? And the idea that life expectancy is what counts is absurd. 79 years of fighting for jobs where you're worked like mad fighting every week to stay out of debt while trying to get your kids some semblance of education in shittier and shittier school systems sure sounds a hell of a lot nicer than the past because what, iPhones exist?
- twoodfin 14y ago
  I think you are looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses if you think "hope for the future" was on a real win streak in the '70s. (See: Vietnam, Watergate, Arab oil embargo, stagflation...) Also, in the '70s, it wasn't the "spouse" raising the kids at home, it was the wife. The huge increase in available roles for women is another thing not captured by the average real wage (and as the piece points out, probably had a negative impact on it).
  - malyk 14y ago
    You are definitely correct. My post was a little snarky and written way too quickly to get any real point across. My real point is that, regardless of whether or not wage stagnation has occurred, the "middle class" is not in a good position. Median household income is $52,000. You can survive on that while raising 2 kids, paying rent or a mortgage, and paying for a car if you are smart about it. But you aren't very well positioned to get ahead and you certainly aren't in a position to have a couple of smartphones, premium cable tv on a big flat screen tv, with the newest computers, etc. like we are taught to aspire to. Yes, there is more tech, better healthcare, etc., but your money goes a lot less far than it did when you could have a single worker earning enough to afford the "same" (relatively) overall quality of life. It's not a perfect comparison by any means, but saying wage stagnation doesn't exist and therefore we shouldn't care about it seems utterly bizarre when you look at what most of the nation has to live on. I just can't wrap my head around how anyone can look at this article and especially that horrible infographic that the WSJ published and think anything except how out of touch and frankly stupid people are about the reality of our collective situation.
CleanedStar 14y ago
Massive advantages in education? With higher education requirements, the average worker is now forced - if they want to make the same wage they would have in 1972 - to pay for their own job training, college education etc. That people have to go into debt to get an education to make what they could have without it 40 years ago you're presenting as something positive.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  I'm saying the median 25 year old today is more educated than his 1973 counterpart. That has a host of benefits, including qualification for jobs that not only pay more, but are less physically strenuous and more mentally engaging. Nobody's forced to go to college. They do it (hopefully) because it's a good investment in their own success and happiness. And let's be frank: The government has made sure it's incredibly easy to finance, and if it feels like a huge burden to be there rather than working shifts at a steel mill, you're probably doing it wrong.

malyk 14y ago

What about happiness? Hope for the future? Ability to have your spouse raise the kids at home while you earned enough to pay for a house and car? And the idea that life expectancy is what counts is absurd. 79 years of fighting for jobs where you're worked like mad fighting every week to stay out of debt while trying to get your kids some semblance of education in shittier and shittier school systems sure sounds a hell of a lot nicer than the past because what, iPhones exist?

twoodfin 14y ago
I think you are looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses if you think "hope for the future" was on a real win streak in the '70s. (See: Vietnam, Watergate, Arab oil embargo, stagflation...) Also, in the '70s, it wasn't the "spouse" raising the kids at home, it was the wife. The huge increase in available roles for women is another thing not captured by the average real wage (and as the piece points out, probably had a negative impact on it).
- malyk 14y ago
  You are definitely correct. My post was a little snarky and written way too quickly to get any real point across. My real point is that, regardless of whether or not wage stagnation has occurred, the "middle class" is not in a good position. Median household income is $52,000. You can survive on that while raising 2 kids, paying rent or a mortgage, and paying for a car if you are smart about it. But you aren't very well positioned to get ahead and you certainly aren't in a position to have a couple of smartphones, premium cable tv on a big flat screen tv, with the newest computers, etc. like we are taught to aspire to. Yes, there is more tech, better healthcare, etc., but your money goes a lot less far than it did when you could have a single worker earning enough to afford the "same" (relatively) overall quality of life. It's not a perfect comparison by any means, but saying wage stagnation doesn't exist and therefore we shouldn't care about it seems utterly bizarre when you look at what most of the nation has to live on. I just can't wrap my head around how anyone can look at this article and especially that horrible infographic that the WSJ published and think anything except how out of touch and frankly stupid people are about the reality of our collective situation.

CleanedStar 14y ago

Massive advantages in education? With higher education requirements, the average worker is now forced - if they want to make the same wage they would have in 1972 - to pay for their own job training, college education etc. That people have to go into debt to get an education to make what they could have without it 40 years ago you're presenting as something positive.

twoodfin 14y ago
I'm saying the median 25 year old today is more educated than his 1973 counterpart. That has a host of benefits, including qualification for jobs that not only pay more, but are less physically strenuous and more mentally engaging. Nobody's forced to go to college. They do it (hopefully) because it's a good investment in their own success and happiness. And let's be frank: The government has made sure it's incredibly easy to finance, and if it feels like a huge burden to be there rather than working shifts at a steel mill, you're probably doing it wrong.