4 ms·

In 1970, 55 percent of U.S. income was earned by households in the middle 60 percent of the income distribution. More than half of households were in what Pew R

In 1970, 55 percent of U.S. income was earned by households in the middle 60 percent of the income distribution. More than half of households were in what Pew Research Center has labeled the “middle tier” of households (those earning between two-thirds and twice the median income). In 2013, both numbers had fallen to about 45 percent. It's not clear that this is an apples-to-apples comparison, but this AEI chart suggests this statistic might not be as disheartening as it sounds: http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/yes-the-middle-class-has-been-disappearing-but-they-havent-fallen-into-the-lower-class-theyve-risen-into-the-upper-class/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/yes-the-middle-class-has-be... In other words, America’s “middle class” did start largely disappearing in the 1970s, but it was because they were moving up to a higher-income category, not down into a lower-income category. And that movement was so significant that between 1967 and 2009, the share of American families earning incomes above $75,000 more than doubled, from 16.3% to 39.1%.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
api 12y ago
"In other words, America’s “middle class” did start largely disappearing in the 1970s, but it was because they were moving up to a higher-income category, not down into a lower-income category." Is this for real? Are you actually serious? Go talk to some ordinary people, or maybe tour some of the country outside whatever rich coastal enclave you inhabit. Edit: to clarify: I don't trust the source. Doesn't it make you suspicious that AEI and their orbit are the only ones saying this while everyone else says otherwise? All I'm saying above is that my anecdotal experience clearly supports what "everyone else" is saying, not what AEI is saying. When I read stuff like that I'm like "uhh... what parallel universe is this from?" Pravda always had graphs that made the Communist Party look good too. (Side note: during the Bush years it really struck me how oddly "Soviet" the American right is in its thinking and character. I guess, like Nietzsche said, when you fight against something you become what you fight against.)
- twoodfin 12y ago
  Does "everyone else" include progressive wonks like Matt Yglesias? http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/18/median_family_income_since_1989_is_the_stagnation_real.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/18/median_family... He's arguing that life has gotten better for the median family, not about how "fat" the distribution is around that family, but based on your other comments, I assume you think "everyone" agrees that things are getting worse.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Does "everyone else" include progressive wonks like Matt Yglesias? Its kind of odd that the only people I ever see positively citing "progressive" Yglesias are doing so in the context of using Yglesias's support for an economic position to bolster the idea that its not a particularly conservative viewpoint.
- bmmayer1 12y ago
  Thats...what...the graph says. Do you have an actual counterpoint, other than the fact that non-higher-income people exist?
  - jgon 12y ago
    The rise in income recorded almost directly tracks the entry of women into the workforce which is why the article explicitly mentions household income. The average middle class wage earner has not seen a pay raise in a long time, and thus his wife has had to start working in order to make due in the face of rising energy, health care, and education costs. The article is a classic example of lying by omission. It would be like saying household incomes dropped precipitously in the late 1800s after government started regulating factories, without mentioning that the regulation was banning child labor, thus removing the income brought in by your 12 year old son working at the mill. This article instead casts the last several decades of neo-liberal trade and economic policies as having greatly increased household incomes, without ever mentioning the fact that now twice as many people in the household have had to start working in order to keep pace with the economy. On an individual level, the one that matters, the middle class has been boned for several decades now. Edit: Trade policies are neo-liberal as pointed out by eli_gottlieb. Thanks for the head's up!
lumberjack 12y ago
So then that implies that there is a threshold below which class mobility becomes increasing harder. Otherwise there should be a new middle class composed of the formerly working class's children instead of a void. Either way polarisation is still happening.
- tsotha 12y ago
  You can explain part of that, anyway, by immigration. Between legal and illegal immigration we're adding a couple million poor people to the total every year.
- twoodfin 12y ago
  Not necessarily. You could, for example, have a large generation (the Boomers) pass through their peak earnings years at the same time as a large number of low-skill immigrants arrive in search of a better life. That wouldn't be polarization in the sense of the middle being split into rich and poor, it would just be changing demographics. No idea if that's what's actually happening, but just watching the dot of the median and not the whole distribution is not likely to be enlightening unless events conspire to keep the shape of that distribution static. I don't think that's the case.
MaysonL 12y ago
How much of that was due to the fact that a much larger proportion of women are in the labor force now than in '67? My guess would be that almost all of it is.
x0x0 12y ago
Only someone working for the aei would describe $25k for a family as "middle-class". For reference, in 2014, the poverty line for a family is $23,850 [1]. You don't jump from poverty to middle-class. He then cites a paper by Meyer and Sullivan [2] which, amongst other things, argues that the poor shouldn't count because they get food stamps; the fraction of poor people with a/c doubled between 1981 and 1999 (I didn't realize you could eat A/C) more poor people have cars w/ power breaks and steering (I am surprised you can buy a car in the last decade w/o either of the above) etc etc -- the authors go on at length about how consumption rather than income should be a measure of poverty. Which is a classic, but stupid, argument. If you can barely afford rent, are living paycheck-to-paycheck, but now your apartment has a dishwasher, you are not better off. If your used car has power steering, it does not make you better off. Meanwhile, back over in reality, food insecurity continues to be a problem, the hours at minimum wage required to afford minimal housing in major metropolitan areas continue to rise far beyond possibility, etc etc. But this is what AEI is for -- to kick up confusion about reality in the service of conservatives and the rich. [1] http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm [2] http://www.aei.org/files/2011/10/25/Material-Well-Being-Poor-Middle-Class.pdf http://www.aei.org/files/2011/10/25/Material-Well-Being-Poor...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

api 12y ago

"In other words, America’s “middle class” did start largely disappearing in the 1970s, but it was because they were moving up to a higher-income category, not down into a lower-income category." Is this for real? Are you actually serious? Go talk to some ordinary people, or maybe tour some of the country outside whatever rich coastal enclave you inhabit. Edit: to clarify: I don't trust the source. Doesn't it make you suspicious that AEI and their orbit are the only ones saying this while everyone else says otherwise? All I'm saying above is that my anecdotal experience clearly supports what "everyone else" is saying, not what AEI is saying. When I read stuff like that I'm like "uhh... what parallel universe is this from?" Pravda always had graphs that made the Communist Party look good too. (Side note: during the Bush years it really struck me how oddly "Soviet" the American right is in its thinking and character. I guess, like Nietzsche said, when you fight against something you become what you fight against.)

twoodfin 12y ago
Does "everyone else" include progressive wonks like Matt Yglesias? http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/18/median_family_income_since_1989_is_the_stagnation_real.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/18/median_family... He's arguing that life has gotten better for the median family, not about how "fat" the distribution is around that family, but based on your other comments, I assume you think "everyone" agrees that things are getting worse.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Does "everyone else" include progressive wonks like Matt Yglesias? Its kind of odd that the only people I ever see positively citing "progressive" Yglesias are doing so in the context of using Yglesias's support for an economic position to bolster the idea that its not a particularly conservative viewpoint.
bmmayer1 12y ago
Thats...what...the graph says. Do you have an actual counterpoint, other than the fact that non-higher-income people exist?
- jgon 12y ago
  The rise in income recorded almost directly tracks the entry of women into the workforce which is why the article explicitly mentions household income. The average middle class wage earner has not seen a pay raise in a long time, and thus his wife has had to start working in order to make due in the face of rising energy, health care, and education costs. The article is a classic example of lying by omission. It would be like saying household incomes dropped precipitously in the late 1800s after government started regulating factories, without mentioning that the regulation was banning child labor, thus removing the income brought in by your 12 year old son working at the mill. This article instead casts the last several decades of neo-liberal trade and economic policies as having greatly increased household incomes, without ever mentioning the fact that now twice as many people in the household have had to start working in order to keep pace with the economy. On an individual level, the one that matters, the middle class has been boned for several decades now. Edit: Trade policies are neo-liberal as pointed out by eli_gottlieb. Thanks for the head's up!

lumberjack 12y ago

So then that implies that there is a threshold below which class mobility becomes increasing harder. Otherwise there should be a new middle class composed of the formerly working class's children instead of a void. Either way polarisation is still happening.

tsotha 12y ago
You can explain part of that, anyway, by immigration. Between legal and illegal immigration we're adding a couple million poor people to the total every year.
twoodfin 12y ago
Not necessarily. You could, for example, have a large generation (the Boomers) pass through their peak earnings years at the same time as a large number of low-skill immigrants arrive in search of a better life. That wouldn't be polarization in the sense of the middle being split into rich and poor, it would just be changing demographics. No idea if that's what's actually happening, but just watching the dot of the median and not the whole distribution is not likely to be enlightening unless events conspire to keep the shape of that distribution static. I don't think that's the case.

MaysonL 12y ago

How much of that was due to the fact that a much larger proportion of women are in the labor force now than in '67? My guess would be that almost all of it is.

x0x0 12y ago

Only someone working for the aei would describe $25k for a family as "middle-class". For reference, in 2014, the poverty line for a family is $23,850 [1]. You don't jump from poverty to middle-class. He then cites a paper by Meyer and Sullivan [2] which, amongst other things, argues that the poor shouldn't count because they get food stamps; the fraction of poor people with a/c doubled between 1981 and 1999 (I didn't realize you could eat A/C) more poor people have cars w/ power breaks and steering (I am surprised you can buy a car in the last decade w/o either of the above) etc etc -- the authors go on at length about how consumption rather than income should be a measure of poverty. Which is a classic, but stupid, argument. If you can barely afford rent, are living paycheck-to-paycheck, but now your apartment has a dishwasher, you are not better off. If your used car has power steering, it does not make you better off. Meanwhile, back over in reality, food insecurity continues to be a problem, the hours at minimum wage required to afford minimal housing in major metropolitan areas continue to rise far beyond possibility, etc etc. But this is what AEI is for -- to kick up confusion about reality in the service of conservatives and the rich. [1] http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm [2] http://www.aei.org/files/2011/10/25/Material-Well-Being-Poor-Middle-Class.pdf http://www.aei.org/files/2011/10/25/Material-Well-Being-Poor...