3 ms·
"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 d
by 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 agoDoes "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 agoThats...what...the graph says. Do you have an actual counterpoint, other than the fact that non-higher-income people exist?
- jgon 12y agoThe 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!
- eli_gottlieb 12y agoThose trade and economic policies are neoliberal. "Neoconservative" usually refers to a position in fundamental political philosophy (a kind of The Republic "noble lie" for modernity) or in foreign policy (aggressively enforcing the Pax Americana).
- bmmayer1 12y ago"Ordinary people" is a meaningless term.
- api 12y agoOkay, "average" then. If you have a trust fund or live in a very rich enclave, your experience is not representative of the median.