2 ms·
So, uh, looking at those charts.... good? When you see low, middle, and high it's pretty clear that most of those loses are moving up to the high class. In fact
by forrestthewoods 12y ago
So, uh, looking at those charts.... good? When you see low, middle, and high it's pretty clear that most of those loses are moving up to the high class. In fact the high class has grown by as much as the middle class shrunk and then some!
The issue doesn't seem to be that people are falling out of the middle class. The real issue looks like, to me, that we're successfully graduating people from middle to high but not from low to middle. The low class has shrunk a teeny bit but is basically flat.
If instead low shrunk, middle stayed flat, and high grew that's be pretty great. It'd mean everyone is moving up.
At least that's whatmy interpretation is. What do y'all think?
- georgeecollins 12y agoFrom the article: "Until 2000, the reason was primarily because more Americans moved up the income ladder. But since then, the reason has shifted: There is a greater share of households on the lower rungs of the economic ladder." The graphs are 1967-2014. If you look closely you can see that the "high" group goes up until 2000, but not after. That is the point they are trying to make.