Why has the Middle Class so declined?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:17:23 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Why has the Middle Class so declined?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Why has the Middle Class so declined?  (Read 5508 times)
DevotedDemocrat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 442
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.00, S: 0.02

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 31, 2014, 06:01:40 PM »


My parents both were professionals in the medical field. With both of them working, we lived a middle class lifestyle.

The households they grew up in were both single income blue collar, middle class households. My paternal grandfather worked as a foreman in the Park's Department--not THAT high paying a job, I imagine. My maternal grandmother worked as a Receptionist in a Hospital.

Yet, despite having what we'd consider together to be "low-level" jobs, my grandparents were able to support a family and give them a middle middle class (not lower or upper middle class, but comfortable) lifestyle.

Yet, today, if I was to work a blue collar type job, and if I had a wife and children, we would probably live a lower, lower middle class to almost low class lifestyle.

When did that change? Why?
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2014, 07:03:53 PM »

Because the ruling elite doesn't want a middle class. Middle class is wealthy enough to be free from control from them.

It's why the Elite is using lots of money to convince people to destroy the welfare state. To dissolve middle class in order to return to their previous exclusive rule.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2014, 07:18:07 PM »

It shouldn't be ignored that during the period in which the middle class was at its peak you had a lot of white collar professional fields that almost never bore the brunt of a recession (until 1991) and also a large degree of defense and Aerospace spending and research that gave rise to numerous middle class professions during the middle of the Cold War. These both came to an end in the early 1990's.

Also since the 1970's, the US has faced intense competition that it was ill prepared to face for  for a variety of reasons and thus a lot of middle class manufacturing jobs were eliminated as companies either moved off shore or lost out to foriegn companies adn went out of business. Spending the last thirty years going sideways or even backwards in terms of education after having made consistent progress prior to that that point would be another good reason why as well. Energy prices (more pressure on manufacturing as well as all businesses when you factor in general usage for electricity and transportation. It is no suprise that the best decade in this period of the last three decades occured in the midst of a low ebb for oil prices) and financial decisions (up and down the money ladder) have played a big role as well.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2014, 07:38:33 PM »

Because Democrats started a series of programs called "The Great Society", which transferred a majority of federal funding away from middle class investment. DC encouraged states to do the same by granting federal money with strings attached.

Democrats also started programs and expanded programs to increase home ownership rates, a noble cause that lost its way and caused housing prices to double as a factor of median household income. The same problems exist in education, though Reagan was the genesis of that problem. Similar problems developed in the healthcare industry after progressives capped executive compensation.

Inept politicians, without access to modern economic data, made poor decisions about the future direction of the Untied States. The voting demographic who clings to these old-fashioned cost-shifting programs refer to themselves as "progressives". 
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2014, 11:16:21 PM »

<snip>

Yet, today, if I was to work a blue collar type job, and if I had a wife and children, we would probably live a lower, lower middle class to almost low class lifestyle.

When did that change? Why?
Well you could live the exact same middle class life your grandparents lived.  They probably had (at most) a 1100sqft home, a car.....maybe two....probably one...that they HAD to replace every few years.  They didn't have A/C or a second bathroom, only had broadcast TV, certainly no smart phone or netflix or PC.  But they spent a higher percentage of their income on food than you'll have to (thanks in part to GM crops/better pesticides, better irrigation, just better farming practices in general)....so perhaps you could swing the smart phone as long as it's not a Mac.  Just one, certainly not one each for you, the wife and the 1.7 kids.

The middle class hasn't declined as much as what's excpected of a middle class family to own has increased.



Of course blaming your political enemy is easier.....
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2014, 03:30:25 AM »

<snip>

Yet, today, if I was to work a blue collar type job, and if I had a wife and children, we would probably live a lower, lower middle class to almost low class lifestyle.

When did that change? Why?
Well you could live the exact same middle class life your grandparents lived.  They probably had (at most) a 1100sqft home, a car.....maybe two....probably one...that they HAD to replace every few years.  They didn't have A/C or a second bathroom, only had broadcast TV, certainly no smart phone or netflix or PC.  But they spent a higher percentage of their income on food than you'll have to (thanks in part to GM crops/better pesticides, better irrigation, just better farming practices in general)....so perhaps you could swing the smart phone as long as it's not a Mac.  Just one, certainly not one each for you, the wife and the 1.7 kids.

The middle class hasn't declined as much as what's excpected of a middle class family to own has increased.



Of course blaming your political enemy is easier.....

Television sets were the iPhones of that era. Having a television in 2014 is in no way comparable to having one in 1960. That's why I roll my eyes whenever Heritage Foundation types insist that the poors should shut up and be grateful because they have refrigerators and indoor plumbing. (Because apparently expecting all members of society to benefit from technological progress is an unreasonable demand.) The point is that they could afford what was considered the "latest technology" of that era - television sets, washing machines, etc.

They lived in an 1,100 square foot home. And the CEO of the company someone like his grandfather worked for probably lived in a home that was something like 4,000 square feet and likely didn't have a whole lot of technology or features that his home didn't have. It was a very different situation from today, when the grandfather would be living in a 2,000 square foot home but would probably be renting instead of owning, while the CEO lived in a 7,000 square foot home in a gated community with a home movie theater and an infinity pool.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2014, 06:17:50 AM »

The point is that they could afford what was considered the "latest technology" of that era - television sets, washing machines, etc.
And middle class people today can still do that.  Certainly somebody that heads a city department and his medical receptionist wife would certainly own 2 cars, have cable TV/DVR/a TV bigger than the rich guy in the 50s could ever dream of, Netflix, several PCs, several smart phones, and live in a decent home in not a bad part of town.  They couldn't afford to own two late model cars at the same time or get a new computer every year, but they'll do alright if they aren't horrible with money.  Even the working poor today do better than the middle class of our grandparents.  I'll agree that it's harder for the unskilled to make it to the middle class today than it was for the unskilled of that generation and that that is probably a bad thing, but really, other than a brief couple of decades, that's always been the case.
Logged
Foucaulf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2014, 06:59:55 AM »
« Edited: April 01, 2014, 07:18:14 AM by Foucaulf »

I think it's telling about the state of economics discussion on this forum that the word "market" has not been mentioned once. Anyways -

I prefer "stagnated" instead of "declined" in most situations, just to avoid the obvious foil that living standards have not decreased that much. Consumption on necessities - food, shelter, clothing, and transportation - seems to not have changed for those in the middle quantile, which is quite odd when thinking about the massive capital mobility now available to the rich. The story may not be one of "Iphones instead of TVs," but more like "Iphones or TVs, but not enough spare income to buy both". I see plenty of people my age who have substituted a TV for Netflix, but still live paycheck to paycheck.

The middle class's possession of household wealth is simply dwarfed by spending on that front by those richer. At the start of the Baby Boom, for example, one can get a newly built house, small but homely, on an average salary. But the returns to holding a larger house at the start ended up exceeding wage increases. With constant inflows of better-educated professionals into communities who can afford to buy better houses, those who lived there were squeezed out of the housing market. Now someone trying to find a house in the same community will have to take a mortgage longer and costlier than what they had before, and maybe they will need to settle for a run-down apartment instead.

The social guarantees in that postwar era - pensions after retirement, unemployment insurance - are also unravelling in the present day. Past middle class professions are simply shut out of the market for liquid capital that is such an engine for wealth growth these days, as those in industrializing countries use that capital to catch up. Faced with uncertainty on how they can make do with raising family or preparing for retirement, they also need to save more or become reliant on debt. The situation, then, looks more like our conception of "lower class": someone with little stability in their lives, subject to market forces.

EDIT:
Even the working poor today do better than the middle class of our grandparents.  I'll agree that it's harder for the unskilled to make it to the middle class today than it was for the unskilled of that generation and that that is probably a bad thing, but really, other than a brief couple of decades, that's always been the case.

Red herring - the middle class, quite frankly, did not exist in your grandparents' time. And of course inequality has been rampant other than a brief couple of decades - isn't the point to change society for the better?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2014, 07:41:49 AM »

Red herring - the middle class, quite frankly, did not exist in your grandparents' time.
That's the OP's entire premise.  He's not going to take that well.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Equality in opportunity, sure, that should be the goal of everyone that wants to advance civilization.  It's better for everybody if the "cream" rises to the top, no matter where it started from.  No, we aren't there yet, probably never will get all the way down that road.  Equality in results is whole 'nuther thing and that clearly shouldn't be the goal.
Logged
Foucaulf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2014, 09:13:09 AM »

That's the OP's entire premise.  He's not going to take that well.

Sorry about that, I was referring to your grandparents, who for a minute I imagined to be Silent great plains farmers. Case doesn't apply to the OP, at least, because he's in his twenties, and his grandparents would have caught the Baby Boom.

Something I forgot to mention is the trend where both parents work. Off the top of my head I think it really hit off in the late seventies, and if increased labour time has been necessary to maintain enough income that only shows further the wealth disparity over time.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The term is plenty amorphous as it is, though I don't believe we are heading in that direction in any sense of the word. There are job opportunities out there, in hospitality or on rich people's yachts. But this idea of servitude, for me if not for you, seems degrading compared to an executive or manufacturing position.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2014, 09:50:15 AM »

The "middle class" thoroughly dominates every single aspect of American society. It is not in decline. What you are confusing for middle class are actually working class living standards and social mobility in the United States, which have been in decline at least since the early 1970s, a consequence of the stagflation of the 1970s and evisceration of organized labor (which protects the wages of all, not just it's membership) in the 1980s, as well as the liberalization of trade and rapid expansion of low wage sectors in the 1990s and 2000s. 
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2014, 10:54:26 AM »

The term is plenty amorphous as it is, though I don't believe we are heading in that direction in any sense of the word. There are job opportunities out there, in hospitality or on rich people's yachts. But this idea of servitude, for me if not for you, seems degrading compared to an executive or manufacturing position.
Yeah, because putting the same fender on the same Ford in a dingy factory or tightening the same 15 screws on the back of a refrigerator for 30 years is SOOOO rewarding.  Clearly we see things through different colored glasses.
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2014, 04:50:29 PM »

Because the ruling elite doesn't want a middle class. Middle class is wealthy enough to be free from control from them.

It's why the Elite is using lots of money to convince people to destroy the welfare state. To dissolve middle class in order to return to their previous exclusive rule.

Have to disagree with you there. The elite needs a 'middle-class' and always has done. After all, who is it that has provided the bulk of the doctors and the teachers. The accountants and the small businessmen. The middle managers, the lawyers, and the higher ranks of the police. The 'elite' is reliant upon there being a middle class to help service its needs, otherwise it would be unable to survive.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2014, 05:00:43 PM »

Because the ruling elite doesn't want a middle class. Middle class is wealthy enough to be free from control from them.

It's why the Elite is using lots of money to convince people to destroy the welfare state. To dissolve middle class in order to return to their previous exclusive rule.

Have to disagree with you there. The elite needs a 'middle-class' and always has done. After all, who is it that has provided the bulk of the doctors and the teachers. The accountants and the small businessmen. The middle managers, the lawyers, and the higher ranks of the police. The 'elite' is reliant upon there being a middle class to help service its needs, otherwise it would be unable to survive.

Seeing how Republicans act in regard to teachers' wages, they want teachers to be lower-class.
I don't know for UK (I suppose it's affected by NHS), but doctors are clearly upper-class here (some are gaining over 300,000$/year). My family owns a small business, and there is considerable pressure to be integrated in big corporations. I don't know about UK again, but here, many lawyers are millionnaires. It leaves the upper police, middle managers and accountants, which doesn't account for much people.
Logged
Heimdal
HenryH
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 289


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2014, 04:51:54 PM »

A lot of the people described as «middle class» were never actually bourgeois. They were working class people, with a lifestyle sufficiently comfortable to describe themselves as “middle class”.

I think there are a lot of reasons for why this segment of the population have stagnated and/or declined.

Part of the explanation is the decline of low-skilled manufacturing jobs. In the 1950s you could start working at an assembly line after finishing High School. The company was required to pay a so-called family wage. A wage that was high enough so that a single breadwinner (usually the man) could support his spouse staying at home with the kids. Most of these low-skilled manufacturing jobs are gone, and the family wage disappeared many decades ago. The manufacturing jobs that exist today usually require some sort of technical expertise. This problem is compounded by a lack of any sort of industrial policy by the government.

Furthermore the pool of labor has increased, and not just by outsourcing. A man seeking a job in the 1950s didn’t face competition from female workers (it would be a few decades before they fully joined the workforce) or immigrants (as the immigration policy wouldn’t be liberalized until some years later). That means that there are a more people competing for the same jobs.
Another important aspect is the rise in certain costs. People in “middle class” jobs are probably paying less federal taxes than they did three or four decades ago. But they still need health insurance, and they might also wish to save up money for their children’s college tuition. The cost of healthcare and education has increased a lot more than wages. That means that they have less money to spend on other goods and services.

A significant change that has taken place is the creation of a large upper class. There were of course very wealthy people in the decades past, but the differences were less pronounced. People mostly ate the same sort of food, drove the same cars and watched exactly the same television programs. Today people are sorting themselves to a far larger degree. The mass upper class is eating different foods, drive different cars, read different newspapers and watch different television programs. That sets them apart from their poorer neighbors. This creates a sense of a greater inequality.

Then there is the role of family breakdown and substance abuse. The 1960s ushered in a lot of new cultural trends. Some of them were benign, but others were not. The rise in drug abuse and divorce rates probably had a very unfortunate effect on a lot of “middle class” families. The breakdown of the family robbed them of social stability, which is necessary to get a good job and a good education. Drugs also became available to a larger audience during the 1960s and the 1970s, and it probably hit the poor far harder than the wealthy. The latter had the social and economic capital to weather this. Kids in Northeastern prep schools smoked pot and went on to college like their parents, while kids in South Bronx used crack and killed each other in gang wars.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2014, 09:36:02 AM »

The point is that they could afford what was considered the "latest technology" of that era - television sets, washing machines, etc.
And middle class people today can still do that.  Certainly somebody that heads a city department and his medical receptionist wife would certainly own 2 cars, have cable TV/DVR/a TV bigger than the rich guy in the 50s could ever dream of, Netflix, several PCs, several smart phones, and live in a decent home in not a bad part of town.  They couldn't afford to own two late model cars at the same time or get a new computer every year, but they'll do alright if they aren't horrible with money.  Even the working poor today do better than the middle class of our grandparents.  I'll agree that it's harder for the unskilled to make it to the middle class today than it was for the unskilled of that generation and that that is probably a bad thing, but really, other than a brief couple of decades, that's always been the case.

But what does any of that have to do with anything, Deadman? The problem with youur posts on this topic fundamentally conflates technological advances with economic ones.

The fact internet access, larger screen TVs, cellphones, etc are now accessable readily cheaply, doesn't begin to make up for the fact health insurance and home ownership are increasingly inaccessable.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2014, 09:52:55 AM »

A broad middle class is the historical exception, not the norm.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2014, 09:59:27 AM »

The point is that they could afford what was considered the "latest technology" of that era - television sets, washing machines, etc.
And middle class people today can still do that.  Certainly somebody that heads a city department and his medical receptionist wife would certainly own 2 cars, have cable TV/DVR/a TV bigger than the rich guy in the 50s could ever dream of, Netflix, several PCs, several smart phones, and live in a decent home in not a bad part of town.  They couldn't afford to own two late model cars at the same time or get a new computer every year, but they'll do alright if they aren't horrible with money.  Even the working poor today do better than the middle class of our grandparents.  I'll agree that it's harder for the unskilled to make it to the middle class today than it was for the unskilled of that generation and that that is probably a bad thing, but really, other than a brief couple of decades, that's always been the case.

But what does any of that have to do with anything, Deadman? The problem with youur posts on this topic fundamentally conflates technological advances with economic ones.

The fact internet access, larger screen TVs, cellphones, etc are now accessable readily cheaply, doesn't begin to make up for the fact health insurance and home ownership are increasingly inaccessable.
But what does any of that have to do with anything, Badger?  The fact remains that people that make a middle class living (like the OP's example) can have health insurance and a home AND have most modern technology.  They might not be able to get a new car every 2 years, but not getting a new car every 2 years isn't a tragedy.

Again, sure it sucks that the unskilled are less and less likely to achieve these things, but I'm not sure homeownership for all is actually all that worthy of a goal.  I've come around on the health insurance front and think that the best we can hope for at this point is to go the way the rest of the western world has gone.  I don't think it's the best solution (but I don't know what the best solution would be), but it's probably better than what we got or had.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,237
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2014, 10:47:16 AM »

The point is that they could afford what was considered the "latest technology" of that era - television sets, washing machines, etc.
And middle class people today can still do that.  Certainly somebody that heads a city department and his medical receptionist wife would certainly own 2 cars, have cable TV/DVR/a TV bigger than the rich guy in the 50s could ever dream of, Netflix, several PCs, several smart phones, and live in a decent home in not a bad part of town.  They couldn't afford to own two late model cars at the same time or get a new computer every year, but they'll do alright if they aren't horrible with money.  Even the working poor today do better than the middle class of our grandparents.  I'll agree that it's harder for the unskilled to make it to the middle class today than it was for the unskilled of that generation and that that is probably a bad thing, but really, other than a brief couple of decades, that's always been the case.

But what does any of that have to do with anything, Deadman? The problem with youur posts on this topic fundamentally conflates technological advances with economic ones.

The fact internet access, larger screen TVs, cellphones, etc are now accessable readily cheaply, doesn't begin to make up for the fact health insurance and home ownership are increasingly inaccessable.
But what does any of that have to do with anything, Badger?  The fact remains that people that make a middle class living (like the OP's example) can have health insurance and a home AND have most modern technology.  They might not be able to get a new car every 2 years, but not getting a new car every 2 years isn't a tragedy.

Again, sure it sucks that the unskilled are less and less likely to achieve these things, but I'm not sure homeownership for all is actually all that worthy of a goal.  I've come around on the health insurance front and think that the best we can hope for at this point is to go the way the rest of the western world has gone.  I don't think it's the best solution (but I don't know what the best solution would be), but it's probably better than what we got or had.

I'm not sure where "replacing cars every two years" came from. That wasn't mentioned in the OP, by me, or even your posts to which I responded. I don't think anyone considers such an obviously luxurious practice to be in any way a hallmark of the middle class, either traditionally or presently.

I'm glad that you've turned the corner on health insurance, but i'd respectfully disagree as to whether home ownership is a worthwhile endeavor; most people would disagree. Regardless, that is arguably THE hallmark of middle class status. And the decline of same along with health insurance access isn't remotely replaced by netflix being affordable.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2014, 11:33:19 AM »

I'd argue that the middle class hasn't declined at all.  Rather what happened is that for many years the material gap between the upper lower class and the lower middle class was miniscule or even inverted with the upper lower classes being better off than the lower middle classes materially.  That led to the perception that those upper lower classes were part of the middle class.  However the lower classes have steadily seen their material well being decline for many years now, leading to the restoration of the historical gap in material standards.  Simultaneously, a number of upper lower class jobs have been either exported to cheaper labor markets or replaced by smaller numbers of middle class jobs.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,842
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2014, 02:36:53 PM »

We have horrible fiscal and monetary policies that completely eradicate the middle class.

The monetary policies at the least have forced the rewards for saving to near zero. Tax policies effectively give every advantage to giant, vertically-integrated businesses  -- most notably an effective flat tax on business income while allowing giant entities to write off costs of squeezing small-scale competitors (and small business owners have long been much of the middle class) into oblivion.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2014, 06:05:22 PM »

A broad middle class is the historical exception, not the norm.

Have you been reading your Piketty?

I feel like an ignoramus, but I have never heard of him. Doesn't sound like I'm missing much though. He will be joining Chang on my list of "economists who should be hit with sticks and fall in a hole", it seems:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/10/terence-corcoran-the-straw-dogs-of-thomas-pikettys-capitalism/
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 13, 2014, 11:07:00 AM »

<snip>

Yet, today, if I was to work a blue collar type job, and if I had a wife and children, we would probably live a lower, lower middle class to almost low class lifestyle.

When did that change? Why?
Well you could live the exact same middle class life your grandparents lived.  They probably had (at most) a 1100sqft home, a car.....maybe two....probably one...that they HAD to replace every few years.  They didn't have A/C or a second bathroom, only had broadcast TV, certainly no smart phone or netflix or PC.  But they spent a higher percentage of their income on food than you'll have to (thanks in part to GM crops/better pesticides, better irrigation, just better farming practices in general)....so perhaps you could swing the smart phone as long as it's not a Mac.  Just one, certainly not one each for you, the wife and the 1.7 kids.

The middle class hasn't declined as much as what's excpected of a middle class family to own has increased.



Of course blaming your political enemy is easier.....
What a load of tripe.

Yeah.. it's netflix and iPhones that have broken the middle class Roll Eyes

Get a grip, dude.  You really think it's that much more expensive to provide the services that smart phones and Netflix provide.. than it was for broadcast TV 40-50 years ago?

We have these things only because the quality of service these items offer has greatly expanded our access to entertainment and information while costs have gone down.  They are the trinkets/pittance the masses get to distract them from their slowly eroding incomes (which have been eroding for your entire life, dude)

And in case you didn't notice... food costs have soared.  As have energy costs.

The 1988 Heritage Foundation's excuse for why things are sh**tty called and they want their terrible cliched argument back.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 13, 2014, 11:18:31 AM »

Yeah.. it's netflix and iPhones that have broken the middle class Roll Eyes
Reading comprehension, it's what the cool kids do!  I'm not even arguing the middle class is broken much less that it's broken because of the cool toys we get to play with now-a-days.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
cite?  nah, I'll do it for you.  cite
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Food costs have gone up a bit in the past couple of years...but "soared"?  And clearly the long term trend is going down.


I've ignored the impotent anger which was the rest of your post.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 13, 2014, 11:52:40 AM »

Yeah.. it's netflix and iPhones that have broken the middle class Roll Eyes
Reading comprehension, it's what the cool kids do!  I'm not even arguing the middle class is broken much less that it's broken because of the cool toys we get to play with now-a-days.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
cite?  nah, I'll do it for you.  cite
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Food costs have gone up a bit in the past couple of years...but "soared"?  And clearly the long term trend is going down.


I've ignored the impotent anger which was the rest of your post.
Yeah.  You show me a graph in which you admit food costs have risen in the past few years... surely I exaggerated when I said "soar" but when you consider all basic costs to households (food/energy/housing), those costs have increased substantially and have eaten up any savings from food.

Perhaps it is the shock of rising food costs after decades of fast falling food prices?

But you are starting from the point that the mdidle class isn't being squeezed... so there's no point arguing with you in the first place because you are quick to show me that one graph... but refuse to believe that vast piles of data that show the middle class being ruthlessly squeezed from rising costs and stagnating or falling incomes.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 13 queries.