Middle Class living standards in decline

[opebo]

"Life is Harder Now"

According to this article on msnbc, the disposable income and overall living standards of middle class people are much less than they were in the 1970's:

after taking care of essentials like housing and health care, today’s middle class has about half as much spending money as their parents did in the early 1970s...

[TheresNoMoney]

No surprise there. I wonder how much worse it has to get before politicians decide they truly want to reverse the trend?

[opebo]

No surprise there. I wonder how much worse it has to get before politicians decide they truly want to reverse the trend?

It will take a lot - any redistribution towards commoners is anathema to those who currently receive all.   It will require that a huge majority of americans vote in their economic interests, like they did in the 1930s (and even then they were mostly subverted).

[John Dibble]

Of course actually reading the article paints a more balanced picture than opebo would like to paint. Disposable income != living standards. We're better off in some ways and worse off in others. Some costs have risen, some costs have fallen, some costs are new. It's happened constantly throughout our history, and we aren't going to magically go back to yesteryear with something as simple as redistribution.

[opebo]

Of course actually reading the article paints a more balanced picture than opebo would like to paint. Disposable income != living standards. We're better off in some ways and worse off in others. Some costs have risen, some costs have fallen, some costs are new. It's happened constantly throughout our history, and we aren't going to magically go back to yesteryear with something as simple as redistribution.

But redistribution was what was occuring during the historical period referenced, Dibble.

[John Dibble]

Of course actually reading the article paints a more balanced picture than opebo would like to paint. Disposable income != living standards. We're better off in some ways and worse off in others. Some costs have risen, some costs have fallen, some costs are new. It's happened constantly throughout our history, and we aren't going to magically go back to yesteryear with something as simple as redistribution.

But redistribution was what was occuring during the historical period referenced, Dibble.

Among a myriad of other socio-economic differences. You aren't ignorant of that fact either, so stop trolling.

[opebo]

Of course actually reading the article paints a more balanced picture than opebo would like to paint. Disposable income != living standards. We're better off in some ways and worse off in others. Some costs have risen, some costs have fallen, some costs are new. It's happened constantly throughout our history, and we aren't going to magically go back to yesteryear with something as simple as redistribution.

But redistribution was what was occuring during the historical period referenced, Dibble.

Among a myriad of other socio-economic differences. You aren't ignorant of that fact either, so stop trolling.

It isn't trolling to hold the position that there was one major cause, even though there may have been other minor influences.  In any case, ALL factors are political, and thus the change has been a political choice.

A politician who is in any way answerable to the commoners does not, when informed of their concerns, tell them that the quality of their TV is better or that they have 'internet'.  He gives them a union, cheap subsidized government loans, maybe even health care this time around. 

[John Dibble]

Of course actually reading the article paints a more balanced picture than opebo would like to paint. Disposable income != living standards. We're better off in some ways and worse off in others. Some costs have risen, some costs have fallen, some costs are new. It's happened constantly throughout our history, and we aren't going to magically go back to yesteryear with something as simple as redistribution.

But redistribution was what was occuring during the historical period referenced, Dibble.

Among a myriad of other socio-economic differences. You aren't ignorant of that fact either, so stop trolling.

It isn't trolling to hold the position that there was one major cause, even though there may have been other minor influences.  In any case, ALL factors are political, and thus the change has been a political choice.

A politician who is in any way answerable to the commoners does not, when informed of their concerns, tell them that the quality of their TV is better or that they have 'internet'.  He gives them a union, cheap subsidized government loans, maybe even health care this time around. 

It is trolling when you intentionally make ignorant, derogatory, and exaggerated statements on a regular basis to get a rise out of people. I'm pretty sure you're not as ignorant as you act, so cut it out already. I know you want the attention and all, but you seriously might consider acting like a reasonably intelligent and informed adult for a change. If you refuse to do so, I might as well just go back to ignoring you.

[opebo]

It is trolling when you intentionally make ignorant, derogatory, and exaggerated statements on a regular basis to get a rise out of people. I'm pretty sure you're not as ignorant as you act, so cut it out already. I know you want the attention and all, but you seriously might consider acting like a reasonably intelligent and informed adult for a change. If you refuse to do so, I might as well just go back to ignoring you.

Dibble, the left-wing ideology is not 'ignorant, derogatory', or 'exaggerated' simply because you disagree.  It is a different way of looking at the situation.  Of course I also think that your position is rather idiotic and simpleminded but I try not to say so, out of politeness.  Instead I point out the facts.  Please, if you can, show me where I was ignorant, derogatory or exaggerated in this thread.

[Gabu]

John:

[John Dibble]

John:

I know, Gabu, I know - I said I was going back to ignoring the little troll.

[TheresNoMoney]

Of course actually reading the article paints a more balanced picture than opebo would like to paint. Disposable income != living standards. We're better off in some ways and worse off in others. Some costs have risen, some costs have fallen, some costs are new.

Most significant costs have risen while wages have been stagnant. This leads to lower disposable income and a lesser quality of life. To top it off, Americans are working longer hours than ever.

How can you argue that things aren't going badly?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Of course actually reading the article paints a more balanced picture than opebo would like to paint. Disposable income != living standards. We're better off in some ways and worse off in others. Some costs have risen, some costs have fallen, some costs are new.

Most significant costs have risen while wages have been stagnant. This leads to lower disposable income and a lesser quality of life. To top it off, Americans are working longer hours than ever.

How can you argue that things aren't going badly?

While I do agree that the quality of life has stagnated and even declined, there are some things that are not mentioned in what you posted, Opebo:

Americans also have larger houses than they did 30 years ago.  Many have access to life lengthening and life saving medical procedures that are very expensive and were not available 30 years ago.  Kids now days have more toys that cost more and homes have more costlier electronics.

We don't have money or time for vacations any more because we don't want simple vacations.  We want our homes to be the vacations of 30 years ago.. and we want vacations to be these unbelievable excursions to places very far away.  No longer is it a week at the cabin that doesn't have hot water spent fishing and swimming... it's Disneyworld or Aspen or Paris or Hawaii.

This cannot be overlooked.  We have changed the definitions of normal living and vacation and expected society to keep up with it... while in fact we are pricing people out of these new experiences that we deem as the "normal" vacation.

I agree that it would still be harder to have a one income family than it would have been 30 years ago, even if you live like they did 30 years ago.. but it's not ALL bad news.

[John Dibble]

Of course actually reading the article paints a more balanced picture than opebo would like to paint. Disposable income != living standards. We're better off in some ways and worse off in others. Some costs have risen, some costs have fallen, some costs are new.

Most significant costs have risen while wages have been stagnant. This leads to lower disposable income and a lesser quality of life. To top it off, Americans are working longer hours than ever.

How can you argue that things aren't going badly?

Like I said, we're better off in some ways and worse off in others. For instance, lower disposable income is somewhat offset by the lower prices in many luxury goods. Medicine, while more costly, is more advanced. Lifespans are up. Technology has advanced. As Snowguy mentions, other things have changed as well. Does that mean things are better overall? Not necessarily. Whether you think things are going 'badly' or 'great' or something in between is relative.

Personally, I'd rather live now than in 1970 - do you feel different?

[TheresNoMoney]

For instance, lower disposable income is somewhat offset by the lower prices in many luxury goods. Medicine, while more costly, is more advanced. Lifespans are up. Technology has advanced.

These are all through natural technology advances. I don't think they're all that relevant to the real issue.

Personally, I'd rather live now than in 1970 - do you feel different?

Definitely, I'd rather live in 1970.

I'd probably be sitting pretty right now instead of just getting my head above water at age 29 (despite making good money). I would've gone to college without the expense of student loans, gotten a good job at 22 and been saving money ever since while living a fairly comfortable life. I would also have been able to buy a house a year or two after college.

Living nowadays I went to college for 5 1/2 years, got a master's degree, and have been working to pay off all my debt for the last 6 years. I still don't own a house (although I will within a year).

Also, if this was 1970 I could've gone right from high school to the working world and gotten a good manufacturing job to support a family. Nowadays you could never do that.

[John Dibble]

For instance, lower disposable income is somewhat offset by the lower prices in many luxury goods. Medicine, while more costly, is more advanced. Lifespans are up. Technology has advanced.

These are all through natural technology advances. I don't think they're all that relevant to the real issue.

Sure they're relevant - whether we're better off is a big picture issue. Disposable income alone doesn't determine that, it's just one of many factors.

[Padfoot]

Of course actually reading the article paints a more balanced picture than opebo would like to paint. Disposable income != living standards. We're better off in some ways and worse off in others. Some costs have risen, some costs have fallen, some costs are new.

Most significant costs have risen while wages have been stagnant. This leads to lower disposable income and a lesser quality of life. To top it off, Americans are working longer hours than ever.

How can you argue that things aren't going badly?

While I do agree that the quality of life has stagnated and even declined, there are some things that are not mentioned in what you posted, Opebo:

Americans also have larger houses than they did 30 years ago.  Many have access to life lengthening and life saving medical procedures that are very expensive and were not available 30 years ago.  Kids now days have more toys that cost more and homes have more costlier electronics.

We don't have money or time for vacations any more because we don't want simple vacations.  We want our homes to be the vacations of 30 years ago.. and we want vacations to be these unbelievable excursions to places very far away.  No longer is it a week at the cabin that doesn't have hot water spent fishing and swimming... it's Disneyworld or Aspen or Paris or Hawaii.

This cannot be overlooked.  We have changed the definitions of normal living and vacation and expected society to keep up with it... while in fact we are pricing people out of these new experiences that we deem as the "normal" vacation.

I agree that it would still be harder to have a one income family than it would have been 30 years ago, even if you live like they did 30 years ago.. but it's not ALL bad news.

I don't think that toys and vacations can be added into normal cost of living.  I'm pretty sure those items are bought using disposable income.

However, I do agree with the assertion that Americans are buying houses out of their price range which in part has contributed to the current foreclosure crisis.  Everyone thinks that a middle class job should allow them to live in a huge mansion so they take out these huge loans and mortgages that they can't really afford to pay on their salary.  People need to readjust their image of what the typical middle class home is.  Another part of the problem is that developers have stopped building smaller houses.  It seems like very new development has to contain bigger houses than the last one did.

[TheresNoMoney]

People need to readjust their image of what the typical middle class home is.  Another part of the problem is that developers have stopped building smaller houses.  It seems like very new development has to contain bigger houses than the last one did.

Yep, this is really a big problem. You can't find newer small houses anymore! The developers know are only building bigger houses to maximize profits.

[opebo]

The size of new houses is irrelevant when you consider that they are mostly bought by the better off.  Most lower working class people buy those smaller houses built 20-50 years ago, or in many cases never own a home but simply rent.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

As long as there are a handful of media companies deciding who is a credible challenger, and as long as people and special interest groups with massive amounts of money can keep buying our elections do not expect this trend that is killing the middle class to change. 

[jimrtex]

Of course actually reading the article paints a more balanced picture than opebo would like to paint. Disposable income != living standards. We're better off in some ways and worse off in others. Some costs have risen, some costs have fallen, some costs are new. It's happened constantly throughout our history, and we aren't going to magically go back to yesteryear with something as simple as redistribution.

The article was very deceptive.  The amount of income remaining after "major fixed expenses" was about the same in inflation-adjusted dollars, yet the cost of most of the things bought with those remaining dollars had dramatically reduced in cost (inflation adjusted),  improved in quality, or weren't even available in 1970.

And at least some of those expenses, such as for food, are quite necessary.  And at least some of the food cost for the two urchins is now being paid for out of the day-care and pre-school expenses.

Standards such as spending 25% of income on housing are quite arbitrary.  The cost of housing is extremely variable, especially on a regional basis.  When the cost of living standards were being devised, economists didn't know how to account for housing, so they just added 33% to the other costs.  If costs of other necessities such as food, clothing, and transportation are increasing at less than the overall inflation rate, then there will be more money available for housing.

It is bizarre to treat "new" expenses as having an increase of 1000%.  One could only assume that the authors of the study would also try to annualize that to either 7% compounded, or 28% linearized.  Why is the cost of transportation, which overall increased 52%, split out as two items, one increasing "eleventy seven percent" and the other with a 26% decrease.  Aren't we shown a household budget?  Or is "her car", something Kimberly paid for with "her money" before merging the income?

And that is without noticing that the cost of Susan's car was coming out of the budget left over after "fixed expenses" and competing with food and clothing.  Since Susan didn't have any income, Tom was having to pay for it.