The Lost Decade of the Middle Class: Fewer, Poorer, Gloomier

[greenforest32]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/08/22/the-lost-decade-of-the-middle-class/

Some images:

[Marokai Backbeat]

We're screwed.

[freepcrusher]

bash me all you want for this but I don't see why this is so bad. Less middle class people equals less reactionary politics.

[All Along The Watchtower]

bash me all you want for this but I don't see why this is so bad. Less middle class people equals less reactionary politics.

What?

[© tweed]

bash me all you want for this but I don't see why this is so bad. Less middle class people equals less reactionary politics.

What?

a more eloquent poster could have made a similar point without coming out as quite so ridiculous.  "middle class" has essentially no cognitive meaning in the US so I'm not sure how and on what terms I can enter this discussion.

[TJ in Oregon]

By looking at the median income change chart, the middle class seems to be doing somewhat better than the rich and poor.

[MaxQue]

By looking at the median income change chart, the middle class seems to be doing somewhat better than the rich and poor.

Because the lower middle class became poorer and became lower class.

[Beet]

So of the 10 years from 2001-2010, 8 of them were Bush years. The decade started off with tax cuts and deregulation, and look what it has got us. So why does Romney think that by repeating the same mistakes, the result will be any different in this decade?

[All Along The Watchtower]

bash me all you want for this but I don't see why this is so bad. Less middle class people equals less reactionary politics.

What?

a more eloquent poster could have made a similar point without coming out as quite so ridiculous.  "middle class" has essentially no cognitive meaning in the US so I'm not sure how and on what terms I can enter this discussion.

Less "middle class"=/=less reactionary politics

Look at America's politics these days.

[Antonio the Sixth]

bash me all you want for this but I don't see why this is so bad. Less middle class people equals less reactionary politics.

I don't understand how you can say that.

The rise of the middle class in the Western world in the second half of the 20th century has brought democracy to strengthen, living conditions to improve dramatically, social tensions to appease and instruction to rise. It is the product of the Welfare State and of all the policies the left has put forward since the 1930s. In some way, I'd say middle classes are the incarnation of the success of progressivism.

[minionofmidas]

bash me all you want for this but I don't see why this is so bad. Less middle class people equals less reactionary politics.

It's probably true.

[anvi]

I don't know what's meant by "reactionary politics" above.  But if terms like "middle class" are unmeaning for some, then let's put the matter this way.  

From the 80's to '90's, the top quintile of income earners have enjoyed income and asset growth that have considerably outpaced that of the next four quintiles.  During the '90's, this trend continued at a faster rate, but at the same time, the bottom four quintiles experienced rates of income and asset growth and the circumstances of the poor dramatically improved.  Finally, in the last decade, and in particular during the recession, all quintiles experienced rapid economic contraction, but the bottom quintile saw the most dramatic economic losses.  During the whole period, the numbers of people occupying the middle ranges of income and asset ownership have shrunk, with, a few more people entering the top two quintiles than slipping to the bottom two.

It's a mixed bag, but at least three takeaways might be the following.   First, our policies over the past thirty years have largely benefited income earners in the top quintile the most, though the '90's were a qualified exception to this.  Though the losses of the top quintile during the recession have been dramatic, they can obviously absorb these losses on a personal level more easily than those in other income brackets.  Second, it is better for everybody in every quintile when the circumstances of all sectors of the population improve (a fairly predictable result from an economic perspective, I would think).  That speaks in favor of growth-oriented policies as well as policies that make it easier for those with fewer advantages to do better.  Finally, the last decade has really sucked, and we should find ways to get back to the circumstances represented by the second takeaway.

[opebo]

bash me all you want for this but I don't see why this is so bad. Less middle class people equals less reactionary politics.

a more eloquent poster could have made a similar point without coming out as quite so ridiculous.

Haha, yes, but we all knew what he meant immediately. 

"middle class" has essentially no cognitive meaning in the US so I'm not sure how and on what terms I can enter this discussion.

Agreed.  The actual meaning of the statistic thingie is that the working class has been (and is continuing to be) dis-empowered and returned to a state of abject victimhood.  The middle class, viewed realistically in the non-american way is the same as ever - a few percent of the population who are doctors, lawyers, a few other professions, and the sort of 'local elite' small-to-medium sized business people.

[Person Man]

bash me all you want for this but I don't see why this is so bad. Less middle class people equals less reactionary politics.

a more eloquent poster could have made a similar point without coming out as quite so ridiculous.

Haha, yes, but we all knew what he meant immediately.

"middle class" has essentially no cognitive meaning in the US so I'm not sure how and on what terms I can enter this discussion.

Agreed.  The actual meaning of the statistic thingie is that the working class has been (and is continuing to be) dis-empowered and returned to a state of abject victimhood.  The middle class, viewed realistically in the non-american way is the same as ever - a few percent of the population who are doctors, lawyers, a few other professions, and the sort of 'local elite' small-to-medium sized business people.

This. Maybe the top 15%, at the most, is Middle Class. Most people are really Working Class and its harder and harder to make a living as a Working Class person. Like I said, if you can find reasonable aid, go back to school, become a Doctor or Engineer.  

[© tweed]

even the best middle class jobs in the traditional definition have been heavily 'proletarianized' (doctors, lawyers, etc work in hierarchical settings and have little control over their own working day) though they may be well-remunerated.

[Person Man]

even the best middle class jobs in the traditional definition have been heavily 'proletarianized' (doctors, lawyers, etc work in hierarchical settings and have little control over their own working day) though they may be well-remunerated.

Well, they are when you are at the bottom of the field. Engineers, Lawyers and Doctors generally have to spend a good 3 or 4 years as "Staff", "Clerks", "Articlers" or "Residents" before getting the autonomy that comes with being a journeyman. Its basically like a career in Management, but you don't actually manage anyone....and your posistion in a learned profession or management is basically your position amongst the Middle Class.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm guessing that he means that the middle class is where things like the Tea Party come from.

[© tweed]

I'm guessing that he means that the middle class is where things like the Tea Party come from.

the middle class are the shock troops of the ruling class.