[deleted]
The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class
11–20 of 75 posts
Re: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class
#12All I see is a bunch of handwaving and distractions from what is admitted to be a real issue at the start. Imagine we still had slavery in the US in 2013. Who would argue that slavery is perfectly ok because, by golly, slaves live longer and have access to nicer clothes and improved healthcare? And look, we had to deal with an influx of new slaves, so it's actually their fault! Really, those are your arguments? After…
You're missing the point. The gross numbers haven't increased, but the things that actually matter (what you can buy for your money) have decreased. The key point being:
"spending by households on many of modern life's "basics"—food at home, automobiles, clothing and footwear, household furnishings and equipment, and housing and utilities—fell from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 44% in 1970 to 32% today."
There's a reason why the middle class today can buy so much MORE stuff, it's all much cheaper. The article is saying people are not richer, but the quality of life is not significantly different for the middle class then it is for the rich (the same access to long life, short travel, etc...)
Re: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class
#13All I see is a bunch of handwaving and distractions from what is admitted to be a real issue at the start. Imagine we still had slavery in the US in 2013. Who would argue that slavery is perfectly ok because, by golly, slaves live longer and have access to nicer clothes and improved healthcare? And look, we had to deal with an influx of new slaves, so it's actually their fault! Really, those are your arguments? After…
It sounds like you're confused about the article's primary argument, which is that the value of today's real wages is much greater than was the value of those same wages n decades ago. I don't see how your slavery analogy addresses that point.
Re: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class
#14All I see is a bunch of handwaving and distractions from what is admitted to be a real issue at the start. Imagine we still had slavery in the US in 2013. Who would argue that slavery is perfectly ok because, by golly, slaves live longer and have access to nicer clothes and improved healthcare? And look, we had to deal with an influx of new slaves, so it's actually their fault! Really, those are your arguments? After…
Who would argue that slavery is perfectly ok because, by golly, slaves live longer and have access to nicer clothes and improved healthcare?
This is a very bizarre analogy. The claim is that the real average wage isn't a good barometer of the economic and social condition of the middle class, despite often being held up as such. Nobody would claim that the existence or absence of slavery isn't a good barometer of the economic and social condition of the (potential) slave class.
Re: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class
#15I can't dig up the article, but be careful when gauging things based on "life expectancy". "Life expectancy" doesn't actually mean what it is typically implied to mean.
Edit: Here's the HN thread. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4505851
Re: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class
#16Re: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class
#17The article points out a 3 reason why the "flat-wage of the middle class" idea is a myth: 1. CPI underestimating product improvements. 2. Increase in fringe benefits. 3. Influx of lesser skilled workers. Product improvements and fringe benefits effect both middle and upper class living standard equally. These two improvements would increase both upper and middle classes equally, so I can't see how these would make mi…
...does not change the fact that the middle class's wages are stagnent, it just is a changing of demographics.
Right, but that suggests it's not a problem.
If you want to reason from a composition change, there is a very simple solution: increased immigration by high income people only. That'll raise our average wages, albeit without necessarily making anyone better off.
Re: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class
#18All I see is a bunch of handwaving and distractions from what is admitted to be a real issue at the start. Imagine we still had slavery in the US in 2013. Who would argue that slavery is perfectly ok because, by golly, slaves live longer and have access to nicer clothes and improved healthcare? And look, we had to deal with an influx of new slaves, so it's actually their fault! Really, those are your arguments? After…
Whether or not you're convinced by the article--and personally I don't think it belongs here--comparing the argument that "slavery is okay because slaves are not so bad off" to the argument that "the measured stagnation in wages does not indicate an actual stagnation in living standards" is completely absurd.
Re: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class
#19I am tired of this:
"the CPI overestimates inflation by underestimating the value of improvements in product quality and variety"
The extreme right-wing has been making this argument since the early 1980s. I used to believe this argument, as it once sounded believable. But Newt Gingrich used this issue (among others) to engineer a Republican resurgence in 1994, and one of the first things they did was force the Bureau of Labor Statistics to change the way it calculates the CPI, so that more attention was paid to quality improvements of goods and services.
What surprised me was that the right-wingers continued to use this argument, as if nothing had changed. It was then that I realized they were arguing in bad faith. No matter how many changes were made to the CPI, they were going to keep repeating the mantra "The CPI overstates inflation".
Regarding what the Republicans achieved during 1994-1995, here are some articles worth reading:
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/no-438-public-comment-on-...
http://bluemassgroup.com/2010/11/the-1995-gop-revolution-scr...
Re: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class
#20Another factor that isn't often acknowledged when making comparisons of 'household income' over time: households are shrinking.
To contrive a stark example, say 30 years prior the median household size was 4 people, and the household income was $100K (in real dollars). Fast-forward to a later period, median household size 3 people (due to later marrying, fewer children, more people living alone), and median household income $90K.
A politician or publication wanting to preach stagnation will run with the headline: "Household Income down 10%!". But in actuality, the household income per household member has risen from $25K to $30K, a 25% increase.
(Real-life effects are much subtler than this, but I believe in the same direction for most recent analyses of 'household income'.)