The Collapsing American Middle Class

[bendog]

The media didn't distort Trump's rhetoric on Mexicans, that's on him. I don't see Hilary as caring about anything but herself, power, and legacy. She and Bill presided over the mass incarceration explosion while she was calling black kids “superpredators”. We’re gonna have to disagree on this; I can’t support Hilary for anything at all. I don’t like her, I don’t trust her, and the truth is, the power structure wanted to give us a choice of two dynasty families again. I have no affinity for Trump, but he did bust up the whatdya-want-another-Bush-or-anther-Clinton party.

No, the media did distort Trumps remarks which were directed to illegal aliens, not all Mexicans.

And dont make me defend Hillary; that is horribly rude. lol

I heard what Trump said and I understand what he was doing with that dog whistle racist bullshit. "And some of them, I assume, are good people." No good. If he keeps it up, the unsubstantial people will splinter as per usual. He's courting older white males in the primary, but some folk have longer attention spans than toddlers and this may not play well. He also knows older white males have been institutionally programmed in America to blame minorities when under economic duress.

It's the muslim stuff too. "Dancing in the streets of NJ." And, in the terrorist attacks, actually the large majority of criminals were not permanent residents and certainly not refugees. The pandering to our basest natures is why I could never cast a vote that would actually be recorded electing him potus. My state will go Trump, but I could still possibly, just possibly, vote for Hillary on a basis of the Supreme Court and Roe and gerrymandering, and a rejection of the racist pandering .... if she can actually set forth an achievable policy to punish trading partners who don't have open markets and some basic worker protections.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The media didn't distort Trump's rhetoric on Mexicans, that's on him. I don't see Hilary as caring about anything but herself, power, and legacy. She and Bill presided over the mass incarceration explosion while she was calling black kids “superpredators”. We’re gonna have to disagree on this; I can’t support Hilary for anything at all. I don’t like her, I don’t trust her, and the truth is, the power structure wanted to give us a choice of two dynasty families again. I have no affinity for Trump, but he did bust up the whatdya-want-another-Bush-or-anther-Clinton party.

No, the media did distort Trumps remarks which were directed to illegal aliens, not all Mexicans.

And dont make me defend Hillary; that is horribly rude. lol

I heard what Trump said and I understand what he was doing with that dog whistle racist bullshit. "And some of them, I assume, are good people." No good. If he keeps it up, the unsubstantial people will splinter as per usual. He's courting older white males in the primary, but some folk have longer attention spans than toddlers and this may not play well. He also knows older white males have been institutionally programmed in America to blame minorities when under economic duress.

Lol, "dog whistle racism" = racism not stated that you simply imagine.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's the muslim stuff too. "Dancing in the streets of NJ." And, in the terrorist attacks, actually the large majority of criminals were not permanent residents and certainly not refugees. The pandering to our basest natures is why I could never cast a vote that would actually be recorded electing him potus. My state will go Trump, but I could still possibly, just possibly, vote for Hillary on a basis of the Supreme Court and Roe and gerrymandering, and a rejection of the racist pandering .... if she can actually set forth an achievable policy to punish trading partners who don't have open markets and some basic worker protections.

This has been discussed to the point of evoking nausea.

Trump (and anyone else interested) saw reports of Muslims celebrating world round and they numbered in the thousands and there were Muslims celebrating in New Jersey.

Trump says thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey is only a comma placement away from being absolutely true, and is totally within the realm of a reasonable slip.

 

[bendog]

PS, Hillary would have to agree to adopt some pro-union positions. Slick really stiff armed labor after the worked hard for him in 92.

Oh hell, let's face it. She'd have to turn into Joe Biden and Pocahantus simultaneously. LOL

 

[bendog]

It's the muslim stuff too. "Dancing in the streets of NJ." And, in the terrorist attacks, actually the large majority of criminals were not permanent residents and certainly not refugees. The pandering to our basest natures is why I could never cast a vote that would actually be recorded electing him potus. My state will go Trump, but I could still possibly, just possibly, vote for Hillary on a basis of the Supreme Court and Roe and gerrymandering, and a rejection of the racist pandering .... if she can actually set forth an achievable policy to punish trading partners who don't have open markets and some basic worker protections.

This has been discussed to the point of evoking nausea.

Trump (and anyone else interested) saw reports of Muslims celebrating world round and they numbered in the thousands and there were Muslims celebrating in New Jersey.

Trump says thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey is only a comma placement away from being absolutely true, and is totally within the realm of a reasonable slip.

American muslims did not celebrate 9-11. In fact, some died in it.

 

[Timmy]

When ronnie started his demise and ruining of Unions. Wages started to stagnate.

Word . The GOP has successfully turned Union folk into bad guys, while CEOs with obnoxious salaries are all Heros.

And school teachers.

Yeah , but they don't mess wh police or fire union. Bad optics .

 

[boilermaker55]

NAFTA was one of the worst events for US labor!

PS, Hillary would have to agree to adopt some pro-union positions. Slick really stiff armed labor after the worked hard for him in 92.

Oh hell, let's face it. She'd have to turn into Joe Biden and Pocahantus simultaneously. LOL

 

[Fenton Lum]

The media didn't distort Trump's rhetoric on Mexicans, that's on him. I don't see Hilary as caring about anything but herself, power, and legacy. She and Bill presided over the mass incarceration explosion while she was calling black kids “superpredators”. We’re gonna have to disagree on this; I can’t support Hilary for anything at all. I don’t like her, I don’t trust her, and the truth is, the power structure wanted to give us a choice of two dynasty families again. I have no affinity for Trump, but he did bust up the whatdya-want-another-Bush-or-anther-Clinton party.

No, the media did distort Trumps remarks which were directed to illegal aliens, not all Mexicans.

And dont make me defend Hillary; that is horribly rude. lol

I heard what Trump said and I understand what he was doing with that dog whistle racist bullshit. "And some of them, I assume, are good people." No good. If he keeps it up, the unsubstantial people will splinter as per usual. He's courting older white males in the primary, but some folk have longer attention spans than toddlers and this may not play well. He also knows older white males have been institutionally programmed in America to blame minorities when under economic duress.

Lol, "dog whistle racism" = racism not stated that you simply imagine.

Sure. I understand some of your blind spots.

 

[initforme]

If our politicians were interested in helping the middle class they would have been doing that years ago.

 

[Fenton Lum]

If our politicians were interested in helping the middle class they would have been doing that years ago.

Yup. We have to make them, but we bought into the ruse that if we can only vote enough folks in from "one" party or the "other", things will be oh so much better.

 

[initforme]

No matter who wins the next election, the middle class loses. I will bet everything I own including my house on it.

 

[francoHFW]

No, DO blame reaganist taxes and policies, still defended to the death by the GOP. If you count all taxes and fees, we basically have a flat tax on everyone, with all new wealth going to the richest.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...lity-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[JimBowie1958]

American muslims did not celebrate 9-11. In fact, some died in it.

You say that like Muslims in America are all one giant brainless monolithic group think.

They are not.

Some celebrated the WTC destruction, but the vast majority did not. It is not a black vrs white comparison.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The media didn't distort Trump's rhetoric on Mexicans, that's on him. I don't see Hilary as caring about anything but herself, power, and legacy. She and Bill presided over the mass incarceration explosion while she was calling black kids “superpredators”. We’re gonna have to disagree on this; I can’t support Hilary for anything at all. I don’t like her, I don’t trust her, and the truth is, the power structure wanted to give us a choice of two dynasty families again. I have no affinity for Trump, but he did bust up the whatdya-want-another-Bush-or-anther-Clinton party.

No, the media did distort Trumps remarks which were directed to illegal aliens, not all Mexicans.

And dont make me defend Hillary; that is horribly rude. lol

I heard what Trump said and I understand what he was doing with that dog whistle racist bullshit. "And some of them, I assume, are good people." No good. If he keeps it up, the unsubstantial people will splinter as per usual. He's courting older white males in the primary, but some folk have longer attention spans than toddlers and this may not play well. He also knows older white males have been institutionally programmed in America to blame minorities when under economic duress.

Lol, "dog whistle racism" = racism not stated that you simply imagine.

Sure. I understand some of your blind spots.

Yeah, I cannot see your fantasies.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, DO blame reaganist taxes and policies, still defended to the death by the GOP. If you count all taxes and fees, we basically have a flat tax on everyone, with all new wealth going to the richest.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

your stats clearly show that the transition occurred under GHW Bush, not Reagan.

 

[Fenton Lum]

No, DO blame reaganist taxes and policies, still defended to the death by the GOP. If you count all taxes and fees, we basically have a flat tax on everyone, with all new wealth going to the richest.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

your stats clearly show that the transition occurred under GHW Bush, not Reagan.

Due to lag time. And don't leave Bill Clinton outta this, he was part of it too. And Hilary will continue the whole thing.

Not that Trump won't mind you.

 

[boilermaker55]

When corporations are made to stop writing legislation then the middle class will have a chance.

If our politicians were interested in helping the middle class they would have been doing that years ago.

 

[francoHFW]

No, DO blame reaganist taxes and policies, still defended to the death by the GOP. If you count all taxes and fees, we basically have a flat tax on everyone, with all new wealth going to the richest.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

your stats clearly show that the transition occurred under GHW Bush, not Reagan.

Due to lag time. And don't leave Bill Clinton outta this, he was part of it too. And Hilary will continue the whole thing.

Not that Trump won't mind you.

Horse patoot. Hillary has the good policy. The New BS GOP suqs since the 80's.

 

[hazlnut]

NAFTA has many unintended consequences.

+ machines continue to take over jobs at all levels.

The day will soon come when you'll be taking to a machine when calling customer service and not know it.

Computers can do accounting, write legal briefs and file them, hire and fire people (human resources) make out schedules... Computers can operate other computers... What can you do that a computer can't? (or won't ever)...

Maybe we should legalize all drugs and just allow a generation to die off.

 

[Fenton Lum]

No, DO blame reaganist taxes and policies, still defended to the death by the GOP. If you count all taxes and fees, we basically have a flat tax on everyone, with all new wealth going to the richest.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

your stats clearly show that the transition occurred under GHW Bush, not Reagan.

Due to lag time. And don't leave Bill Clinton outta this, he was part of it too. And Hilary will continue the whole thing.

Not that Trump won't mind you.

Horse patoot. Hillary has the good policy. The New BS GOP suqs since the 80's.

No, DO blame reaganist taxes and policies, still defended to the death by the GOP. If you count all taxes and fees, we basically have a flat tax on everyone, with all new wealth going to the richest.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

your stats clearly show that the transition occurred under GHW Bush, not Reagan.

Due to lag time. And don't leave Bill Clinton outta this, he was part of it too. And Hilary will continue the whole thing.

Not that Trump won't mind you.

Horse patoot. Hillary has the good policy. The New BS GOP suqs since the 80's.

Under the neoliberal Bill Clinton administration the FCC was deregulated which resulted in the shrinking of the parameters of acceptable debate in a space now owned by 6 multinational corporations with little interest in investigative journalism or pushing back on the power structure. Half a dozen corporations control what 90% of Americans see and hear. The American media at this point is corporate perceptual reality marketing geared toward the management of the expectations of the masses. Under Clinton welfare was destroyed at a time when 70% of the recipients were children. Glass–Steagall was dismantled and reasonably aware folk understand what happened as a result of that. America returned to profiteering from bondage via mass incarceration of primarily black and brown bodies (but certainly always the poor), 90% of who never get a trial, into for profit prisons where other companies such as telephone and food service corporations further the exploitation of the underclass. In a hollowed out postindustrial society where there are no jobs for the poor or those sans degrees, society can now extract $40-50K per year per body, while blathering on about “bringing the jobs back”, which no one has any real intention of doing. The raping of society to support a bloated military occupation of the planet and endless wars of aggression to provide corporate access to markets and resources has continued unabated under the Obama administration and none of the afore mentioned “advances” were rolled back.
The Democratic Party is the Republican Party of my youth mouthing slightly less harsh rhetoric on social issues with no meaningful policy to back up the verbiage.