The Middle Class Is Doing Just Fine

Discussion in 'Economy' started by PoliticalChic, Dec 9, 2011.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,686
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,817
    ‘The Middle Class Is Doing Just Fine’, and in the sense that the economic improvement is ongoing, so has every quintile of the economy.

    Seem counterintuitive? Only if one relies on the media, rather than looking into the matter.
    And, of course, it is easy to subscribe to the view if one is already allied with the Left-wing calumny of America.

    1. Poverty is hardly increasing, rather the definition is an example of ‘moving the goalposts.’ Poverty means no home, no heat, no food. It doesn’t mean the condition of having an older car than another.

    2. What is missed…and not by accident, is that the ‘disappearance’ of the middle class is largely due to fact that the percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes

    a. Try this. Draw the bell curve, with a line vertical line in the middle. This was the ‘middle class.’ Now draw the bell curve, and construct the line to the left…on the ‘uphill’ side of the curve. See how the population indicated by the line includes a smaller group? It’s because more folk have higher incomes, not because of lesser.

    b. “…in 1967 only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income, whereas now, one in six do. The percentage of families that have an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9% to 27%. But it's not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades.” Great American Dream Machine


    3. Let’s be clear: the broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
    So, if folks are buying more....how could they be making less?

    a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.
     
  2. Mad Scientist
    Online

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,936
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,676
    Gotta' disagree with ya' here. Yeah, there might have been a consumption boom up to 2004 and maybe even 2006 but not since the housing bubble burst in 2007.

    What's happened since? I think you'll find the middle class is getting squeezed.
     
  3. Bfgrn
    Offline

    Bfgrn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    16,829
    Thanks Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,060
    Hey PC, HOW MANY people had one of these in 1967?

    [​IMG]
     
  4. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,686
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,817
    Not relative to the top quintile....they got hurt the most.

    1. WASHINGTON – A new report shows double-digit decreases in the number and wealth of the United States’ richest individuals last year.

    The declines were the steepest since 1996, when the Merrill Lynch and Capgemini World Wealth Report was first published, leading some to ponder the ripple effects on the economy.

    The U.S. population of HNWIs – the wealthiest Americans -- fell 18.5 percent to 2.5 million in 2008, while North American HNWI wealth (the report did not break out figures for U.S. HNWI wealth) dipped 22 percent to $9.1 trillion. Nevertheless, the U.S. continues to retain the largest number of HNWIs in the world – about 29 percent of the total HNWI population.
    Super rich faced steep declines in wealth last year

    2. The CBO didn't say, although its report briefly acknowledged—in a footnote—that "high income taxpayers had especially large declines in adjusted gross income between 2007 and 2009."

    No kidding. Once these two years are brought into the picture, the share of after-tax income of the top 1% by my estimate fell to 11.3% in 2009 from the 17.3% that the CBO reported for 2007.
    Alan Reynolds: Tax Rates, Inequality and the 1% - WSJ.com


    Maybe you can help me understand this stat, doc....
    “The decline in home prices and stock portfolios in 2008 wiped out gains in net worth from the previous three years, the Fed said. Median household net worth increased 17.7 percent between 2004 and 2007, but fell 3.2 percent from 2004 through last October, according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances.” Average American Net Worth Drops 23% - CBS News

    I traced this back and the original fed report states exactly that: 'increased 17.7 percent between 2004 and 2007, but fell 3.2 percent from 2004 through last October'

    Does this mean that it fell 3.2% from the 17.7% increase in 'Median household net worth'?
     

Share This Page