Shrinking Middle Class?

[WillowTree]

Are you anticipating that anyone will waste the time it would take to explain the ways in which you have missed the mark with that post? I'd expect someone who has posted 14,000 times to have been involved in.........or at least read....several discussions that began in the same, lame way.

Try learning something while you are here.

con den scen ding ass hole.

 

[WillowTree]

anyone ever think the middle class might be shrinking a bit because of the hordes crossing the border? 20 million people and none of the are "middle classed" don't you think that may skew the numbers a bit?

 

[saveliberty]

I like chew toys. Do I have to share?

 

[Sunshine]

anyone ever think the middle class might be shrinking a bit because of the hordes crossing the border? 20 million people and none of the are "middle classed" don't you think that may skew the numbers a bit?

That, and the retirement of the baby boomers.

I have to wonder, though, if someone who is 'middle class' is booted out so easily, were they really middle class at all? Perhaps we had a lot of great pretenders, up to their eyeballs in debt and with no real assets to their names. My parents were just starting out during the Great Depression. Perhaps that is why they were always so savvy with money. If the people who have been displaced by this current recession are equally as savvy, they will prevail over the circumstances and spend the rest of their lives applying the lessons they have learned. And I am sure there has been great learning with regard to finance.

Too many people listen to would be movers and shakers when it comes to finance, and themselves want to be the same. My parents never fell for any of that shit, I think largely because of what they learned during the Great Depression.

 

[Sunshine]

I like chew toys. Do I have to share?

My cat will be expected to share neither her catnip nor her toys with you. And I dare you to try and take them away from her!

 

[LoneLaugher]

If time on the board and post count = wisdom, your 2 months and <2k explains alot.

Do you think time on the board and post count = wisdom? Or, was that just another nutter failing to produce an interesting concept?

Your premise. Not mine.

That does not have anything to do with equating wisdom with time on the board. That is your failed premise.

You have declared victory, it seems.......in a game you are playing with yourself. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ummm.......would you be so kind as to cite your source for the information that you posted here?

Thanks.

Is every Libeal short of visual acuity???

Can't you read?
Everything in the post is sourced.


Oh....I get it....you can't believe that anyone reads books.

Deal with the facts.

Oh......you are claiming that what you posted is original research that you have done?

That is quite impressive. By that, I mean the size of your balls is quite impressive.

There are four distinct links in that post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ummm.......would you be so kind as to cite your source for the information that you posted here?

Thanks.

Is every Libeal short of visual acuity???

Can't you read?
Everything in the post is sourced.


Oh....I get it....you can't believe that anyone reads books.

Deal with the facts.

Facts or opinions? As any good litigator knows, a forensic expert can be found to offer their expert advice on any topic necessary to 'prove' the theory most beneficial to the attorney's client.

Facts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you anticipating that anyone will waste the time it would take to explain the ways in which you have missed the mark with that post? I'd expect someone who has posted 14,000 times to have been involved in.........or at least read....several discussions that began in the same, lame way.

Try learning something while you are here.

Speaking of learning...let's see how accomplished you are in that arena.

1. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Inflation/Price-Index/CPI.html

c. An example: while the price of automobiles is increasing, also increasing are the features, once defined as add-ons, or found only in luxury autos. Therefore, not all of the increase is simply inflation. And this is true of many if not most consumer products.

2. Shrinking? 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

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.

I'm pretty suspect of anything that refers to those timetables as a "Reagan Boom". Does that mean that all of our fantastic post war growth in the 50's and 60's was the FDR Boom?

And I found it interesting that they measured living standards by "consumption". That means spending. Bear in mind that credit cards became VERY popular and along with it credit card debt. People were buying things they could not afford. And if you're going to measure our Standard of Living by our spending then we must be living the highest standard in the history of the US.

Does that mean that we need to keep on spending?

1. I have no problem with you referring to an "FDR Boom," although the use of the title is restricted to the number of folks who could fit in a pup tent.

2.What is this inordinate fear you have of attributing to President Reagan the credit he so richly deserves?
I take it you won't join me in my hopes of putting Ron on the Rock....sadly Borglum is gone.

3. "...interesting that they measured living standards by "consumption".
Now, follow me on this: if the Left is correct, and folks are slipping behind in standard of living.....the fact that the very same folks are buying more and living better, surely even for a brain-numbed Leftist, must give pause.
Nicht wahr?

4. "...we must be living the highest standard in the history of the US.
I can accept that.

 

[saveliberty]

The reason for the OP was to point out that a shrinking middle class is the battle cry for liberals this election cycle. Reality is the middle class is still here basically intact. Many have made poor financial choices and have over consumed. A 2% tax break should not decide anyone's class position. A large federal deficit surely could however.

Pretty funny that the left's measuring stick is spending.

 

[Trajan]

Are you anticipating that anyone will waste the time it would take to explain the ways in which you have missed the mark with that post? I'd expect someone who has posted 14,000 times to have been involved in.........or at least read....several discussions that began in the same, lame way.

Try learning something while you are here.

Speaking of learning...let's see how accomplished you are in that arena.

1. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Inflation/Price-Index/CPI.html

c. An example: while the price of automobiles is increasing, also increasing are the features, once defined as add-ons, or found only in luxury autos. Therefore, not all of the increase is simply inflation. And this is true of many if not most consumer products.

2. Shrinking? 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

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.

I'm pretty suspect of anything that refers to those timetables as a "Reagan Boom". Does that mean that all of our fantastic post war growth in the 50's and 60's was the FDR Boom?

And I found it interesting that they measured living standards by "consumption". That means spending. Bear in mind that credit cards became VERY popular and along with it credit card debt. People were buying things they could not afford. And if you're going to measure our Standard of Living by our spending then we must be living the highest standard in the history of the US.

Does that mean that we need to keep on spending?

let me ask, so to be clear, the economy during the Reagan admin. was not a boom?

ok, *shrugs* what would you classify it as, EXACTLY, get imaginative if you have to, but please describe in a term/word etc., how you would label it...thank you so much in advance.

 

[Trajan]

The reason for the OP was to point out that a shrinking middle class is the battle cry for liberals this election cycle. Reality is the middle class is still here basically intact. Many have made poor financial choices and have over consumed. A 2% tax break should not decide anyone's class position. A large federal deficit surely could however.

Pretty funny that the left's measuring stick is spending.

its actually a rebate on medical and old age insurance you know, the holies of the holies thats supposed to be untoaucbale:roilleyes:

and its more worthless even than the checks bush and obama sent out.

 

[DontBeStupid]

anyone ever think the middle class might be shrinking a bit because of the hordes crossing the border?

Nope. Only you.

20 million people and none of the are "middle classed" don't you think that may skew the numbers a bit?

Except, some are middle class.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Are you anticipating that anyone will waste the time it would take to explain the ways in which you have missed the mark with that post? I'd expect someone who has posted 14,000 times to have been involved in.........or at least read....several discussions that began in the same, lame way.

Try learning something while you are here.

Speaking of learning...let's see how accomplished you are in that arena.

1. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Inflation/Price-Index/CPI.html

c. An example: while the price of automobiles is increasing, also increasing are the features, once defined as add-ons, or found only in luxury autos. Therefore, not all of the increase is simply inflation. And this is true of many if not most consumer products.

2. Shrinking? 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

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.

"Income and Wealth" was published in 2006 and appears to use numbers through 2004. By using that text as a reference, are you telling us that the economy of 2011 is exactly the same as 2004?

Also, why were the dates selected and not consistent? Why were dates chosen that start in periods of a weak economy and end in periods of a strong economy? As this naturally skews numbers and gains, doesn't that weaken your case?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you anticipating that anyone will waste the time it would take to explain the ways in which you have missed the mark with that post? I'd expect someone who has posted 14,000 times to have been involved in.........or at least read....several discussions that began in the same, lame way.

Try learning something while you are here.

Speaking of learning...let's see how accomplished you are in that arena.

1. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Inflation/Price-Index/CPI.html

c. An example: while the price of automobiles is increasing, also increasing are the features, once defined as add-ons, or found only in luxury autos. Therefore, not all of the increase is simply inflation. And this is true of many if not most consumer products.

2. Shrinking? 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

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.

"Income and Wealth" was published in 2006 and appears to use numbers through 2004. By using that text as a reference, are you telling us that the economy of 2011 is exactly the same as 2004?

Also, why were the dates selected and not consistent? Why were dates chosen that start in periods of a weak economy and end in periods of a strong economy? As this naturally skews numbers and gains, doesn't that weaken your case?

No.
The recession, while made worse by this administration, does not represent the usual events of the last few decades.

What the text indicates is that the middle class is hardly shrinking nor stagnating.

But, the bigger picture...there is no perpetual wealthy class, America is the land of opportunity, and the more one works, the wealthier one becomes. The case made by the Left is to manipulate those who won't do their own research.

If you're willing to accept a superficial perspective, then you will remanin a vassal of the Left.

 

[Sunshine]

There were/are a lot of people who are not middle class trying to live a middle class lifestyle. When the going gets tough, those people will be forced out of their roles. People were lent money who could not be expected to ever pay it back. Other people, sometimes the same people put money into stock market based retirement accounts which they themselves did not understand. So there have been multiple losses and some of those multiple losses happened to the same people. Some of those people looked at the numbers on paper and thought their homes were appreciating when they were not. Some looked at the numbers on their retirement accounts and thought their wealth was growing. Little did they know that it was not. And most I knew expected the annuity salesman to come tell them when to move their money around. Of course that didn't/wouldn't happen either. When people do things they don't understand, be it home ownership or stock market investing they are going to get burned sooner or later. A lot of people got burned. And they were not middle class to start with. They were just posing as middle class.

 

[DaGoose]

Speaking of learning...let's see how accomplished you are in that arena.

1. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Inflation/Price-Index/CPI.html

c. An example: while the price of automobiles is increasing, also increasing are the features, once defined as add-ons, or found only in luxury autos. Therefore, not all of the increase is simply inflation. And this is true of many if not most consumer products.

2. Shrinking? 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

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.

I'm pretty suspect of anything that refers to those timetables as a "Reagan Boom". Does that mean that all of our fantastic post war growth in the 50's and 60's was the FDR Boom?

And I found it interesting that they measured living standards by "consumption". That means spending. Bear in mind that credit cards became VERY popular and along with it credit card debt. People were buying things they could not afford. And if you're going to measure our Standard of Living by our spending then we must be living the highest standard in the history of the US.

Does that mean that we need to keep on spending?

1. I have no problem with you referring to an "FDR Boom," although the use of the title is restricted to the number of folks who could fit in a pup tent.

(Can you elaborate?)

2.What is this inordinate fear you have of attributing to President Reagan the credit he so richly deserves?
I take it you won't join me in my hopes of putting Ron on the Rock....sadly Borglum is gone.

(Really? You don't think Reagan would be considered a RINO these days after raising taxes and fighting to protect SS in its present form? That was to his credit. But he also presided over a very corrupt administration and knew very little what was actually going on around him. He was more puppet than President. And you compare him to the great men on Mount Rushmore? I give you kudos though for knowing who sculpted it though.)

3. "...interesting that they measured living standards by "consumption".
Now, follow me on this: if the Left is correct, and folks are slipping behind in standard of living.....the fact that the very same folks are buying more and living better, surely even for a brain-numbed Leftist, must give pause.
Nicht wahr?

(You forget. Credit Card debt is excessive and unsustainable for many families. That accounts for much of the increased spending.)

4. "...we must be living the highest standard in the history of the US.
I can accept that.

My Standard of Living is fantastic. But I attribute that to skillful Union negotiations and my willingness to work my ass off, not the government.

 

[DaGoose]

Speaking of learning...let's see how accomplished you are in that arena.

1. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Inflation/Price-Index/CPI.html

c. An example: while the price of automobiles is increasing, also increasing are the features, once defined as add-ons, or found only in luxury autos. Therefore, not all of the increase is simply inflation. And this is true of many if not most consumer products.

2. Shrinking? 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

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.

"Income and Wealth" was published in 2006 and appears to use numbers through 2004. By using that text as a reference, are you telling us that the economy of 2011 is exactly the same as 2004?

Also, why were the dates selected and not consistent? Why were dates chosen that start in periods of a weak economy and end in periods of a strong economy? As this naturally skews numbers and gains, doesn't that weaken your case?

No.
The recession, while made worse by this administration, does not represent the usual events of the last few decades.

What the text indicates is that the middle class is hardly shrinking nor stagnating.

But, the bigger picture...there is no perpetual wealthy class, America is the land of opportunity, and the more one works, the wealthier one becomes. The case made by the Left is to manipulate those who won't do their own research.

If you're willing to accept a superficial perspective, then you will remanin a vassal of the Left.

My father and grandfather worked their asses off their whole lives, both working two jobs and rarely coming home till 9pm after starting their day when the sun came up. I defy you to find anyone, anywhere who worked harder than they. And I followed in their footsteps. Yet none of us ever became rich.

I find that three things contrubute to almost all wealthy people. They are willing to take chances, they are lucky and/or they invest well. Any one or combination.

So to say that hard work alone will make you wealthy is a slap in the face to many working people who do, in fact, work their asses off every day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm pretty suspect of anything that refers to those timetables as a "Reagan Boom". Does that mean that all of our fantastic post war growth in the 50's and 60's was the FDR Boom?

And I found it interesting that they measured living standards by "consumption". That means spending. Bear in mind that credit cards became VERY popular and along with it credit card debt. People were buying things they could not afford. And if you're going to measure our Standard of Living by our spending then we must be living the highest standard in the history of the US.

Does that mean that we need to keep on spending?

1. I have no problem with you referring to an "FDR Boom," although the use of the title is restricted to the number of folks who could fit in a pup tent.

(Can you elaborate?)

2.What is this inordinate fear you have of attributing to President Reagan the credit he so richly deserves?
I take it you won't join me in my hopes of putting Ron on the Rock....sadly Borglum is gone.

(Really? You don't think Reagan would be considered a RINO these days after raising taxes and fighting to protect SS in its present form? That was to his credit. But he also presided over a very corrupt administration and knew very little what was actually going on around him. He was more puppet than President. And you compare him to the great men on Mount Rushmore? I give you kudos though for knowing who sculpted it though.)

3. "...interesting that they measured living standards by "consumption".
Now, follow me on this: if the Left is correct, and folks are slipping behind in standard of living.....the fact that the very same folks are buying more and living better, surely even for a brain-numbed Leftist, must give pause.
Nicht wahr?

(You forget. Credit Card debt is excessive and unsustainable for many families. That accounts for much of the increased spending.)

4. "...we must be living the highest standard in the history of the US.
I can accept that.

My Standard of Living is fantastic. But I attribute that to skillful Union negotiations and my willingness to work my ass off, not the government.

1. "Can you elaborate?"
Not here...but if you start a thread about the FDR economy you might find it an interesting one.

2. [Reagan] "a very corrupt administration..."
Did you vote for Clinton?


3. "...He was more puppet than President..."
Obviously we're not speaking of the same Reagan.


4. "...willingness to work my ass off..."
God bless America.

 

[initforme]

"But, the bigger picture...there is no perpetual wealthy class, America is the land of opportunity, and the more one works, the wealthier one becomes. "

This is hilarious. America is the land of opportunity for the ultra wealthy. Its going to come down to class warfare and the middle class is starting to wake up. Makes the wealthy establishment very nervous. The middle class still has the right to vote and that scares those at the very top. But they will find a way to keep them from voting I'm sure. Will bet everything I have on it.