Stagnating middle class? Really? How does that jive with all of these facts?

[Axulus]

We've already been over this. It is not possible to define middle class in such a way, that has any rational connection to the concept of "middle class", where by this group did not have improvements of similar magnitude for all the metrics I posted.

Bullshit squared. People have been defining "middle class" for ages. And people can define "stagnation" as well. For example, jonatha in this thread has done so. You demand specificity from others while you refusing to do so. Your argument and position is either intellectually stunted or dishonest.

Please tell me how you can define middle class to make it so they don't have more living space, cleaner air, more cars, more car miles traveled, more workplace safety, longer lives, lower crime victimization, more internet, more smart phones, more air conditioning, fewer fire deaths, more restaurant meals, and more college degrees, among other things.

I am being as broad as possible with the definition to avoid exactly the meaningless semantic debates you so enjoy.

I'm calling bullshit on the whole idea that median income, which is just a number that is an indirect measure of quality of life and subject to countless assumptions when measuring over a 35 year period ,= stagnation when nearly every relevant direct quality of life and consumption metric show sizable gains.

Not anyone in this thread has been able to provide any non-income data that demonstrates anything relevant to quality of life or consumption that supports "stagnation".

 

[laughing dog]

Please tell me how you can define middle class to make it so they don't have more living space, cleaner air, more cars, more car miles traveled, more workplace safety, longer lives, lower crime victimization, more internet, more smart phones, more air conditioning, fewer fire deaths, more restaurant meals, and more college degrees, among other things.

We have been through this before: what you are describing is true for all classes.

I am being as broad as possible with the definition to avoid exactly the meaningless semantic debates you so enjoy.

I enjoy discussions where people know what is being discussed. Your willful and persistent evasion of any definition reinforces my observation that your argument is either intellectually stunted or dishonest.

I'm calling bullshit on the whole idea that median income, which is just a number that is an indirect measure of quality of life and subject to countless assumptions when measuring over a 35 year period ,= stagnation when nearly every relevant direct quality of life and consumption metric show sizable gains.

Received or earned income is not subject to countless assumptions: it is measured. Nor do people generally use median income as a measure of the middle class. I am beginning to think you really have no clue about the claim of the stagnating middle class income.

We have been through this before. The stagnation is usually viewed in relative not absolute terms, so your entire argument is directed at a straw man. The issue is not whether middle class "income" (however defined) has been unchanged but whether middle class "income" compared to other classes has changed. Your random factoids do not address that issue.

Not anyone in this thread has been able to provide any non-income data that demonstrates anything relevant to quality of life or consumption that supports "stagnation".

That includes your OP.

 

[Toni]

Bullshit squared. People have been defining "middle class" for ages. And people can define "stagnation" as well. For example, jonatha in this thread has done so. You demand specificity from others while you refusing to do so. Your argument and position is either intellectually stunted or dishonest.

Please tell me how you can define middle class to make it so they don't have more living space, cleaner air, more cars, more car miles traveled, more workplace safety, longer lives, lower crime victimization, more internet, more smart phones, more air conditioning, fewer fire deaths, more restaurant meals, and more college degrees, among other things.

I am being as broad as possible with the definition to avoid exactly the meaningless semantic debates you so enjoy.

I'm calling bullshit on the whole idea that median income, which is just a number that is an indirect measure of quality of life and subject to countless assumptions when measuring over a 35 year period ,= stagnation when nearly every relevant direct quality of life and consumption metric show sizable gains.

Not anyone in this thread has been able to provide any non-income data that demonstrates anything relevant to quality of life or consumption that supports "stagnation".

Two big markers would include:

Is it now more affordable to purchase a 3 bedroom/2 bath home compared with in 1980? As of April 2014, which is the latest date I could find, home ownership had fallen to the lowest levels in 19 years.

Is it more affordable to send a child to a four year university now than it was in 1980? The graph below uses private universities but the cost to families to send kids to public universities has risen quite sharply as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition_in_the_United_States

 

[DBT]

Manufacturers want people to keep up with the Joneses, but they can't make them. And that statement is true even though advertising is effective (which, obviously, it is).

If advertising stopped tomorrow, I guarantee you people would still prefer nicer things to less nice ones.

Keep pounding the message hard enough and long enough and the ideas that are being pushed take root in the minds of consumers...product conditioning being the general purpose of saturation advertising.

Someone may desire a cola. Coke's advertising message means that Coke will be the one that comes to mind and they'll seek out someone selling a Coke.

Without the Coke advertisement or any cola advertisement for a cola, the desire for a cola doesn't necessarily go away and in fact is unlikely to go away once they've discovered that they enjoy drinking cola. They'll most likely just buy Pepsi or some generic cola instead, or may just buy a Coke anyway.

You are starting somewhere in the middle. Soft drinks like Coke, Fanta, Pepsi, etc, never existed before they where concocted and put on the market with claims that put the old snake oil salesmen to shame, And on top of the addictive sugars and artificial flavours, Coke even had actual coke as an ingredient in the early days.

Nobody desired Coke or Pepsi or anything else before it was manufactured and put on the market with attractive ads and claims, and once hooked, customers develop a desire the products...which the marketeers reinforce by advertising "Coke is Life'' yada yada, and attract new consumers.

 

[untermensche]

Please tell me how you can define middle class to make it so they don't have more living space, cleaner air, more cars, more car miles traveled, more workplace safety, longer lives, lower crime victimization, more internet, more smart phones, more air conditioning, fewer fire deaths, more restaurant meals, and more college degrees, among other things.

In the 1950's and 60's middle class meant for a family one person working and one person at home raising the children.

In the 1950's and 60's middle class meant your children had more opportunity than you had.

In the 1950's and 60's middle class meant you didn't have to work on Sunday unless you worked in a hospital.

In the 1950's and 60's it was much easier to find a job that provided a pension, the unions thrived.

The unions are what created the middle class. Before them there was no such thing. There was only massive capitalist exploitation.

And if the Republican party and its supporters had their way there would be more pollution, less safety in automobiles and the workplace. These are better because of efforts from the left, the protector and champion of the middle class.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bullshit squared. People have been defining "middle class" for ages. And people can define "stagnation" as well. For example, jonatha in this thread has done so. You demand specificity from others while you refusing to do so. Your argument and position is either intellectually stunted or dishonest.

Please tell me how you can define middle class to make it so they don't have more living space, cleaner air, more cars, more car miles traveled, more workplace safety, longer lives, lower crime victimization, more internet, more smart phones, more air conditioning, fewer fire deaths, more restaurant meals, and more college degrees, among other things.

I am being as broad as possible with the definition to avoid exactly the meaningless semantic debates you so enjoy.

I'm calling bullshit on the whole idea that median income, which is just a number that is an indirect measure of quality of life and subject to countless assumptions when measuring over a 35 year period ,= stagnation when nearly every relevant direct quality of life and consumption metric show sizable gains.

Not anyone in this thread has been able to provide any non-income data that demonstrates anything relevant to quality of life or consumption that supports "stagnation".

Our kids aren't doing as well as we are, that's all one needs to look at. Your pile of "facts" obviously must be false.

Never mind that we have had a generation more to improve our lot than our kids have. That's irrelevant.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Please tell me how you can define middle class to make it so they don't have more living space, cleaner air, more cars, more car miles traveled, more workplace safety, longer lives, lower crime victimization, more internet, more smart phones, more air conditioning, fewer fire deaths, more restaurant meals, and more college degrees, among other things.

I am being as broad as possible with the definition to avoid exactly the meaningless semantic debates you so enjoy.

I'm calling bullshit on the whole idea that median income, which is just a number that is an indirect measure of quality of life and subject to countless assumptions when measuring over a 35 year period ,= stagnation when nearly every relevant direct quality of life and consumption metric show sizable gains.

Not anyone in this thread has been able to provide any non-income data that demonstrates anything relevant to quality of life or consumption that supports "stagnation".

Our kids aren't doing as well as we are, that's all one needs to look at. Your pile of "facts" obviously must be false.

Never mind that we have had a generation more to improve our lot than our kids have. That's irrelevant.

How many college grads in the 70's and 80's couldn't find a job?

 

[fromderinside]

Our kids aren't doing as well as we are, that's all one needs to look at. Your pile of "facts" obviously must be false.

Never mind that we have had a generation more to improve our lot than our kids have. That's irrelevant.

...and by well you mean our 20% college graduation rate is better than their 35% college graduation rate, right? Things work well after a global war ends and the world settles down when the inventiveness unleashed by threat of end of times comes to fruition.. After a movement from basic research to applied research, things just become shitty, the world turns inward and Balkan tendencies reemerge.

At 15 I had acne, self consciousness, access to 21 inch B&W TV, and the family rotary phone. At a 45 year old I had a five pound cell phone, HD ready 60 inch TV, and full head of scientific steam Now, at 74, I have the WWW, phone, Photoshop, and business apps on my 6 ounce wireless device and this forum.

Gotta say things are a lot better now except for that damn arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, broken thyroid, fucked up vascular system, and advancing dementia. But shit. I outlived my dad who died at 68 from stress related problems resulting from being raised as a farmer to becoming an engineer in a big city, and failure of an inadequate medical system. We adapt and adjust and, in time, we evolve.

 

[laughing dog]

Our kids aren't doing as well as we are, that's all one needs to look at. Your pile of "facts" obviously must be false.

Unlike you, at least Axulus provided some disinterested data to support his straw man. The "stagnation of the middle class" argument focus on the perceived lack of sharing in the macroeconomic income gains of the past 35 years or so. As such, pointing about absolute gains by everyone cannot logically address that argument. But then again, ideology trumps reason all the time.

Never mind that we have had a generation more to improve our lot than our kids have. That's irrelevant.

We agree - your comments are irrelevant.

 

[fromderinside]

Our kids aren't doing as well as we are, that's all one needs to look at. Your pile of "facts" obviously must be false.

Never mind that we have had a generation more to improve our lot than our kids have. That's irrelevant.

Oh the irony of being able to take credit for what our kids gave us Loren Pechtel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Our kids aren't doing as well as we are, that's all one needs to look at. Your pile of "facts" obviously must be false.

Never mind that we have had a generation more to improve our lot than our kids have. That's irrelevant.

How many college grads in the 70's and 80's couldn't find a job?

1) How many useless degrees back then?

2) Looking at the post-2008 mess doesn't prove what's happened for the last 40 years.

 

[arkirk]

How many college grads in the 70's and 80's couldn't find a job?

1) How many useless degrees back then?

2) Looking at the post-2008 mess doesn't prove what's happened for the last 40 years.

Actually IT DOES, LOREN. I know you have extremely difficult quotas of hard evidence you always require to accept anything at all except your anti arab, anti-muslim, anti-socialist and anti disclosure ideas. Why are you so frightened of the truth? We both lived through this period and I and you have entirely different takes on on it. I feel mine is right and yours is wrong.

 

[fromderinside]

How many college grads in the 70's and 80's couldn't find a job?

1) How many useless degrees back then?

2) Looking at the post-2008 mess doesn't prove what's happened for the last 40 years.

Look. I'm a full generation smarter than you. We all know that our degrees we got back i in the day are better than the degrees the kids are getting now. Unfortunately the standard of living keeps going up and quality of life keeps getting better in spite of our best efforts to write laws forbidding cooperation to keep us from dislodging us from that conceit.

 

[scombrid]

Has 15% more living space

You'd think that with most households now having two incomes instead of one and fewer children that this number would be higher.

Is 33% more likely to own a vehicle

Twice and many incomes and 33% more cars. Progress for sure.

Is 54% less likely to die in a residential fire

Evil gubment building codes.

Is 70% less likely to die from a fatal workplace injury

Evil gubment OSHA.

+

Outsourcing of manufacturing.

Is 66% less likely to die in a vehicle accident per vehicle mile traveled

Regs on car specs. and regs on highway specs. More unwanted unneeded government interference right?

Has much cleaner air with 62% less pollutants of the 6 most common air pollutants that can harm health

How did those changes come about?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In summary (reasonable approximation) the typical/median/average person in the United States, from 1980 to today

Lives 5 years longer
Has 15% more living space
Is 33% more likely to own a vehicle
Is 26% more likely to have graduated from high school
Is 94% more likely to have a bachler's degree or higher
Is 60% less likely to be murdered annually
Is 39% less likely to be a victim of a violent crime annually
Is 48% less likely to be the victim of any crime annually
Travels 120% more miles by air
Works .5 hours less per week
Is 54% less likely to die in a residential fire
Is 70% less likely to die from a fatal workplace injury
Is 66% less likely to die in a vehicle accident per vehicle mile traveled
Suffers from 43% less workplace injuries and time-loss illness annually while employed
Has air conditioning, a computer, internet access, dishwasher, and cell phone today, whereas the typical person in 1980 was lacking all of these
Has much cleaner air with 62% less pollutants of the 6 most common air pollutants that can harm health
Dines out much more frequently
If a minority, suffers much less from bigotry, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.

Stagnating middle class? REALLY?

I'm confused as to what these statistics have to do with the MIDDLE CLASS.

You're highlighting a general increase in standard of living for AMERICA in that people on average are slightly safer, have more gadgets and a little bit more living space. But that doesn't actually tell me anything about what's happening to the MIDDLE CLASS in terms of personal/family finance, rough purchasing power, general health or wellbeing.

I mean this is basically the "How poor could he be if he's got a cell phone?" argument on a massive scale. "Stagnation" isn't really measured in terms of how much crap you own or how likely you are to die in a horrible accident.

 

[ZiprHead]

The new house built in the neighborhood is twice as big as the rest of the older houses. Did the older houses suddenly get bigger too?

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm confused as to what these statistics have to do with the MIDDLE CLASS.

You're highlighting a general increase in standard of living for AMERICA in that people on average are slightly safer, have more gadgets and a little bit more living space. But that doesn't actually tell me anything about what's happening to the MIDDLE CLASS in terms of personal/family finance, rough purchasing power, general health or wellbeing.

I mean this is basically the "How poor could he be if he's got a cell phone?" argument on a massive scale. "Stagnation" isn't really measured in terms of how much crap you own or how likely you are to die in a horrible accident.

One could cite these statistics to show that no specific group of people, anywhere in America, deserves a helping hand. The sentiment could then be expanded to include the entire planet if you include Stephen Pinker's data.

How dare you ask for a donation for those tsunami victims in Japan! Why, over the past 100 years the average woman's salary has increased, and last time I checked, around half the Japanese people affected by the tsunami were women!

 

[Canard DuJour]

I'm confused as to what these statistics have to do with the MIDDLE CLASS.

You're highlighting a general increase in standard of living for AMERICA in that people on average are slightly safer, have more gadgets and a little bit more living space. But that doesn't actually tell me anything about what's happening to the MIDDLE CLASS in terms of personal/family finance, rough purchasing power, general health or wellbeing.

I mean this is basically the "How poor could he be if he's got a cell phone?" argument on a massive scale. "Stagnation" isn't really measured in terms of how much crap you own or how likely you are to die in a horrible accident.

One could cite these statistics to show that no specific group of people, anywhere in America, deserves a helping hand. The sentiment could then be expanded to include the entire planet if you include Stephen Pinker's data.

How dare you ask for a donation for those tsunami victims in Japan! Why, over the past 100 years the average woman's salary has increased, and last time I checked, around half the Japanese people affected by the tsunami were women!

Yeah but the planet is no more habitable than it was in the 1980s. Therefore conditions for the middle class are stagnant. And lesbians.

 

[PyramidHead]

One could cite these statistics to show that no specific group of people, anywhere in America, deserves a helping hand. The sentiment could then be expanded to include the entire planet if you include Stephen Pinker's data.

How dare you ask for a donation for those tsunami victims in Japan! Why, over the past 100 years the average woman's salary has increased, and last time I checked, around half the Japanese people affected by the tsunami were women!

Yeah but the planet is no more habitable than it was in the 1980s. Therefore conditions for the middle class are stagnant. And lesbians.

You blithely ignore the data showing a decline in human birth defects since the 1300's. By some estimates, fully 100% of the survivors of the Japanese tsunami are humans. Where's your data?