I don't get it

[Savij]

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: Savij

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Savij
I did a quick glance through some census data and it looks like overall the trend is a shifting of households from the lower end of the pay scale to the middle and upper sections (as a percentage of the total number of households). I just don't see any actual data to back up the argument that the elite are oppressing workers and the rich are trampling over everyone else. Someone please point me to the facts that say that the average family is getting shat upon.

*I want macro data for the US. I do understand that there are cities, regions, and industries that are growing and shrinking at all times. It's unforunate but a fact of life. It's easy to point out a city that has been affected by a loss in manufacturing jobs or point out that there isn't much of a horseshoeing industry like there was in the "good old days".

**I want data that for at least 2 or 3 decades. I don't feel that any macroeconomic trends can be seen in short term (a few years) of data. We aren't doing as well as we were in the late '90s when adding an "E" to your product could net you 5 billion dollars and a Lotus, but I don't feel that the current state of the economy sucks and Marx was right just because it's not as easy to generate wealth as it was in the "New Economy".

You'll find plenty of threads and links in P&N.

However by the sound of your tone you don't believe that the middle class is shrinking because you are already in the upper echelon.

This boy has already made up his mind, so what's the point of looking up data for him if he has already postured himself in his thread to question it?

Yes, based on the numbers I've seen I've decided one way. If someone will show me some real long term numbers disputing it then I will acknowledge it and possibly change my mind.

Show me the numbers. That's all I'm asking.

I have a question for you, if you don't believe that the claims are true, then why does it matter to you? Just curious...

Because a lot of smart people make this claim, and I want to see what they're seeing. I want to know both sides of the argument.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston
These were the only links I could come up with... sorry! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019816/site/newsweek/from/RL.5/
http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/02/business/wbmarket03.php

-The first link talks about he world, not about the US.

-The second link, as mentioned earlier is a short term figure. I will admit that it do that in that time frame, but I am more interested in the long term. I feel that you can't have long term growth 100% of the time.

-The third link is talking about inflation. Yes, the first half of this decade hasn't been good for paychecks, but there is nothing there that says the middle class is shrinking.

 

[ValkyrieofHouston]

Originally posted by: Savij

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston
These were the only links I could come up with... sorry! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019816/site/newsweek/from/RL.5/
http://www.factcheck.org/article249.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/02/business/wbmarket03.php

-The first link talks about he world, not about the US.

-The second link, as mentioned earlier is a short term figure. I will admit that it do that in that time frame, but I am more interested in the long term. I feel that you can't have long term growth 100% of the time.

-The third link is talking about inflation. Yes, the first half of this decade hasn't been good for paychecks, but there is nothing there that says the middle class is shrinking.

Well, you got me... sorry I couldn't contribute in the way you wanted baby..! wink

 

[FoBoT]

there you go Savij, Hildebeast is spreading FUD
``the rich are getting richer, everybody else is marching in place'' and ``I don't think that's good for us.'' says Hildebeast

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
there you go Savij, Hildebeast is spreading FUD
``the rich are getting richer, everybody else is marching in place'' and ``I don't think that's good for us.'' says Hildebeast

Sorry I don't count that as a real answer to my question either. And on that statement, she is in fact (edit: partially) correct. The rich are infact getting richer in the US, but that's for another thread, another time.

I want answers about the size of the middle class question.

PS. I'm more likely to vote for the Hildebeast than anyone I see the republicans running any time soon.

 

[torpid]

Sorry, this belongs in P&N. It's a thinly veiled attempt to evangelize your beliefs. Do your own research and stop asking people to "prove you wrong".

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: torpid
Sorry, this belongs in P&N. It's a thinly veiled attempt to evangelize your beliefs. Do your own research and stop asking people to "prove you wrong".

Yeah I'm thinking this probably does belong P&N now.

What I'm saying is that the research I've done isn't pointing to a long term shrinking (or less well off) middle class. So obviously I"m not looking at the right stuff, right? I know that people feel otherwise, and so I want to see the stuff that I'm missing.

 

[Savij]

BTW this is what happens when I spend two days at home with my body trying to purge itself of bad chinese takeout.

 

[dullard]

Be careful of reaching conclusions when you overly narrow the search.

Without using data, lets pretend that there is NO 10 year period where the middle class has shrunk for every year in that period. Does that mean that the middle class hasn't shrunk over decades? No, of course not.

Lets do the same thing with the stock market. Show me ANY 20 year period where it grew in all of those years. Guess what? You can't. That period doesn't exist, it never has and probably never will. So lets jump to conclusions: the stock market has not grown over the last 100 years because you can't show me that data. Anyone who knows anything about the stock market will say that is a silly and easilly unproven conclusion.

The fact is that in a period of overall growth there will be short term gains and short term losses. It is the relative size of the short term gains vs short term losses that matter. Excluding all short term data will easilly lead you down the path of reaching an incorrect conclusion.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: dullard
Be careful of reaching conclusions when you overly narrow the search.

Without using data, lets pretend that there is NO 10 year period where the middle class has shrunk for every year in that period. Does that mean that the middle class hasn't shrunk over decades? No, of course not.

Lets do the same thing with the stock market. Show me ANY 20 year period where it grew in all of those years. Guess what? You can't. That period doesn't exist, it never has and probably never will. So lets jump to conclusions: the stock market has not grown over the last 100 years because you can't show me that data. Anyone who knows anything about the stock market will say that is a silly and easilly unproven conclusion.

The fact is that in a period of overall growth there will be short term gains and short term losses. It is the relative size of the short term gains vs short term losses that matter. Excluding all short term data will easilly lead you down the path of reaching an incorrect conclusion.

I'm not excluding short term losses. I'm saying that from the figures I see the gains were almost always larger than the losses when looked at perioods of more than 3 years in the data I've seen. Other people disagree with this and I want to see where this conclusion comes from.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Savij
I'm not excluding short term losses. I'm saying that from the figures I see the gains were almost always larger than the losses when looked at perioods of more than 3 years in the data I've seen. Other people disagree with this and I want to see where this conclusion comes from.

Ok, we are past that hurdle. Now, define middle class for us.

One could argue that the poor are the 25% with the lowest income, the rich are the 25% with the highest income, and the middle class are those in between. Thus, by definition, the middle class is always 50% of the population. Using that defintion it cannot shrink nor can it grow.

But how do you define it?

 

[Jaskalas]

I'll show you simple data, go take a trip to the store and buy a week's worth of food. Now notice how the prices have sky rocketed from five years ago. Unless your wages are going with the inflation, you're sinking financially.

 

[dullard]

One common measurement of inequality is the percent of the income pie that each quintile has. That is, what percentage of the total income did the middle 20% earn? If everyone earned the same amount, then the middle 20% would earn 20% of the pie. If income was completely unequal (Bill Gates earned everything and no one else had a penny), then the middle 20% would earn 0% of the pie.

Using that defintion, look at page 4 of this pdf (Table 2).

In 1967, the middle 20% had 17.3% of the income.
In 1977, the middle 20% had 17.0% of the income.
In 1987, the middle 20% had 16.1% of the income.
In 1997, the middle 20% had 15.0% of the income.

Thus the middle 20% is getting a smaller and smaller share. Or using the same defintion, with the same table, the middle 60% is getting a smaller and smaller share of the pie. The top 20% (especially the top 5%) gained a lot more of the pie.

Figure 3 on the same page is also interesting. From 1967-1980 the poor actually gained a lot and the top 5% lost. The opposite is true from 1980-1992. To keep this political, think of who was president from 1980-1992.

 

[brandonbull]

The percentage of households earning the median income has shrank over the last 30 years because of the growing seperation in income groups. Workers with degrees earn more as compared to a person with a highschool degree than they did 30 years ago.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: dullard
One common measurement of inequality is the percent of the income pie that each quintile has. That is, what percentage of the total income did the middle 20% earn? If everyone earned the same amount, then the middle 20% would earn 20% of the pie. If income was completely unequal (Bill Gates earned everything and no one else had a penny), then the middle 20% would earn 0% of the pie.

Using that defintion, look at page 4 of this pdf (Table 2).

In 1967, the middle 20% had 17.3% of the income.
In 1977, the middle 20% had 17.0% of the income.
In 1987, the middle 20% had 16.1% of the income.
In 1997, the middle 20% had 15.0% of the income.

Thus the middle 20% is getting a smaller and smaller share. Or using the same defintion, with the same table, the middle 60% is getting a smaller and smaller share of the pie. The top 20% (especially the top 5%) gained a lot more of the pie.

Figure 3 on the same page is also interesting. From 1967-1980 the poor actually gained a lot and the top 5% lost. The opposite is true from 1980-1992. To keep this political, think of who was president from 1980-1992.

Thank you, that's the kind of info I wanted.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Savij
Thank you, that's the kind of info I wanted.

You are welcome. Note: even that data can be misleading. Over that time frame, the portion of the money the middle got shrunk. But the overall money in the pot grew. The two mostly offset. Overall, the poor got slightly richer, the middle got slightly richer, and the rich got much more filthy rich.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Savij
Thank you, that's the kind of info I wanted.

You are welcome. Note: even that data can be misleading. Over that time frame, the portion of the money the middle got shrunk. But the overall money in the pot grew. The two mostly offset. Overall, the poor got slightly richer, the middle got slightly richer, and the rich got much more filthy rich.

Yeah, I'm reading through the pdf now, but it seems like there are a few places where it disagrees with itself depending on the measurement used.

edit: You just said everyone is better off than they were, you must me a republican *prays that is taken as a joke and doesn't get me flamed by everyone/anyone*

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: dullard
One common measurement of inequality is the percent of the income pie that each quintile has. That is, what percentage of the total income did the middle 20% earn? If everyone earned the same amount, then the middle 20% would earn 20% of the pie. If income was completely unequal (Bill Gates earned everything and no one else had a penny), then the middle 20% would earn 0% of the pie.

Using that defintion, look at page 4 of this pdf (Table 2).

In 1967, the middle 20% had 17.3% of the income.
In 1977, the middle 20% had 17.0% of the income.
In 1987, the middle 20% had 16.1% of the income.
In 1997, the middle 20% had 15.0% of the income.

Thus the middle 20% is getting a smaller and smaller share. Or using the same defintion, with the same table, the middle 60% is getting a smaller and smaller share of the pie. The top 20% (especially the top 5%) gained a lot more of the pie.

Figure 3 on the same page is also interesting. From 1967-1980 the poor actually gained a lot and the top 5% lost. The opposite is true from 1980-1992. To keep this political, think of who was president from 1980-1992.

Looks like the trickle down economy in action.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Savij

Originally posted by: torpid
Sorry, this belongs in P&N. It's a thinly veiled attempt to evangelize your beliefs. Do your own research and stop asking people to "prove you wrong".

Yeah I'm thinking this probably does belong P&N now.

What I'm saying is that the research I've done isn't pointing to a long term shrinking (or less well off) middle class. So obviously I"m not looking at the right stuff, right? I know that people feel otherwise, and so I want to see the stuff that I'm missing.

Welcome to P&N Savij, a Republican in Ted Kennedy's backyard.

That must be painful.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Savij

Originally posted by: torpid
Sorry, this belongs in P&N. It's a thinly veiled attempt to evangelize your beliefs. Do your own research and stop asking people to "prove you wrong".

Yeah I'm thinking this probably does belong P&N now.

What I'm saying is that the research I've done isn't pointing to a long term shrinking (or less well off) middle class. So obviously I"m not looking at the right stuff, right? I know that people feel otherwise, and so I want to see the stuff that I'm missing.

Welcome to P&N Savij, a Republican in Ted Kennedy's backyard.

That must be painful.

I'm a democrat if anything...at least I think voting for Gore, Kerry, and support Clinton past and present makes me a democrat. If you care to read any of my replies to you you might have noticed that. Please, provide the numbers I'm looking for, discredit my position, or leave.