Middle class has shrunk drastically over last decade

[dmcowen674]

8-23-2012

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/middle-class-set-back-over-last-decade-report-174840799--sector.html

Middle class has shrunk drastically over last decade

The middle class has shrunk drastically over the last 10 years as Americans' net worth has plunged, wages declined and standards of living slipped away, according to a report released on Wednesday.

Middle-income earners, long seen as the solid center of the country, are pessimistic and place the blame squarely on U.S. lawmakers, banks and big business, the findings by the Pew Research Center showed.


"America's middle class has endured its worst decade in modern history," researchers wrote.


Since 2001, median household income has fallen from $72,956 to $69,487 in 2010, the report said.


According to the Census Bureau, household wealth declined by 35 percent to $66,740 between 2005 and 2010 as home values and share prices plummeted. The Fed report showed median family net worth plunged to $77,300 in 2010 from $126,400 in 2007.


For its report, Pew defined middle class as households with incomes from $39,000 to $118,000, a range that is between two-thirds and double the national median.

 

[dmcowen674]

Thank you Bush

and this is what Americans want more of.

 

[Doppel]

Thank you Bush

and this is what Americans want more of.

Why don't you post your commentary in your first post?

 

[blankslate]

Why do you double post?

Anyway this might be some interesting data related to your post.

Perhaps if worker compensation had risen in accordance with the increased productivity there would be more people in the middle class instead of a decline.

 

[Matt1970]

Blame Bush all you want but the middle class has been in decline since the 70's.

I still don't under stand how cutting the taxes on the middle class makes them disappear anyways.....

 

[dmcowen674]

Blame Bush all you want but the middle class has been in decline since the 70's.

I still don't under stand how cutting the taxes on the middle class makes them disappear anyways.....

One thing you have said right.

By the way understand is one word.

Hmmm, maybe you are still in early middle school?

 

[Matt1970]

One thing you have said right.

By the way understand is one word.

Hmmm, maybe you are still in early middle school?

Shirley you can't be serious? I thought you were calling me part of the 1% the other day?

 

[sm625]

Hell yeah they've shrunk. And they're gonna shrink even more once they are done voting in 4 more years of Obomney.

Break the cycle of stupid. Start by watching Thrive. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s

They dont go so far as to say that the world is run by a frickin luciferian death cult casting black magic all over the unsuspecting masses, but it is a good all-around informative piece nonetheless.

 

[Matt1970]

Never mind the fact that our whole society is fixated on buying the cheapest disposable import crap we can get our hands on. Never mind the fact that only 1/4 of our workforce has a college degree. Never mind the fact that another 1/4 of our workforce never completed college. Let's just blame tax cuts. That always works well.

 

[Doppel]

One thing you have said right.

By the way understand is one word.

Hmmm, maybe you are still in early middle school?

Hmm, maybe you're missing a comma? I don't suppose you realize where, though.

 

[Doppel]

lol five of the threads on the front page were started by the mcowen spam-bot

 

[zinfamous]

blaming Bush is stupid. What we are currently living in his trickle-down "Reaganomics" at its theoretical peak.

So...since we now know what this does, why would anyone choose to keep electing people that want to further deregulate the financial system and erode national wealth? (shifting from middle class to the 0.3%)?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Did we really need a thread on this? It is plainly obvious to all but the completely delusional that the middle class is being systematically destroyed by the upper class.

 

[nehalem256]

Why do you double post?

Anyway this might be some interesting data related to your post.

Perhaps if worker compensation had risen in accordance with the increased productivity there would be more people in the middle class instead of a decline.

Maybe if liberals had not pushed women into the workplace driving up the supply of labor that would have happened

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Maybe if liberals had not pushed women into the workplace driving up the supply of labor that would have happened

Cmon man, look at that chart. Participation goes up 5-10% and you think THAT ruined our economy? Get a grip.

As I stated to you before, more people entering the work force is not the problem. The problem is greed and selfishness in leadership and upper management.

 

[nehalem256]

Cmon man, look at that chart. Participation goes up 5-10% and you think THAT ruined our economy? Get a grip.

As I stated to you before, more people entering the work force is not the problem. The problem is greed and selfishness in leadership and upper management.

So it is just coincidence that it starting going up right before wages stagnated?

And whether or not it could have that big of an impact depends on the elasticity of demand for labor.

What do you think would happen to oil prices if 5-10% were destroyed suddenly?

EDIT: It certainly makes more sense than blaming Reaganomics which began 10 years AFTER wages stagnated.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

So it is just coincidence that it starting going up right before wages stagnated?

And whether or not it could have that big of an impact depends on the elasticity of demand for labor.

What do you think would happen to oil prices if 5-10% were destroyed suddenly?

No it is not coincidence. The economic and political leaders used it as an excuse to further their agenda to create a royal class within our supposedly democractic society. The reason they wanted women and minorities to work was because that was just that many more people they could tax. And even with all that extra money they could not contain themselves.

 

[Smoblikat]

Thank you Bush

and this is what Americans want more of.

How long until the problem can be blamed on obama? When romney gets in office he can blame everything on obama and europe, right? Thats only fair, wait.....let me guess......it STILL wont be obamas fault, if romney wins, it will be bushes fault. Two presidencies later were still blaming bush.

 

[Smoblikat]

blaming Bush is stupid. What we are currently living in his trickle-down "Reaganomics" at its theoretical peak.

So...since we now know what this does, why would anyone choose to keep electing people that want to further deregulate the financial system and erode national wealth? (shifting from middle class to the 0.3%)?

Why would we want to elect people that take NO responsibility for their own actions, that havent solved any problems in an entire term as president.

 

[nehalem256]

How long until the problem can be blamed on obama? When romney gets in office he can blame everything on obama and europe, right? Thats only fair, wait.....let me guess......it STILL wont be obamas fault, if romney wins, it will be bushes fault. Two presidencies later were still blaming bush.

Democrats blame Reagan for something that began 10 years BEFORE he was president. Why are you surprised?

 

[Rainsford]

So it is just coincidence that it starting going up right before wages stagnated?

That doesn't prove causation. In fact, you could just as easily argue that women started entering the workplace not because they were pressured by "liberals" but because their families needed the money...

And whether or not it could have that big of an impact depends on the elasticity of demand for labor.

What do you think would happen to oil prices if 5-10% were destroyed suddenly?

Except we're not just talking about supply and demand for labor, you also have to factor in the increasing value of that labor (as seen by the productivity numbers). Even with a larger labor force, productivity per worker went up. That should have resulted in increased wages, extra workers or no, based on the way economics "should" work.

EDIT: It certainly makes more sense than blaming Reaganomics which began 10 years AFTER wages stagnated.

Well, it makes more sense in the "what matches my preconceived political ideas" category at any rate. Really I don't know what the cause is, but it's definitely an issue. And it's certainly not helped by people who think those at the top need even MORE help.

 

[Rainsford]

Democrats blame Reagan for something that began 10 years BEFORE he was president. Why are you surprised?

Why does everything need to be simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker when it comes to politics? I'm sure it's unfair to blame Reagan for the whole thing...that doesn't mean his policies had absolutely nothing to do with the problem...

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Why does everything need to be simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker when it comes to politics? I'm sure it's unfair to blame Reagan for the whole thing...that doesn't mean his policies had absolutely nothing to do with the problem...

Actually, his administration really got the ball rolling to this point. By lowering tax rates for top earners from 70% to 28%, and spending more than the average administration did in comparison to the GDP, he began the trend of irresponsible leadership after Carter tried to warn us all that our excess would lead to big problems.

 

[Rainsford]

Actually, his administration really got the ball rolling to this point. By lowering tax rates for top earners from 70% to 28%, and spending more than the average administration did in comparison to the GDP, he began the trend of irresponsible leadership after Carter tried to warn us all that our excess would lead to big problems.

I think he definitely bears quite a bit of the blame, particularly for the general philosophy, but it's certainly bigger than him, IMO.

 

[Drako]

Why don't you post your commentary in your first post?

It's his schtick - it's all that keeps his delicate ego afloat