Agree or Disagree- Lack Of A Middle Class Is America's Real Problem

The user and all related content has been deleted.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

Depends on the cause. If it's because people are rising to the upper-class--as indicated by the US Census Bereau's data--then it's not a problem at all:

Separated into quintiles, it still seems like people are moving up in income rather than down:

Defining the "middle income" as being between 67% and 200% of the national median also indicates that people are moving up in income level:

 

[Matt-]

Doesn't the middle class makeup like 40-50% of America? I don't think there is a lack of middle class

 

[StillFaggyAF]

Doesn't the middle class makeup like 40-50% of America? I don't think there is a lack of middle class

There a very few accurate and agreed ways to count the middle class becasue almost all Americans identify as middle class

 

[can'tyoutell]

Depends on the cause. If it's because people are rising to the upper-class--as indicated by the US Census Bereau's data--then it's not a problem at all:

Separated into quintiles, it still seems like people are moving up in income rather than down:

Defining the "middle income" as being between 67% and 200% of the national median also indicates that people are moving up in income level:

You first graph shows that wages for the middle class and below are stagnant, not moving up. Your second graph shows that people moved out of the middle income (not middle class) and into the upperclass (again, not upper middle class), based on income only. Do your graphs account for the cost of living which as skyrocketed since then and continues to rise while wages remain stagnant?

 

[can'tyoutell]

Now lets take a look at the graphs that actually show the state of the middle class and economy.

Income means nothing without the cost of living to measure against.

The devil is in the details.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/middle-class-jobs-income-_n_3386157.html

 

[Matt-]

So the middle class is still very prevelant.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

Depends on the cause. If it's because people are rising to the upper-class--as indicated by the US Census Bereau's data--then it's not a problem at all:

Separated into quintiles, it still seems like people are moving up in income rather than down:

Defining the "middle income" as being between 67% and 200% of the national median also indicates that people are moving up in income level:

You first graph shows that wages for the middle class and below are stagnant, not moving up. Your second graph shows that people moved out of the middle income (not middle class) and into the upperclass (again, not upper middle class), based on income only. Do your graphs account for the cost of living which as skyrocketed since then and continues to rise while wages remain stagnant?

Shit's inflation adjusted. And the primary determinant of "middle-class" is income. Though these three charts use three different methodologies to determine middle-class income; they all indicate that people are moving up in income instead of down.

Now lets take a look at the graphs that actually show the state of the middle class and economy.

This is the same as the percent distribution charts I posted bruh, all three--including yours--show that the middle-class is declining; however, yours doesn't show how the lower and upper classes are doing in comparison.

The percent distribution charts I posted show the whole picture; which is that, while the percent of people in the middle-class is declining, the percent of people in the lower-class is not increasing, and the percent of people in the upper-class is increasing.

This all indicates that people are moving up in income instead of down.

 

[can'tyoutell]

Depends on the cause. If it's because people are rising to the upper-class--as indicated by the US Census Bereau's data--then it's not a problem at all:

How many single earner households existed in 1970 as compared to 2009? Your graph just shows that two parents work now. And by the way, there's a huge drop off around 100k.

"US Census Bureau Document S1901, entitled INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2010 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS), shows 11.8% of households having an income of $100,000-149,999, 4.2% making $150,000-$199,999, and 3.9% making over $200,000. For non-family households, only 5.1% earn from $100,000-$149,999, 1.5% earn from $150,000-$199,999, and 1.4% earn over $200,000.

Summing these percentages, we find that 19.9% of households make $100,000 or more, and 8% of non-family households earn over $100,000 per year."

"People have moved to the upperclass" Yeah, two married people making 38k a year are now upperclass.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

Depends on the cause. If it's because people are rising to the upper-class--as indicated by the US Census Bereau's data--then it's not a problem at all:

How many single earner households existed in 1970 as compared to 2009? Your graph just shows that two parents work now. And by the way, there's a huge drop off around 100k.

"US Census Bureau Document S1901, entitled INCOME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2010 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS), shows 11.8% of households having an income of $100,000-149,999, 4.2% making $150,000-$199,999, and 3.9% making over $200,000. For non-family households, only 5.1% earn from $100,000-$149,999, 1.5% earn from $150,000-$199,999, and 1.4% earn over $200,000.

Summing these percentages, we find that 19.9% of households make $100,000 or more, and 8% of non-family households earn over $100,000 per year."

Your graph also shows households bruh.

And how does any of the bolded show that more people aren't moving up from the middle-class to the upper-class, rather than down?

 

[can'tyoutell]

Depends on the cause. If it's because people are rising to the upper-class--as indicated by the US Census Bereau's data--then it's not a problem at all:

Separated into quintiles, it still seems like people are moving up in income rather than down:

Defining the "middle income" as being between 67% and 200% of the national median also indicates that people are moving up in income level:

You first graph shows that wages for the middle class and below are stagnant, not moving up. Your second graph shows that people moved out of the middle income (not middle class) and into the upperclass (again, not upper middle class), based on income only. Do your graphs account for the cost of living which as skyrocketed since then and continues to rise while wages remain stagnant?

Shit's inflation adjusted. And the primary determinant of "middle-class" is income. Though these three charts use three different methodologies to determine middle-class income; they all indicate that people are moving up in income instead of down.

Now lets take a look at the graphs that actually show the state of the middle class and economy.

This is the same as the percent distribution charts I posted bruh, all three--including yours--show that the middle-class is declining; however, yours doesn't not show how the lower and upper classes are doing in comparison.

The percent distribution charts I posted show the whole picture; which is that, while the percent of people in the middle-class is declining, the percent of people in the lower-class is not increasing, and the percent of people in the upper-class is increasing.

This all indicates that people are moving up in income instead of down.

Consider this graph.

That doesn't paint the picture of people moving up.

 

[can'tyoutell]

GC, we already know that wages have stagnated since the 70's:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-where-wages-have-been-stagnating-since-1970/

So the increase in household income for some parties is because of people working more hours, including those who were not working at all before (housewives.) But that still doesn't account for the cost of living outpacing household income growth. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

Depends on the cause. If it's because people are rising to the upper-class--as indicated by the US Census Bereau's data--then it's not a problem at all:

Separated into quintiles, it still seems like people are moving up in income rather than down:

Defining the "middle income" as being between 67% and 200% of the national median also indicates that people are moving up in income level:

You first graph shows that wages for the middle class and below are stagnant, not moving up. Your second graph shows that people moved out of the middle income (not middle class) and into the upperclass (again, not upper middle class), based on income only. Do your graphs account for the cost of living which as skyrocketed since then and continues to rise while wages remain stagnant?

Shit's inflation adjusted. And the primary determinant of "middle-class" is income. Though these three charts use three different methodologies to determine middle-class income; they all indicate that people are moving up in income instead of down.

Now lets take a look at the graphs that actually show the state of the middle class and economy.

This is the same as the percent distribution charts I posted bruh, all three--including yours--show that the middle-class is declining; however, yours doesn't not show how the lower and upper classes are doing in comparison.

The percent distribution charts I posted show the whole picture; which is that, while the percent of people in the middle-class is declining, the percent of people in the lower-class is not increasing, and the percent of people in the upper-class is increasing.

This all indicates that people are moving up in income instead of down.

Consider this graph.

That doesn't paint the picture of people moving up.

Lower-wage jobs typically grow the most during an economic recovery.

The same happened after the 2001 recession:

This chart is relative to 2001, so later changes appear to be more exaggerated; however, the same trend is still present.

 

[can'tyoutell]

Depends on the cause. If it's because people are rising to the upper-class--as indicated by the US Census Bereau's data--then it's not a problem at all:

Separated into quintiles, it still seems like people are moving up in income rather than down:

Defining the "middle income" as being between 67% and 200% of the national median also indicates that people are moving up in income level:

You first graph shows that wages for the middle class and below are stagnant, not moving up. Your second graph shows that people moved out of the middle income (not middle class) and into the upperclass (again, not upper middle class), based on income only. Do your graphs account for the cost of living which as skyrocketed since then and continues to rise while wages remain stagnant?

Shit's inflation adjusted. And the primary determinant of "middle-class" is income. Though these three charts use three different methodologies to determine middle-class income; they all indicate that people are moving up in income instead of down.

Now lets take a look at the graphs that actually show the state of the middle class and economy.

This is the same as the percent distribution charts I posted bruh, all three--including yours--show that the middle-class is declining; however, yours doesn't not show how the lower and upper classes are doing in comparison.

The percent distribution charts I posted show the whole picture; which is that, while the percent of people in the middle-class is declining, the percent of people in the lower-class is not increasing, and the percent of people in the upper-class is increasing.

This all indicates that people are moving up in income instead of down.

Consider this graph.

That doesn't paint the picture of people moving up.

Lower-wage jobs typically grow the most during an economic recovery.

The same happened after the 2001 recession:

This chart is relative to 2001, so later changes appear to be more exaggerated; however, the same trend is still present.

Alright Mr. Optimistic, when and where are the good jobs coming back?

 

[haute]

these graphs make me understand why some people think I'm uppity

still don't care though

 

[Go figure]

anyone got a link to the jay and maher full vid? only was able to get the first 10 min of it