No Billionaires

[YoUDeeMan]

Fine, then support economic policies that will stop and/or reverse the hollowing-out of the middle class.

The idea that the middle class has been hollowed out is a myth. I'm about to get off but I guess maybe tomorrow I will once again post data and references from the CBO that incomes for the middle class have generally increased substantially in inflation adjusted terms since 1979 (which is for some reason the year the CBO likes to use as a starting point). It's probably come down some in recent years since the thing in 2008 but so has income of the upper class. Even with the decline of the past few years the middle class is better off in material terms now than it was in 1980 or 1990. Without looking I'd say probably not better off than it was in 2000 but it also hasn't declined all that much. The middle class has higher incomes now than it did in 1979, a higher home ownership rate, more "toys", and on and on.

It amazes me that anybody who was alive in the 1960s and 1970s can look at what life was like for a typical middle class family then and look at what it's like now and think the middle class is worse off now. Just ridiculous. But I guess if people say it enough on television people will think it's true.

People like GrizHalfWit have an entitlement mentality. They believe others owe them something.

[Grizalltheway]

The idea that the middle class has been hollowed out is a myth. I'm about to get off but I guess maybe tomorrow I will once again post data and references from the CBO that incomes for the middle class have generally increased substantially in inflation adjusted terms since 1979 (which is for some reason the year the CBO likes to use as a starting point). It's probably come down some in recent years since the thing in 2008 but so has income of the upper class. Even with the decline of the past few years the middle class is better off in material terms now than it was in 1980 or 1990. Without looking I'd say probably not better off than it was in 2000 but it also hasn't declined all that much. The middle class has higher incomes now than it did in 1979, a higher home ownership rate, more "toys", and on and on.

It amazes me that anybody who was alive in the 1960s and 1970s can look at what life was like for a typical middle class family then and look at what it's like now and think the middle class is worse off now. Just ridiculous. But I guess if people say it enough on television people will think it's true.

People like GrizHalfWit have an entitlement mentality. They believe others owe them something.

Actually, I think you just owe me (and the rest of the board) an apology for being such an insufferable assclown.

[UNI88]

Fine, then support economic policies that will stop and/or reverse the hollowing-out of the middle class.

The idea that the middle class has been hollowed out is a myth. I'm about to get off but I guess maybe tomorrow I will once again post data and references from the CBO that incomes for the middle class have generally increased substantially in inflation adjusted terms since 1979 (which is for some reason the year the CBO likes to use as a starting point). It's probably come down some in recent years since the thing in 2008 but so has income of the upper class. Even with the decline of the past few years the middle class is better off in material terms now than it was in 1980 or 1990. Without looking I'd say probably not better off than it was in 2000 but it also hasn't declined all that much. The middle class has higher incomes now than it did in 1979, a higher home ownership rate, more "toys", and on and on.

It amazes me that anybody who was alive in the 1960s and 1970s can look at what life was like for a typical middle class family then and look at what it's like now and think the middle class is worse off now. Just ridiculous. But I guess if people say it enough on television people will think it's true.

John, I agree with what you've said but I also believe there is a troublesome trend that started even before 2008 where the real wages of the middle class have been decreasing and the real wages of the wealthy have been increasing. Real wages of the middle class were decreasing prior to 2008 because they were given smaller to no raises and required to take on a larger share of their healthcare costs. After 2008, the decreases increased even more as they were given no raises, asked to work longer hours and be more productive, laid off, took lower paying jobs after being laid off, etc. In the meantime, C-suite executives used workforce reductions to create a quick increase in stock value that enabled them to increase their salaries and bonuses. I've said this on other threads but the C-suite executives all sit on each others Boards and pat each other on the back by putting in place systems that they can take advantage of to significantly increase their compensation. The middle class is being asked to work longer and harder for less money while their superiors rake in the cash. There is a growing sense of frustration among many in the middle class!

[kalm]

The idea that the middle class has been hollowed out is a myth. I'm about to get off but I guess maybe tomorrow I will once again post data and references from the CBO that incomes for the middle class have generally increased substantially in inflation adjusted terms since 1979 (which is for some reason the year the CBO likes to use as a starting point). It's probably come down some in recent years since the thing in 2008 but so has income of the upper class. Even with the decline of the past few years the middle class is better off in material terms now than it was in 1980 or 1990. Without looking I'd say probably not better off than it was in 2000 but it also hasn't declined all that much. The middle class has higher incomes now than it did in 1979, a higher home ownership rate, more "toys", and on and on.

It amazes me that anybody who was alive in the 1960s and 1970s can look at what life was like for a typical middle class family then and look at what it's like now and think the middle class is worse off now. Just ridiculous. But I guess if people say it enough on television people will think it's true.

John, I agree with what you've said but I also believe there is a troublesome trend that started even before 2008 where the real wages of the middle class have been decreasing and the real wages of the wealthy have been increasing. Real wages of the middle class were decreasing prior to 2008 because they were given smaller to no raises and required to take on a larger share of their healthcare costs. After 2008, the decreases increased even more as they were given no raises, asked to work longer hours and be more productive, laid off, took lower paying jobs after being laid off, etc. In the meantime, C-suite executives used workforce reductions to create a quick increase in stock value that enabled them to increase their salaries and bonuses. I've said this on other threads but the C-suite executives all sit on each others Boards and pat each other on the back by putting in place systems that they can take advantage of to significantly increase their compensation. The middle class is being asked to work longer and harder for less money while their superiors rake in the cash. There is a growing sense of frustration among many in the middle class!

You can certainly blame many in the middle class for living beyond their means. That's a fair argument and keep in my mind that they were encouraged to at nearly every turn, and that overspending also helped drive the economy. Meanwhile, the things that matter the most like the cost of healthcare and education spiraled out of control. So the middle class has more trinkets but not not necessarily a better economic situation.

[AZGrizFan]

John, I agree with what you've said but I also believe there is a troublesome trend that started even before 2008 where the real wages of the middle class have been decreasing and the real wages of the wealthy have been increasing. Real wages of the middle class were decreasing prior to 2008 because they were given smaller to no raises and required to take on a larger share of their healthcare costs. After 2008, the decreases increased even more as they were given no raises, asked to work longer hours and be more productive, laid off, took lower paying jobs after being laid off, etc. In the meantime, C-suite executives used workforce reductions to create a quick increase in stock value that enabled them to increase their salaries and bonuses. I've said this on other threads but the C-suite executives all sit on each others Boards and pat each other on the back by putting in place systems that they can take advantage of to significantly increase their compensation. The middle class is being asked to work longer and harder for less money while their superiors rake in the cash. There is a growing sense of frustration among many in the middle class!

You can certainly blame many in the middle class for living beyond their means. That's a fair argument and keep in my mind that they were encouraged to at nearly every turn, and that overspending also helped drive the economy. Meanwhile, the things that matter the most like the cost of healthcare and education spiraled out of control. So the middle class has more trinkets but not not necessarily a better economic situation.

You two need to keep in mind that the vast majority of "C-level executives" OWN the companies they work for, and the companies are privately held. If you're talking specifically about publicly held companies, then say it. I am a "C-level executive" and I, along with my entire staff, took 10% paycuts last year. We ALL had to pay more for our healthcare. We ALL had to give up 401k matching. Just don't make the mass-media mistake (or Klammy's mistake regarding "bankers") of painting EVERYONE with such a broad brush. Hundreds of thousands of "C-level executives felt the pain right along with their employees over the past 5 years.

[kalm]

You can certainly blame many in the middle class for living beyond their means. That's a fair argument and keep in my mind that they were encouraged to at nearly every turn, and that overspending also helped drive the economy. Meanwhile, the things that matter the most like the cost of healthcare and education spiraled out of control. So the middle class has more trinkets but not not necessarily a better economic situation.

You two need to keep in mind that the vast majority of "C-level executives" OWN the companies they work for, and the companies are privately held. If you're talking specifically about publicly held companies, then say it. I am a "C-level executive" and I, along with my entire staff, took 10% paycuts last year. We ALL had to pay more for our healthcare. We ALL had to give up 401k matching. Just don't make the mass-media mistake (or Klammy's mistake regarding "bankers") of painting EVERYONE with such a broad brush. Hundreds of thousands of "C-level executives felt the pain right along with their employees over the past 5 years.

Truth. I don't blame them. There are some very wealthy people who have taken it in the shorts and some very solid and altruistic business owners and execs.

[UNI88]

You can certainly blame many in the middle class for living beyond their means. That's a fair argument and keep in my mind that they were encouraged to at nearly every turn, and that overspending also helped drive the economy. Meanwhile, the things that matter the most like the cost of healthcare and education spiraled out of control. So the middle class has more trinkets but not not necessarily a better economic situation.

You two need to keep in mind that the vast majority of "C-level executives" OWN the companies they work for, and the companies are privately held. If you're talking specifically about publicly held companies, then say it. I am a "C-level executive" and I, along with my entire staff, took 10% paycuts last year. We ALL had to pay more for our healthcare. We ALL had to give up 401k matching. Just don't make the mass-media mistake (or Klammy's mistake regarding "bankers") of painting EVERYONE with such a broad brush. Hundreds of thousands of "C-level executives felt the pain right along with their employees over the past 5 years.

Z, my apologies - I did use too broad of a brush. My comments were directed at C-suite executives of public companies, especially the larger companies. I know there are lots of owners and executives that have shared the pain with their employees and many have made personal sacrifices to lessen the impact on their employees. My intent was not to put every executive into the role of greedy bastard but to show that the middle class while not yet "hollowed out" is being impacted and the trend does not look good.

[AZGrizFan]

You two need to keep in mind that the vast majority of "C-level executives" OWN the companies they work for, and the companies are privately held. If you're talking specifically about publicly held companies, then say it. I am a "C-level executive" and I, along with my entire staff, took 10% paycuts last year. We ALL had to pay more for our healthcare. We ALL had to give up 401k matching. Just don't make the mass-media mistake (or Klammy's mistake regarding "bankers") of painting EVERYONE with such a broad brush. Hundreds of thousands of "C-level executives felt the pain right along with their employees over the past 5 years.

Z, my apologies - I did use too broad of a brush. My comments were directed at C-suite executives of public companies, especially the larger companies. I know there are lots of owners and executives that have shared the pain with their employees and many have made personal sacrifices to lessen the impact on their employees. My intent was not to put every executive into the role of greedy bastard but to show that the middle class while not yet "hollowed out" is being impacted and the trend does not look good.

In the big scheme of things, that's a very small percentage of people.

[kalm]

Z, my apologies - I did use too broad of a brush. My comments were directed at C-suite executives of public companies, especially the larger companies. I know there are lots of owners and executives that have shared the pain with their employees and many have made personal sacrifices to lessen the impact on their employees. My intent was not to put every executive into the role of greedy bastard but to show that the middle class while not yet "hollowed out" is being impacted and the trend does not look good.

In the big scheme of things, that's a very small percentage of people.

With an immense amount of power.

[AZGrizFan]

In the big scheme of things, that's a very small percentage of people.

With an immense amount of power.

True.

[YoUDeeMan]

People like GrizHalfWit have an entitlement mentality. They believe others owe them something.

Actually, I think you just owe me (and the rest of the board) an apology for being such an insufferable assclown.

There you go again...needing the "rest of the board" as a comforting cushion. Lemming.

[YoUDeeMan]

With an immense amount of power.

True.

Hey, you just got a raise and a promo...in the tax free, rugged man state of Texas. You better get your "power talk" on the right side fo the fence or they'll call you a Democrat and skin you alive.

[AZGrizFan]

True.

Hey, you just got a raise and a promo...in the tax free, rugged man state of Texas. You better get your "power talk" on the right side fo the fence or they'll call you a Democrat and skin you alive.

I still work for a not-for-profit industry.

And if you think Texas is "tax free", you should google their property tax rates some time.

[CID1990]

Only in America!

We sell the American dream to people, but by God we'll vilify and demagogue the sh!t out of you if you ever actually reach the top.

[kalm]

Only in America!

We sell the American dream to people, but by God we'll vilify and demagogue the sh!t out of you if you ever actually reach the top.

If you think reaching the top is the American dream than I suppose this makes sense.

[AZGrizFan]

Only in America!

We sell the American dream to people, but by God we'll vilify and demagogue the sh!t out of you if you ever actually reach the top.

The new "American Dream" is stealing it from the 1%.

[JohnStOnge]

I think we need to find out what "real wages." Means. One thing I've noticed is that those trying to argue the case that the middle class has suffered do not argue in terms of "income." They argue in terms of "wages" or "real wages." So what do they mean? Do they mean the hourly wage earned by hourly wage workers? What?

If it's something like "hourly wages" that could be due to a change in the nature of the workforce. There may be fewer hourly wage jobs and among those hourly wage jobs maybe some of the higher hourly wage jobs were eliminated. But they could have been more than compensated for by other jobs and/or professions that are not hourly wage endeavors.

Take my wife for instance. Her "wages" are zero because she's a Realtor. She is middle class. She is self employed so she gets no "wages" at all.

To me, anytime someone makes an argument about how well the middle class is doing in terms of anything other than "income" our antennae should go up. I think that if they COULD make an argument in terms of "income," they would. But they can't because, over time, middle class incomes have generally risen substantially. I strongly suspect that the use of terminology like "real wages" represents intentional deception. I suspect they started off wanting to show something and when the obvious metric (income) didn't support what they wanted to do they created a metric that would.

[kalm]

I think we need to find out what "real wages." Means. One thing I've noticed is that those trying to argue the case that the middle class has suffered do not argue in terms of "income." They argue in terms of "wages" or "real wages." So what do they mean? Do they mean the hourly wage earned by hourly wage workers? What?

If it's something like "hourly wages" that could be due to a change in the nature of the workforce. There may be fewer hourly wage jobs and among those hourly wage jobs maybe some of the higher hourly wage jobs were eliminated. But they could have been more than compensated for by other jobs and/or professions that are not hourly wage endeavors.

Take my wife for instance. Her "wages" are zero because she's a Realtor. She is middle class. She is self employed so she gets no "wages" at all.

To me, anytime someone makes an argument about how well the middle class is doing in terms of anything other than "income" our antennae should go up. I think that if they COULD make an argument in terms of "income," they would. But they can't because, over time, middle class incomes have generally risen substantially. I strongly suspect that the use of terminology like "real wages" represents intentional deception. I suspect they started off wanting to show something and when the obvious metric (income) didn't support what they wanted to do they created a metric that would.

No. And nice dodge.

[BDKJMU]

From the state of PA, 2012:
"Why a single mom is better off with a $29,000 job and welfare than taking a $69,000 job

.......Let’s take the example of a single mom with two kids, 1 and 4. She has a $29,000 a year job, putting the kids in daycare during the day while she works.

As the above chart – via Gary Alexander, Pennsylvania’s secretary of Public Welfare — shows, the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income and benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income & benefits of $57,045........."


http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/07/julias ... -year-job/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Only in America!

We sell the American dream to people, but by God we'll vilify and demagogue the sh!t out of you if you ever actually reach the top.

The new "American Dream" is stealing it from the 1%.

...plus, the mentality of 'How can I do less and receive more from MY gov....'

[kalm]

The new "American Dream" is stealing it from the 1%.

...plus, the mentality of 'How can I do less and receive more from MY gov....'

The 1% doesn't have that mentality. They've figured it out years ago.

[houndawg]

Only in America!

We sell the American dream to people, but by God we'll vilify and demagogue the sh!t out of you if you ever actually reach the top.

The new "American Dream" is stealing it from the 1%.

And dragging them behind a speeding pickup truck.

[UNI88]

I think we need to find out what "real wages." Means. One thing I've noticed is that those trying to argue the case that the middle class has suffered do not argue in terms of "income." They argue in terms of "wages" or "real wages." So what do they mean? Do they mean the hourly wage earned by hourly wage workers? What?

If it's something like "hourly wages" that could be due to a change in the nature of the workforce. There may be fewer hourly wage jobs and among those hourly wage jobs maybe some of the higher hourly wage jobs were eliminated. But they could have been more than compensated for by other jobs and/or professions that are not hourly wage endeavors.

Take my wife for instance. Her "wages" are zero because she's a Realtor. She is middle class. She is self employed so she gets no "wages" at all.

To me, anytime someone makes an argument about how well the middle class is doing in terms of anything other than "income" our antennae should go up. I think that if they COULD make an argument in terms of "income," they would. But they can't because, over time, middle class incomes have generally risen substantially. I strongly suspect that the use of terminology like "real wages" represents intentional deception. I suspect they started off wanting to show something and when the obvious metric (income) didn't support what they wanted to do they created a metric that would.

John I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not trying to be deceptive. I've also agreed with you that over time, middle class incomes have generally risen. But I will argue that the picture isn't so rosy from say 2006 or so on when companies started to give smaller to no raises while at the same time asking employees to pay for a greater share of their healthcare costs. I'm not saying that it wasn't justified, with the skyrocketing increase in healthcare costs, employers couldn't afford to pay as much as they used to. What I am saying is that employees real wages, net income, net compensation (be it salaried or hourly) or whatever you want to call it started to decrease relative to what they had made previously. The 2008 crash and recession that followed just made that decrease in net compensation worse and the trend doesn't look good moving forward. The middle class hasn't been hollowed out yet but they are taking a hit, their prospects as a group look to continue to be negative and they're getting frustrated about it.

[AZGrizFan]

John I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not trying to be deceptive. I've also agreed with you that over time, middle class incomes have generally risen. But I will argue that the picture isn't so rosy from say 2006 or so on when companies started to give smaller to no raises while at the same time asking employees to pay for a greater share of their healthcare costs. I'm not saying that it wasn't justified, with the skyrocketing increase in healthcare costs, employers couldn't afford to pay as much as they used to. What I am saying is that employees real wages, net income, net compensation (be it salaried or hourly) or whatever you want to call it started to decrease relative to what they had made previously. The 2008 crash and recession that followed just made that decrease in net compensation worse and the trend doesn't look good moving forward. The middle class hasn't been hollowed out yet but they are taking a hit, their prospects as a group look to continue to be negative and they're getting frustrated about it.

Guess it's all in whether you view the glass as half full or half empty, 88. The 105 (out of the original 185) people at my company who still HAVE A JOB are very grateful for that. They understand the economics of the situation...because I explain it to them every month at our all-staff meeting. Are there a few that are frustrated? Sure....but the vast majority of my staff "get" it and understand what we're up against.

We have a failure of leadership from the very top in this country where, instead of SOLVING the problem, they stand around pointing fingers and blaming each other or people who were in power 5 fucking years ago. What this country needed in 2008 was a uniter and we got the ultimate divider instead (and I'm not saying McCain would have done any better, and may have even done worse)...we needed a Reagan-esque uniter (from a morale standpoint, not policies necessarily), but THAT guy can't get elected in the current political environment. Instead we got a bitter divider who has divided this country along race, geographic, political and socio-economic lines like nobody in my lifetime. They're frustrated about it because the president and congress can't pull their collective heads out of their asses long enough to do what's RIGHT.

[89Hen]