A Brief History of Capitalism

[kalm]

You keep saying this, but you've never really proved it. Wages have pretty much been stagnant when compared to other countries and the cost of things like housing, education, insurance, etc. Christ, countries like Sweden and Canada have seen stronger growth with greater social spending and wealth distribution as noted here:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/up" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... rrer=&_r=0

America! We're number 7 or 8...perhaps top 15!!!!

I have posted references to and estimates from CBO a number of times showing that the mean income of each quintile in the income distribution has increased in inflation adjusted terms since 1979 (for some reason that tends to be the CBO's start point). If you use an reasonable definition of the "middle class" per capita income has generally increased substantially since the 1970s "glory days." Again, that's when the cost of living is accounted for.

Do you want me to post references and data again? They just came out with their latest update this past December (I think). I did already post it though.

The income range to be considered middle class:$25,500 – $76,500

The median middle class household income in 2012: $51,017
and in 1989: $51,681

Year inflation-adjusted median household income peaked at $56,080: 1999

Average out-of-pocket health care expenses per household in 2012: $3,600
and in 2011: $3,280
and in 2005: $2,035

Average amount needed to send a child to an in-state college for the 2012-13 academic year: $22,261
and for a private college: $43,289

Percentage of Americans near retirement with less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts: 75

Percentage increase in housing prices since 1990: 56

Share of Americans that do not have enough money saved to pay their bills for six months: 3/4

The median household net worth in 2010: $57,000
and in 1983: $73,000

Percentage income growth since 1967 for the top 5 percent of earners: 88
and for the top 20 percent of earners: 70
and for middle-income households: 20

http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/20/by-the ... dle-class/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You appear to be right regarding income. Doesn't seem like that tells the whole story though.

[Baldy]

I have posted references to and estimates from CBO a number of times showing that the mean income of each quintile in the income distribution has increased in inflation adjusted terms since 1979 (for some reason that tends to be the CBO's start point). If you use an reasonable definition of the "middle class" per capita income has generally increased substantially since the 1970s "glory days." Again, that's when the cost of living is accounted for.

Do you want me to post references and data again? They just came out with their latest update this past December (I think). I did already post it though.

The income range to be considered middle class:$25,500 – $76,500

The median middle class household income in 2012: $51,017
and in 1989: $51,681

Year inflation-adjusted median household income peaked at $56,080: 1999

Average out-of-pocket health care expenses per household in 2012: $3,600
and in 2011: $3,280
and in 2005: $2,035

Average amount needed to send a child to an in-state college for the 2012-13 academic year: $22,261
and for a private college: $43,289

Percentage of Americans near retirement with less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts: 75

Percentage increase in housing prices since 1990: 56

Share of Americans that do not have enough money saved to pay their bills for six months: 3/4

The median household net worth in 2010: $57,000
and in 1983: $73,000

Percentage income growth since 1967 for the top 5 percent of earners: 88
and for the top 20 percent of earners: 70
and for middle-income households: 20

http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/20/by-the ... dle-class/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You appear to be right regarding income. Doesn't seem like that tells the whole story though.

Imagine that, look at the explosion of median household income during Satan's term as president from 1981-1989.

[kalm]

http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/20/by-the ... dle-class/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You appear to be right regarding income. Doesn't seem like that tells the whole story though.

Imagine that, look at the explosion of median household income during Satan's term as president from 1981-1989.

Yep...his economic policies quit having an effect in '90.

[Baldy]

Imagine that, look at the explosion of median household income during Satan's term as president from 1981-1989.

Yep...his economic policies quit having an effect in '90.

Wait a minute, you have said before that Clinton practiced Reaganomics too.
Looks like median household income exploded again during his presidency.

[kalm]

Yep...his economic policies quit having an effect in '90.

Wait a minute, you have said before that Clinton practiced Reaganomics too.
Looks like median household income exploded again during his presidency.

Yes, reaganomics increases bubbles. Clinton at least raised taxes a little, but reaganomic repeal of Glass Steagal and CFTA passed by Clinton created an especially delicious bubble.

[JohnStOnge]

Well I can see y'all have already independently verified what I wrote but since I already looked it up and am sitting here for about another hour waiting for my truck at the shop I'll go ahead and reference/link the CBO estimates and also link some estimates on home ownership rates.

For the CBO stuff go to http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44604" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and click on the "Supplemental Data" link at the upper right hand side of the page. That will get you to an Excel file with a bunch of tables on it. When you open the file click link 3, "Number of Households, Average Income, and Shares of Income for All Households, by Before-Tax Income Group, 1979 to 2010."

When you get to the tables scroll down to row 81; where you'll see the table labeled "Average After-Tax Income (2010 dollars)." As you can see the numbers are adjusted for inflation (i.e., 2010 dollars). Here is how after tax incomes for the middle three quintiles (the middle 60 percent of households) looked in terms of 1979 vs. 2010 in 2010 dollars:

2nd Quintile (20th percentile to 40th percentile): 1979 $30,000, 2010 $41,000 (37% higher)
3rd Quintile (40th percentile to 60th percentile): 1979 $42,600, 2010 $57,900 (36% higher)
4th Quintile (60th percentile to 80th percentile): 1979 $55,700, 2010 $80,600 (45% higher)

That's income. Now let's look at home ownership rates. For that I have to use two links. The first, at https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing ... owner.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, shows home ownership rates at 10 year intervals from 1900 through 2000. The second, at http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files ... spress.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, shows quarterly home ownership rates for each year 1995 through 2014 first quarter (page 6). There is a small discrepancy as the first table shows an annual 2000 home ownership rate of 66.2% while the second shows 2000 quarterly rates ranging from 67.1 through 67.5. But obviously the two tables from the same agency are close to each other for that year.

So anyway, looking at the table at the first link you can see that home ownership rates during the perceived "glory days" of the American middle class were lower than they are now. The rates were 55% in 1950, 61.9% in 1960, 62.9% in 1970, and 64.4% in 1980. Looking at the table on page 6 at the second link you can see that, though the most recent rates are down some from the 2005 peak of around 69%, they're still slightly higher than those during the perceived glory days of the middle class (65% in the 2014 first quarter).

Now, there is the start of a declining trend so that maybe some years from now we can say the middle class is declining. Same with incomes. But I think if you ask most people they'd say the perceived glory days of the middle class were from around 1950 through about the mid 1970s. And today's "middle class" has a ways to drop before it reaches the levels of that time period either in terms of inflation adjusted income or in terms of home ownership rate. There's just no way this premise that keeps coming up about how the American middle class had declined or shrunk or anything like that is true. About the only thing about what you hear that's true is the idea that it's no longer a world in which somebody in a town can depend on going to work at the local factory and staying there with great salary and benefits all their life. There may be more stress and anxiety as a result. But in material terms the middle class now is better off than it was during the perceived glory days of the middle class.

[JohnStOnge]

Now the qualitative though process:

How old are you? I'm 56. I graduated from high school in 1975. So I grew up during the perceived glory days of the middle class. My Dad was a union guy who worked from the time he was about 20 through retirement around 70 at a gasoline refinery.

And my impression about people thinking that the "typical" middle class American was materially better off than the "typical" middle class American of today is that they are nuts. No way. People in "the middle" have more money and more stuff than they had back then. WAY more stuff. Also bigger, nicer houses.

This "decline of the middle class" stuff is just insane. People either honestly don't remember or they just choose not to.

[Baldy]

Wait a minute, you have said before that Clinton practiced Reaganomics too.
Looks like median household income exploded again during his presidency.

Yes, reaganomics increases bubbles. Clinton at least raised taxes a little, but reaganomic repeal of Glass Steagal and CFTA passed by Clinton created an especially delicious bubble.

But you have said countless times that Reagan raised taxes too. Besides, there have been monstrous bubbles in all economies of the world since the early 17th century, does Reaganomics get the blame for those too?

Anyway, I'm really curious how the repeal of Glass-Steagall affected the burst of the real estate bubble and was the root cause of the "Great Recession".

[kalm]

Now the qualitative though process:

How old are you? I'm 56. I graduated from high school in 1975. So I grew up during the perceived glory days of the middle class. My Dad was a union guy who worked from the time he was about 20 through retirement around 70 at a gasoline refinery.

And my impression about people thinking that the "typical" middle class American was materially better off than the "typical" middle class American of today is that they are nuts. No way. People in "the middle" have more money and more stuff than they had back then. WAY more stuff. Also bigger, nicer houses.

This "decline of the middle class" stuff is just insane. People either honestly don't remember or they just choose not to.

Depends on how you measure the standard of living. If you measure it by all the shiny trinkets and mcmansions than sure. If however, you measure by big ticket important items like education and healthcare and adjust for disproportional inflation, then not so much.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tu ... ted_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure you remember the days when a person could work their way through college, and medical insurance premiums were more reasonable or covered by an employer.

Sorry, John, you're simply not seeing the full picture.

[kalm]

Yes, reaganomics increases bubbles. Clinton at least raised taxes a little, but reaganomic repeal of Glass Steagal and CFTA passed by Clinton created an especially delicious bubble.

But you have said countless times that Reagan raised taxes too. Besides, there have been monstrous bubbles in all economies of the world since the early 17th century, does Reaganomics get the blame for those too?

Anyway, I'm really curious how the repeal of Glass-Steagall affected the burst of the real estate bubble and was the root cause of the "Great Recession".

We went 60 years without a crash. There were a few minor bubbles, but nothing until the crash of 87 which coincided with financial deregulation under Reagan. Deregulation of financial markets and high end tax cuts were nothing new, but Reagan did a magnificent job of selling them.

The repeal of Glass-Steagal and the CFTA turned a housing bubble into a flow blown world wide economic meltdown. There were many factors that led to the Great Recession but those two acts were among the largest contributors.

[Chizzang]

No wonder kalmy, Chizz Stain, jizzkid, and Comrade Cat are forming a circle jerk of appreciation.

I call the article interesting and you respond like this ^
Only a person who's terrified of something behaves like this
A dog is mean because its afraid
(what are you so afraid of?)

[JohnStOnge]

I'm sure you remember the days when a person could work their way through college, and medical insurance premiums were more reasonable or covered by an employer.

Sorry, John, you're simply not seeing the full picture.

I agree with the idea that higher education and health care are problems in terms of being characterized by inflation well beyond the overall rate. However, I think the "full picture" is that the typical person "in the middle" today is better off. They have to experience higher health care and higher education costs but they're doing it with incomes that when adjusted for overall inflation are something like 35 to 40 percent higher. They are more likely to have a college degree today than they were back in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s (I'm assuming you agree that's common knowledge so I don't have to cite any sources). Health care is better and far more advanced today. Bottom line is that people get better health care now and are more likely to get a college degree. That and they are more likely or at least about AS likely (depending on where you look during 1950 through 1975 or so) to own a home. They have smartphones and iPads and iPhones. They have flat screen TVs. They are more likely to have air conditioning in their homes. And the average home is bigger as well as nicer (another thing I hope I don't have to look up because everybody knows it). I'm confident that if I looked it up I'd find they're more likely to have an automobile. On and on on. They're just way better off in material terms nowadays.

I also happen to think that the process of trying to insulate people from cost is a factor in the rapid increase of costs in higher education and health care. I think health insurance and government programs to assist students with higher education costs distorted the supply and demand curves. I think health care costs would be much lower if people had to pay for health care out of pocket because the market would not bear the costs made sustainable by our public and private health insurance systems. And I think higher education costs would be much lower if government subsidized student loans and government tuition grants had not been available. I think colleges basically increased cost to meet what they could/can get through programs like that.

[BlueHen86]

Now the qualitative though process:

How old are you? I'm 56. I graduated from high school in 1975. So I grew up during the perceived glory days of the middle class. My Dad was a union guy who worked from the time he was about 20 through retirement around 70 at a gasoline refinery.

And my impression about people thinking that the "typical" middle class American was materially better off than the "typical" middle class American of today is that they are nuts. No way. People in "the middle" have more money and more stuff than they had back then. WAY more stuff. Also bigger, nicer houses.

This "decline of the middle class" stuff is just insane. People either honestly don't remember or they just choose not to.

Depends on how you measure the standard of living. If you measure it by all the shiny trinkets and mcmansions than sure. If however, you measure by big ticket important items like education and healthcare and adjust for disproportional inflation, then not so much.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tu ... ted_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure you remember the days when a person could work their way through college, and medical insurance premiums were more reasonable or covered by an employer.

Sorry, John, you're simply not seeing the full picture.

He never has. He see's how his life has played out and assumes that everyone else has had the exact same experience. He can't comprehend that other people may have experienced different circumstances.

[JohnStOnge]

Bottom line is even if we quibble about whether people "in the middle" of today's United States are better off or worse off in certain specific areas it's clear that there has been no overall decline in the middle class in the United States. The premise declared in the article that the middle class has been "evaporating" is false. And it's a false premise that has somehow been established as true in the minds of most of the public, I think.

I think that there is some truth to the article linked at the start in that things have changed. The centers associated with certain types of activity have changed. The "income gap" has increased. But there is an underlying theme in the article that people "in the middle" of western countries are worse off now. There is the implication that declining income for those "in the middle" is a factor in the increasing "income gap." And that's just not true. The income gap has increased because, though income for those "in the middle" has increased and increased substantially, income for those at the top has increased even MORE substantially.

[kalm]

Bottom line is even if we quibble about whether people "in the middle" of today's United States are better off or worse off in certain specific areas it's clear that there has been no overall decline in the middle class in the United States. The premise declared in the article that the middle class has been "evaporating" is false. And it's a false premise that has somehow been established as true in the minds of most of the public, I think.

I think that there is some truth to the article linked at the start in that things have changed. The centers associated with certain types of activity have changed. The "income gap" has increased. But there is an underlying theme in the article that people "in the middle" of western countries are worse off now. There is the implication that declining income for those "in the middle" is a factor in the increasing "income gap." And that's just not true. The income gap has increased because, though income for those "in the middle" has increased and increased substantially, income for those at the top has increased even MORE substantially.

Said the guy who in another thread claimed 50% of Americans are economic parasites.

[BlueHen86]

Bottom line is even if we quibble about whether people "in the middle" of today's United States are better off or worse off in certain specific areas it's clear that there has been no overall decline in the middle class in the United States. The premise declared in the article that the middle class has been "evaporating" is false. And it's a false premise that has somehow been established as true in the minds of most of the public, I think.

I think that there is some truth to the article linked at the start in that things have changed. The centers associated with certain types of activity have changed. The "income gap" has increased. But there is an underlying theme in the article that people "in the middle" of western countries are worse off now. There is the implication that declining income for those "in the middle" is a factor in the increasing "income gap." And that's just not true. The income gap has increased because, though income for those "in the middle" has increased and increased substantially, income for those at the top has increased even MORE substantially.

Is this your opinion? Or is it fact? There is a difference.

[JohnStOnge]

Sorry, John, you're simply not seeing the full picture.

He never has. He see's how his life has played out and assumes that everyone else has had the exact same experience. He can't comprehend that other people may have experienced different circumstances.

It's not just because of my personal experience. Yes, my personal experience is part of it because I was alive back during the perceived glory days of the middle class. But there are also a lot of data out there that contradict the idea the the "middle class" has declined.

If I looked at those data and they suggested that the lot of the middle 60 percent of the population…or the middle 20 percent or the middle 33 percent or however you want to define the "middle class"…is not as good in material terms now as it was back in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s I'd say so. But they don't. They say the "middle class" is better off…OVERALL (you know, the "full picture") now in measurable material terms than it was then. They just do.

They've got substantially higher incomes. They've got more stuff. They've got nicer houses. They're more likely to won a house than they were during most of the middle class glory days and are about as likely to own one when that measure was at its best then. They're more likely to have a college degree, They get better health care. And I have no doubt that if I were to make an effort to look it up I'd find that they have at least as much access to health care as they did then. Make the picture as full as you want. On balance, they middle 60%, 20%, 33%, 50% or however you want to define the "middle class" is better off in material terms now than it was during the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s. No truly objective person could look at the data and the overall picture and say otherwise. To say otherwise you have to start focusing on certain selected aspects of the picture; like focusing on the fact that health care and higher education cost inflation rates exceed the overall inflation rate.

[BlueHen86]

Sorry, John, you're simply not seeing the full picture.

He never has. He see's how his life has played out and assumes that everyone else has had the exact same experience. He can't comprehend that other people may have experienced different circumstances.

It's not just because of my personal experience. Yes, my personal experience is part of it because I was alive back during the perceived glory days of the middle class. But there are also a lot of data out there that contradict the idea the the "middle class" has declined.

If I looked at those data and they suggested that the lot of the middle 60 percent of the population…or the middle 20 percent or the middle 33 percent or however you want to define the "middle class"…is not as good in material terms now as it was back in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s I'd say so. But they don't. They say the "middle class" is better off…OVERALL (you know, the "full picture") now in measurable material terms than it was then. They just do.

They've got substantially higher incomes. They've got more stuff. They've got nicer houses. They're more likely to won a house than they were during most of the middle class glory days and are about as likely to own one when that measure was at its best then. They're more likely to have a college degree, They get better health care. And I have no doubt that if I were to make an effort to look it up I'd find that they have at least as much access to health care as they did then. Make the picture as full as you want. On balance, they middle 60%, 20%, 33%, 50% or however you want to define the "middle class" is better off in material terms now than it was during the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s. No truly objective person could look at the data and the overall picture and say otherwise. To say otherwise you have to start focusing on certain selected aspects of the picture; like focusing on the fact that health care and higher education cost inflation rates exceed the overall inflation rate.

Well go ahead and look it up then. Support your opinion with facts, otherwise it's just opinion.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW just so you know something about my personal experience. I was born into a middle class family with 6 kids. I know from hearing my Dad talk about it after I grew up that he had no idea as to how he was going to support us. He just couldn't see how the finances were going to work. We frequently ate stuff like canned tuna mixed with cream of mushroom soup poured over toast. Another frequent entree was canned tuna fish mixed with macaroni and cheese. The union my Dad was in periodically went on strike and things were REALLY tough then. We had one black and white TV and I can remember when we did not have air conditioning in our South Louisiana house. We had one of those attic fans where you opened up the windows and turned it on for the breeze.

I spent most of my time at elementary school in hand me downs; frequently with patches on them. Most of the people I went to school with were from better-off families so I got picked on a lot for my clothes, my parents' car, etc.

My parents couldn't afford to put their kids through college so I worked full time and went to school at the same time. I put myself through. And yes I realize that's tougher now but I have no doubt that I'd do it now. My son in law just did it, finishing maybe three years ago. His parents couldn't afford to put him through either. He had to take out student loans, but when he was done he focused on paying that off even though for a while he was working jobs like working in the deli of a Whole Foods and his loans are paid off now. Now he has a job at least somewhat related to his degree. But there was nothing like that waiting for him on a sliver platter when he got out. He did what he had to do without whining about it. So don't tell me it can't be done.

I have had a number of "low status" jobs. I worked in a car wash. I worked in a Pizza Inn. I picked okra. After having worked as a news paper reporter then sports editor when my degree was in biology I lost that job for fraternizing with female co-workers contrary to the publisher's policy. Then I worked in a State park as a laborer with a science degree doing things like cleaning toilets, cutting grass, and collecting garbage. I'll never forget the joy of pulling up bags of crawfish carcasses full of maggots after people had crawfish boils. The smells. Later during that period I worked the overnight shift in a 24 hour convenience store. I did whatever I had to do. I didn't shrink from doing jobs that were "beneath" me when I had to do that. And it was quite some time before I got the first job related to my degree.

So no I am not a child of great privilege. I'm white so I guess if you buy into that "white privilege" crap you can go with that. But don't be thinking that my perspectives are due to being born with a silver spoon in my mouth. In fact it's more likely they're in part due to NOT being born with such and making my own way. I have little patience for people whining about what a bad hand life dealt them, that they can't find a job in their degree field when they get out of school, etc. Like people haven't always had to go through such things.

[BlueHen86]

BTW just so you know something about my personal experience. I was born into a middle class family with 6 kids. I know from hearing my Dad talk about it after I grew up that he had no idea as to how he was going to support us. He just couldn't see how the finances were going to work. We frequently ate stuff like canned tuna mixed with cream of mushroom soup poured over toast. Another frequent entree was canned tuna fish mixed with macaroni and cheese. The union my Dad was in periodically went on strike and things were REALLY tough then. We had one black and white TV and I can remember when we did not have air conditioning in our South Louisiana house. We had one of those attic fans where you opened up the windows and turned it on for the breeze.

I spent most of my time at elementary school in hand me downs; frequently with patches on them. Most of the people I went to school with were from better-off families so I got picked on a lot for my clothes, my parents' car, etc.

My parents couldn't afford to put their kids through college so I worked full time and went to school at the same time. I put myself through. And yes I realize that's tougher now but I have no doubt that I'd do it now. My son in law just did it, finishing maybe three years ago. His parents couldn't afford to put him through either. He had to take out student loans, but when he was done he focused on paying that off even though for a while he was working jobs like working in the deli of a Whole Foods and his loans are paid off now. Now he has a job at least somewhat related to his degree. But there was nothing like that waiting for him on a sliver platter when he got out. He did what he had to do without whining about it. So don't tell me it can't be done.

I have had a number of "low status" jobs. I worked in a car wash. I worked in a Pizza Inn. I picked okra. After having worked as a news paper reporter then sports editor when my degree was in biology I lost that job for fraternizing with female co-workers contrary to the publisher's policy. Then I worked in a State park as a laborer with a science degree doing things like cleaning toilets, cutting grass, and collecting garbage. I'll never forget the joy of pulling up bags of crawfish carcasses full of maggots after people had crawfish boils. The smells. Later during that period I worked the overnight shift in a 24 hour convenience store. I did whatever I had to do. I didn't shrink from doing jobs that were "beneath" me when I had to do that. And it was quite some time before I got the first job related to my degree.

So no I am not a child of great privilege. I'm white so I guess if you buy into that "white privilege" crap you can go with that. But don't be thinking that my perspectives are due to being born with a silver spoon in my mouth. In fact it's more likely they're in part due to NOT being born with such and making my own way. I have little patience for people whining about what a bad hand life dealt them, that they can't find a job in their degree field when they get out of school, etc. Like people haven't always had to go through such things.

So you admit that you have no compassion. That's something to be proud of!

[kalm]

BTW just so you know something about my personal experience. I was born into a middle class family with 6 kids. I know from hearing my Dad talk about it after I grew up that he had no idea as to how he was going to support us. He just couldn't see how the finances were going to work. We frequently ate stuff like canned tuna mixed with cream of mushroom soup poured over toast. Another frequent entree was canned tuna fish mixed with macaroni and cheese. The union my Dad was in periodically went on strike and things were REALLY tough then. We had one black and white TV and I can remember when we did not have air conditioning in our South Louisiana house. We had one of those attic fans where you opened up the windows and turned it on for the breeze.

I spent most of my time at elementary school in hand me downs; frequently with patches on them. Most of the people I went to school with were from better-off families so I got picked on a lot for my clothes, my parents' car, etc.

My parents couldn't afford to put their kids through college so I worked full time and went to school at the same time. I put myself through. And yes I realize that's tougher now but I have no doubt that I'd do it now. My son in law just did it, finishing maybe three years ago. His parents couldn't afford to put him through either. He had to take out student loans, but when he was done he focused on paying that off even though for a while he was working jobs like working in the deli of a Whole Foods and his loans are paid off now. Now he has a job at least somewhat related to his degree. But there was nothing like that waiting for him on a sliver platter when he got out. He did what he had to do without whining about it. So don't tell me it can't be done.

I have had a number of "low status" jobs. I worked in a car wash. I worked in a Pizza Inn. I picked okra. After having worked as a news paper reporter then sports editor when my degree was in biology I lost that job for fraternizing with female co-workers contrary to the publisher's policy. Then I worked in a State park as a laborer with a science degree doing things like cleaning toilets, cutting grass, and collecting garbage. I'll never forget the joy of pulling up bags of crawfish carcasses full of maggots after people had crawfish boils. The smells. Later during that period I worked the overnight shift in a 24 hour convenience store. I did whatever I had to do. I didn't shrink from doing jobs that were "beneath" me when I had to do that. And it was quite some time before I got the first job related to my degree.

So no I am not a child of great privilege. I'm white so I guess if you buy into that "white privilege" crap you can go with that. But don't be thinking that my perspectives are due to being born with a silver spoon in my mouth. In fact it's more likely they're in part due to NOT being born with such and making my own way. I have little patience for people whining about what a bad hand life dealt them, that they can't find a job in their degree field when they get out of school, etc. Like people haven't always had to go through such things.

So I see your son in law was a parasite.

[JohnStOnge]

Bottom line is even if we quibble about whether people "in the middle" of today's United States are better off or worse off in certain specific areas it's clear that there has been no overall decline in the middle class in the United States. The premise declared in the article that the middle class has been "evaporating" is false. And it's a false premise that has somehow been established as true in the minds of most of the public, I think.

I think that there is some truth to the article linked at the start in that things have changed. The centers associated with certain types of activity have changed. The "income gap" has increased. But there is an underlying theme in the article that people "in the middle" of western countries are worse off now. There is the implication that declining income for those "in the middle" is a factor in the increasing "income gap." And that's just not true. The income gap has increased because, though income for those "in the middle" has increased and increased substantially, income for those at the top has increased even MORE substantially.

Is this your opinion? Or is it fact? There is a difference.

Well, it's a fact that according to CBO estimates the "middle class," however that is reasonably defined, is better off now in terms of income when inflation is taken into account. Also, it is a fact that according to CBO estimates the income gap increase is due to the income for the top 20%, 10%, 1%, or whatever has risen more than the incomes for any of the middle three quintiles or the whole middle 60% have. It's a fact that if you go by CBO estimates declining incomes among the middle 60%, 33%, 50%, or something like that is NOT a factor in the increase in the income gap.

But I guess one could say that we don't know CBO estimates are factually correct or close enough to factually correct to create the right impression.

[JohnStOnge]

So I see your son in law was a parasite.

Perhaps he is. I probably have been for most of my life too in the terms I'm talking about. By that I mean people who live in this country while paying less than their share of the cost of running the country.

But that's the system. The system makes that the case. It's a system whereby government does way more than it should be doing and the wagon is hitched to a small percentage of the population to pull. All you can do is oppose the system. And no I really don't even know if my son in law opposes the system. But I do. And I'm working on him.

[JohnStOnge]

So you admit that you have no compassion. That's something to be proud of!

I've got plenty of compassion when compassion is called for. And I don't think compassion is called for under circumstances whereby people think other people are OBLIGATED to take care of their problems for them; that they are ENTITLED to having other people solve their issues for them.

Unfortunately I think it's gotten to the point where most of the people in this country are like that. They act as though the fact that they have a problem means government...or somebody...is obligated to take care of it.

Gracefully and gratefully accept assistance if it is offered. But don't come with acting as though you're ENTITLED to it.

[Ivytalk]

So what would Marx have thought of all these graphs and shit?

Doe dialectical materialism include autobiography?