That’s diferent, though, isn’t it?And where did I say they had to spend ALL or even most of their income? People do need to be able to spend to keep the economy humming. When they can’t afford to buy anything and have only enough to keep a roof over their heads and the lights on, there’s not enough demand for goods and services to keep others working. There’s no sin in being able to buy the occasional new pair of jeans or shoes, take a vacation or go out to dinner once in a while.
I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to remember a time when everyone didn’t even have a Visa card. Yet, my parents-neither of whom went to college-were still able to buy a house, keep the pantry filled and the lights on, have 2 cars, send me to Catholic school, buy me clothes and toys and we even went on vacation in the summers. They didn’t have credit cards until I was in high school in the late 70’s. They were able to earn enough for that life before credit cards were in everyone’s wallet.That’s diferent, though, isn’t it?
Undoubtedly, many can’t afford to buy very much. But most people seem to spend pretty much everything they make, buy things they absolutely don’t need, and often borrow to do it. That’s a big part of the reason underlying the current recession. It may be observed that people have, on average, cut down on their debt. Unfortunately, the government is borrowing for them at present.
Taxes and government deficit spending are the cause of that. Well over half our income goes to taxes so the government can spend over $60,000 per household on the poor. After you’ve taken my taxes the “poor” are now ahead of me.I don’t know how old you are, but I’m old enough to remember a time when everyone didn’t even have a Visa card. Yet, my parents-neither of whom went to college-were still able to buy a house, keep the pantry filled and the lights on, have 2 cars, send me to Catholic school, buy me clothes and toys and we even went on vacation in the summers. They didn’t have credit cards until I was in high school in the late 70’s. They were able to earn enough for that life before credit cards were in everyone’s wallet.
You don’t have to believe me, look it up yourself. Search “income growth in US since 1970” and see for yourself. A young person starting out today is simply not going to see the kind of income growth my parents did. My generation didn’t see it. Sure, there are some, but the stories are like legends because they only happen to a few people.
We want to believe that we still live in a rags to riches, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps society, but the numbers prove it just isn’t working that way anymore for a huge portion of society. Being smart about money and credit is a part of it, as is our instant gratification society, but those are only parts of the equation.
It’s not about any single political party or candidate. It’s about years of policies that have changed the playing field to favor those who already have the money and power.
If the “poor” are getting $60,000 a year, then how are they still poor ?Taxes and government deficit spending are the cause of that. Well over half our income goes to taxes so the government can spend over $60,000 per household on the poor. After you’ve taken my taxes the “poor” are now ahead of me.
The government might take the equivalent of 60K per poor family from working families in terms of taxes. The government might spend 60K per poor family. But it’s more likely that the government wastes 60K per poor family, and that poor families receive far far less than 60K in terms of benefits.Taxes and government deficit spending are the cause of that. Well over half our income goes to taxes so the government can spend over $60,000 per household on the poor. After you’ve taken my taxes the “poor” are now ahead of me.
So let’s have it cut and dry, from your best guestimate. What % of the middle class has moved into the upper class, compared to what % has moved down? And what would you consider ‘upper class’?It’s true that the “middle class” has shrunk. But it’s because a significant number have joined the “upper class” in terms of wealth. That’s, to some extent, due to the aging of the population because elders have more in terms of “wealth” than younger people, having accumulated it over a lifetime.
But median income has also shrunk. To some extent, that’s due to shrinkage of the “middle class” as abovementioned, which “skimmed off” some of the high earners,
The way you describe it above, the people living this way are living for free off of other people’s taxes. They might not live in houses, they live in apartments- but as you said houses were much smaller so it’s almost the same thing anyway. And they might not have cars, but public transportation in big cities is pretty efficient and trouble free so not much of a difference there either, a small trade off for having a free apartment, free money to live on, free everything and not having to work at all- a free, 52 week per year paid vacation!So, thinking it through, back when one family member could support the whole family, that family probably paid almost nothing in taxes and there weren’t nearly as many things to buy. “Keeping up with the Joneses” didn’t really apply to children. Now, children are into the latest fashions and gadgets.
If people today lived like people did in 1950, I don’t much doubt most could do with one income only.
I agree with you about the key difference between businessmen and gov’t bureaucrats. Unfortunately also IMO has the gov’t long since become a business and I think the bureaucrats are motivated to create nothing, to make things LESS efficient. They risk nothing, they are one grain in a whole field of wheat. There is no punnishment for these individuals to grow and multiply and accomplish less and less for society. Actually there is a punnishment, but they are not the ones who suffer it, we do.History teaches that economies rise and fall. The question when falling is, HOW FAR DOWN and for how long?
The Crash of 1929 took us down pretty far and we stayed down for more than 10 years. Then World War II and then the greatest economic growth for 60 years with only minor, short term falls.
Today’s economy faces the largest threat since the Crash of 1929. We just do not know how far down or for how long we could go if wrong decisions are made.
The government can either help create new growth or it can hinder it.
History also teaches that when a national government tries to manage the economy too much, it usually fails and makes matters much worse. There are simply too many decisions to be made in too many industries and bureaucrats, nice as they are, are simply not businessmen who risk THEIR OWN MONEY and thus are more highly motivated than bureacrats, to make smarter decisions. I love football. I love to talk about it and analyze it and predict it. BUT I cannot play football the way it needs to be played to win. Same with most bureaucrats.
Government needs to encourage business and not become business itself. Too much government control results in too little freedom to succeed.
Either you know a lot of people who belong to the most exclusive clubs in the world and can get almost anything they want by pushing a button or making a phone call or we have a large disagreement when it comes to the definition of ‘very wealthy’.It’s possible, I suppose, that some VERY wealthy people put their money offshore. But most wealthy people don’t. I know lots of them,
It seems to me that your talking about people who have worked their entire lives and accumulated say 4-5 million to leave behind. If this is in the ballpark of what your talking about, what do you call the people who make that in a bad year or a very bad year, or a very, very bad year?It’s possible, I suppose, that some VERY wealthy people put their money offshore. But most wealthy people don’t. I know lots of them, and it’s considered an invitation to an IRS audit…which it is. Most wealthy people in this country do not have overseas investments and therefore no reason to have offshore accounts.
Wealth growth has stagnated or dropped in the U.S. for several reasons:
First, a lot of people are no longer in the “lower” or “middle” classes. Part of that is due to demographics, as I mentioned before. Older people are by far the wealthiest segment of the population in the U.S., because they have the accumulated wealth of a lifetime. At their death, it goes to someone else; usually someone lower than they on the “wealth scale”.
How would you define a ‘wage slave’? To me it can’t include people who live off of the government (off of taxpayers). To me it is anyone who can’t afford to stop working for a few years, then jump back into doing whatever it is they were doing before to make money- or do something else to make money- and be completely fine with no worries.. It makes wage slaves of its devotees. It is just a fact that during the last couple of decades, consumerism drove the incurring of unsustainable debt. There is nothing at all wrong with being prudent with one’s earnings.
I don’t pretend to be an economist or a demographer. And, “upper class” or any “class” is pretty subjective. I do recall reading that a great deal of the shrinkage in the “middle class” is due to their joining the next rung up, whatever one wants to call it. I would have to look it up again to be able to state the author’s premises for saying it.So let’s have it cut and dry, from your best guestimate. What % of the middle class has moved into the upper class, compared to what % has moved down? And what would you consider ‘upper class’?
Unemployed Poor
Working Poor
Working Class
Middle Class
Upper Middle Class
Upper Class
Rich
Wealthy
Super Wealthy
Using the different catagories above, assuming the super wealthy is the very top and is the smallest catagory by % of people, say .0000001%, effectively excluding them as a class, with the wealthy being say .001%, the rich being say the difference to rounding off to make the top 3 in the list equal to 1%.
Now we have ‘society’ from unemployed poor up to upper class. This wouldn’t be the president’s or michael moor’s 1%, this is the way I would break down things where the upper class is NOT included in the 1% ie the 99% vs the 1%.
What % of the population would you consider to be in the upper class? Which class are nurses in, middle class or working class? I wouldn’t consider them to be working poor, but I would not consider a nurse living alone as an adult to be middle class either. Are only people making minimum wage or very close to it in the ‘working poor’ class? I wouldn’t agree with that at all.
I think you are making too much of the term “wage slave”, though I confess my role in triggering that. It isn’t a technical term having a particular meaning anyway. To me, though, a person can be called a “wage slave” if it takes everything he receives to support his lifestyle. Some such people have employment mobility, but probably most do not, to any significant degree. If they have no “wealth”, their immobility increases. If they have more “wealth”, their mobility increases. The person who has no mobility does not have much in the way of choices when it comes to the hours they work, the kind of work they do, the moral environment in which they work.How would you define a ‘wage slave’? To me it can’t include people who live off of the government (off of taxpayers). To me it is anyone who can’t afford to stop working for a few years, then jump back into doing whatever it is they were doing before to make money- or do something else to make money- and be completely fine with no worries.
As far as I am concerned every single working poor person is obviously a wage slave. They live hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck. I would also consider a large portion to almost all of the working class wage slaves. By the very definition IMO of being ‘working class’ someone basically continue working to continue surviving (assuming they don’t get on the dole to survive).
Also, if someone is in the middle class and simply couldn’t afford to stop working and live off of what they already have for the rest of their lives and also put their children through college and grad school they are wage slaves (good luck being born today and living a life where you dont’ worry about your bills unless you have a post grad degree). I’m not saying this is a bad thing, I’m simply pointing out what I consider to be reality. I suppose one could technically exclude from the catagory of ‘wage slaves’ people who cut all financial ties to their children once they turn 18. But if someone has to keep a job and can’t stop working and still get by, they are a wage slave, aren’t they? Can people in the middle class afford to stop working and still manage to get by and live out their entire lives without working anymore?
Peace,
Bill
I was not talking about any of the people you mention. I was talking generally about the accumulation of wealth by ordinary people. I don’t have a classification for people who make 5 million/year or have estates of $500 million, one way or another, and don’t call them anything. They do not affect my life except on those occasions when I am called upon to do work for them. On those occasions, I charge them a fair amount for what I am doing.It seems to me that your talking about people who have worked their entire lives and accumulated say 4-5 million to leave behind. If this is in the ballpark of what your talking about, what do you call the people who make that in a bad year or a very bad year, or a very, very bad year?
And what do you call the people who can park enough money in bond funds and other low to very low risk investments and earn 4-5 million doing that?
What do you call the people who have died in the last decade with a net worth of 500 million dollars or more?
Peace,
Bill
Peace,
Bill
Thanks for your reply, I enjoyed reading it.Some nurses would be middle class in most peoples’ reckoning, but it would depend on the nurse’s education and experience. A nurse who went through a two year RN program and works in a nursing home? Probably not. A degree RN with postgraduate work qualifying her to be a nurse anaesthetist? Most people would say she is definitely on the upper income scale and in the upper part of the middle class in terms of earnings. An NP? Yes. A degree RN with significant experience in cardiac surgery assistance? Yes. A PRN charge nurse who works regularly? Probably, due to the very high pay for anyone qualified to do it, and if the nurse has established a “circuit” of regular clients.
Totally subjectively, I would say that a person who does not have sufficient food, clothing or shelter is “poor”. But I can’t assign an income level to that because I have known people whose income was less than $10,000 who had everything they reasonably wanted, and lived decently in basic terms. Most, however, would be considered “poor” if their income was that low and they did not receive some form of assistance. But a person earning no more than that would most likely be receiving some form of assistance.
Most would consider the upper 5% to be “wealthy”. But I don’t, necessarily, because I know people (mostly farmers) who are that “wealthy” in terms of land, but only earn a cornbread living doing what they’re doing in terms of discretionary income.
I have also known of small business owners and farmers who have an AGI over $250,000 now and then, but are barely holding on due to the costs of their business and their business debt.
Composition of assets varies greatly. Is a Californian whose house is worth $2 million but who has no other significant assets as “wealthy” as a Mississippian who has $2 million in cash, stocks and bonds and a house worth $80,000? The former would probably not think of himself as “wealthy”, but the latter would. The ability of the latter to do discretionary things would be considerably greater than the former.
Looking at one source, it appears that until 2007 the relative wealth of individuals in the U.S. did not change very much over several decades. After 2007, it did, but everybody’s wealth declined as well.
www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
But perhaps the thing that is the most troubling about the complaints people have about the distribution of wealth is that they never draw a cause/effect relationship, though they vociferously claim it. Am I poor because John Kerry is rich, or am I poor for reasons that have nothing to do with John Kerry or anybody like him? Personally, I know too many self-made wealthy and too many poor to think one man’s wealth has anything at all to do with another man’s poverty.
There is one additional thing that gives me considerable pause if I am ever tempted to think that accumulation of wealth has anything to do with the fortunes of others. Since 1929, the percentage of national income going to capital relative to that of “labor+ paid non-labor” has remained almost constant at a 1/3-2/3 ratio. The percentage going to capital is at its lowest during full employment, but increases during high unemployment, though in actual dollars it moves up for both during full employment and declines for both during high unemployment.
Employment is actually the causative and moving metric in determining how well off people are, not the relative distribution of wealth.
But it’s also true that the share of “paid non-labor” comes entirely from “labor’s share”. In other words, when transfer payments go up as a percentage of national income, the percentage of national income going to working labor goes down.
Just for the record, I consider Obama’s “care for the poor” and “care for the middle class” a total sham. He has done nothing for either and has brought harm to both.
Sorry to shorten your post, but I had to.
While I recognize and agree with what your saying, I wouldn’t put a whole lot of weight behind it with respect to it being used as the basis for argument because the same thing could be said by past generations about the generations before them… no electricity… no plumbing… the ‘rich’ caveman having all the meat and fruit he wanted to eat… the poor caveman eating nuts and seeds and grass…I’m still puzzled by the degree to which people assert that our standard of living is on a long slide! I’m barely in my 40’s and when I was growing up, here was my standard of living:
I wasn’t considered poor, we were a solidly middle class family.
- Family of 5 had a 1,300SF ranch with a psuedo finished basement.
- single window air conditioner for the whole house.
- Until I was 9, we had 1 19" B&W TV, then we got a 19" color.
- Was nearly in HS before we got a VCR.
- House had one phone in the kitchen with a LONG cord.
- The good car had AC and FM radio. Dad’s commuter had neither. None of them had cruise control, power windows/locks, etc.
- Music came from vinyl LP records (Some had 8 tracks, then cassettes. I got a Walkman cassette in HS).
- When I was 18 I had traveled on an airplane precisely three times in my life. I was not terribly unusual among my peers.
- I was about to enter HS when we got our first computer, an Apple IIe. (It took less time to boot up than my Pentium 4 does today!)
- When I was about 12, we got a video game machine. It was called… PONG.