Middle Class Shrinks Further

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...re-fall-out-instead-of-climbing-up/ar-AA8Aqit

I'd be seriously interested to know how conservatives would go about reversing this trend, outside of more trickle down, invading Iran, building a pipeline, criminalizing abortion, putting more guns on the street, building an 1,800 mile fence with gun turrets, turning to Jesus, or castrating the regulators. Jeebus knows, trickle down ain't working.

 

I pick turning to Jesus. That's worked out well for us in the past.

 

Yes, Two world wars, various social/political issues have all worked out wonderfully well! Let's continue praying to God-knows-what(You think you know, but really do you?) and it'll continue to work out just as well(Which, suffice to say isn't well at all). Rather than pray to God, or to "Jesus"(a mortal man who died ONCE. The bible is a fairy tale. As proof, they didn't actually see the physical incarnation of the so-called reborn Christ. Because it doesn't exist) I prefer to strengthen mankind through mankind's own innovations and devices.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with believing in a fairy tale. But even Madison subscribed to the belief that his religious ideals should never govern his politics. He knew God had no domain on this world called earth.

 

They wouldn't. And they won't.

 

But they don't actually turn to Jesus. Instead, they turn Jesus into a trademark image to put a friendly face on all kinds of atrocities, perverting the message of Jesus Christ into its exact opposite.

It's what happens. Anti-authoritarian images are always, and predictably, co-opted by the authorities. The truth has to stay on its toes.

 

Paul wrote letters to churches that were turning the Gospel into something it wasn't. So this has been happening for a long time. I have no problem with your comments, except to say it's ok to allow room for the well-intentioned who don't have nefarious motivations and do seek first the kingdom of heaven.

 

I expect to see data when you post...........not anecdotal "evidence"

 

You forgot cutting off welfare so that the welfare queens can finally start pulling themselves up with their own bootstraps .

 

How can this be? Obama just gave a State of the Union address and said "Middle Class economics is working" ??

 

I am trying to figure out why it is that you posted an article, then proceeded to throw out a litany of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article? You somehow thought this disjointed thinking was so important that it deserved its own thread?

 

How can this be? Can you please quote where in the SOTU address Obama said ""Middle Class economics is working"? Thanks.

And here's the link to make it easy on you. Or anyone else that wants to check the truthfulness of your claim.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/politics/state-of-the-union-2015-transcript-full-text/

 

the rich still are not trickling down, when is the right gonna get it, tax cuts for the rich do not help the middle class

- - - Updated - - -

exactly, only someone that did not watch the SOTU would even say that, as Obama made it clear we need to do more for the middle class

 

"So the verdict is clear. Middle-class economics works. "

Feel free to explain the difference.

 

Barak Hussein Ebola is the SOLE reason for the shrinkage of the Middle Class.
Don't blame conservatives. None of us voted for that traitorous son of a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

If the figures cited in the article are correct, (and I see no reason to doubt them), then the middle class, defined by incomes between $35k & $100k a year now is represented by less than 35% of families headed by someone under the age of 65. I would think that any observer comparing today's middle class with those in the last half of the 20th Century would have to conclude today represents "hard times".

I can think of no lucid rationale that would conclude continued policies of today will improve the situation in the future.

 

The data and the evidence are presented in the linked article, and there isn't an 'anecdote' to be found anywhere. Do you know what an 'anecdote' is?

Settle down, sonny.

 

How exactly is the middle class shrinking?

Are people that made 35,000 a year getting pay cuts or losing their jobs? According to Obama, he is creating tons of jobs so the Middle class should not be shrinking at all.

Perhaps people are redefining what middle class is but people are still making the same amount they made before are they not?

Either Obama is lying and the middle class is losing work or there is not actually a problem.

Which is it?

 

What I'm hearing is an admittance that the Democratic policies of this administration (hey, I'd differ, but Democrats overwhelmingly think Obama is to credit for anything good that happens when he's sitting in the Oval Office, and if that's the case then you've got to assign blame for the bad, too) have failed, but that you still prefer it to the GOP. I'm really not at all shocked.

But that aside, this is just a whole bunch of hoopla (I don't know where that term comes from, but it basically means hot air and I like it more than "hot air"). Yes, since the 1960s the number of households in the middle class has dropped, mostly because households are falling below. And? Since the 1960s the number of adults never married has nearly doubled and the number of adults divorced (and now single) has nearly tripled.



Funny thing about household incomes - they seem to magically increase when people are married. When you have two income earners than yeah, obviously, income increases. But it also increases when a married couple only has one income earner, because that gives that one income earner more time to focus on his/her career and earning money.

So, again, this is just a whole bunch of "hoopla". This shows more of a flaw in the method of measurement than an actual problem for the middle class. People aren't getting married like they used to, and they aren't sticking together like they used to - this obviously has a diminishing effect on household incomes.

 

This is just a problem of method of measurement. When two people are married earning $60,000 and they are one household which, by this measurement (earning 35k-100k as a household) is in the middle class. When they split, at least one of them will now head a below middle class household, possibly both of them will (if the 'bread winner' earned less than 35k). Nothing has really changed except for their marital status, yet this method of measurement has the middle class falling apart. It's a flawed method that doesn't take into account changing social norms in regards to marriage.

 

As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer due to concentration of wealth, the number of people on welfare will only increase.

 

Agreed, the explosion of people on food stamps is a symptom of the disease, not it's cause.

 

I've heard different takes on how much that explains everything (including some who say it explains the entirety of the issue). Personally I just find it annoying that individual earning statistics aren't better tracked and available. I also wish we had better access to "after taxes and transfers" figures. Although I appreciate that in the latter case it would be hard to disassociate those figures from households.

In any case while things have gotten worse compared to times before the dot-com and housing bubbles burst, the general trend is to have more households above 35k (in inflation adjusted dollars) over time.
See table H-3 or others at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html
If you aren't saying the middle class is larger today than in 1967 it's because more households are in the "mass affluent" >100k catagory.

I suppose the question is if we're just seeing the effects of changing family structure and bursting bubbles or a long term trend that will continue long into the future.

We also as a nation probalby need to decide if it's actually a problem if there are more "rich" if there are also more "middle class" moving forward.

In either case we're still actually rather toward the top of things globally. And I suspect that's going to decrease rather than increase as the second and third worlds start to get their stuff together. So that's something we're going to have to psycologically deal with.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...obal-elite--half-worlds-richest-live-U-S.html

If you're curious, try
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
To see how you stack up globally for income or wealth.

 

Get all Democrats out of office. Prosecute them for treason.

 

Neither party is going to stop the shrinking of the middle class.

Their ideologies is more important than accomplishing anything.

 

What you're describing suggests a fixed pie - and there isn't a fixed pie. Concentration of wealth itself doesn't make anyone poorer, it only makes them relatively more poor. But hey, there's less concentration of wealth in many third world countries, perhaps we should model ourselves after them?