Posted on 06/15/2015 12:22:04 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
It’s no secret that the American middle class has been on the ropes for a while now. The problem isn’t just a crippling recession and an economic “recovery” that has mostly gone to the richest one percent, but the larger shifting of wealth from the middle to the very top that’s taken place since the late ‘70s. Add in things like the dismantling of unions that has accelerated apace since Ronald Reagan crushed the air-traffic controllers, and we’ve seen the middle class more solid in places like Canada, Germany, and Scandinavia, and begin to grow in a number of nations even while it shrinks here. Economists like Thomas Piketty thinks the process is inevitable with global capitalism, while others – the equally wise Joseph Stiglitz, for example – think the balance can be restored if we can find the political will.
It turns out that those concerned about a tattered middle class are right about most of it, but overlooking one thing: Boomers – or rather, a particular strain of Boomer and near-Boomer – are doing great. That is, if you were born in the ‘40s, you are going to be the last American generation to enjoy a robust safety net, and your gray years will be far more comfortable than those a decade older or younger.
Here’s a New York Times story, which looks at “the 25 million Americans now between the ages of 65 and 74”:
Supported by income from Social Security, pensions and investments, as well as an increasing number of paychecks from delaying retirement, older people not only weathered the economic downturn that began in 2007 but made significant gains, a New York Times analysis of government data has found.
And despite our generally ornery Xer jingoism, we’re going to concede something here. We’ve noticed that our friends who we could call “young Boomers” – born in the late ‘50s and early ’60s – are often far less privileged and spoiled than those born in the years right after World War II. This younger group grew up or came of ago, after all, in the ‘70s and ‘80s, as the postwar boom was fading, colleges were becoming expensive, and the Reagan Revolution was pulling the rug out from under the middle class.
And it turns out that those young Boomers are indeed a kind of transition generation. It’s the group now retiring that will take most of the spoils of the U.S. postwar boom and leave the rest of us with scraps:
In the past, the elderly were usually poorer than other age groups. Now, they are the last generation to widely enjoy a traditional pension, and are prime beneficiaries of a government safety net targeted at older Americans. They also have profited from the long rise in real estate prices that preceded the recession. As a result, more seniors now fall into the middle class — defined in this case between the 40th and 80th income percentile — than ever before.
If you wonder why you are working so hard to get a job, please note that a lot of these guys are sitting on theirs or at least working part-time. (It reminds us of the Onion story: “Parents With More Vacation Time, Financial Resources Want To Know When Son Will Come Home For A Visit.”)
The Times piece shows how a variety of Americans in that sub-generation is faring. Some are struggling, like the rest of us. But between the fancy cruises and fat pensions and gated communities and golf courses and vintage ‘57s Chevys, it’s not a world that younger Americans have any reason to expect. In fact, it sounds like something from a museum of postwar affluence.
So part of us is glad the American middle class will go out with a boom, so to speak. We don’t begrudge these people – our teachers and professors, our older friends, our parents and other relatives – comfort in their gray years. The way Americans, in the days before social security and other protections, lost their footings in old age was simply inhumane. But why couldn’t the prosperity be spread so that those born in the ‘50s, ‘60s, and after can enjoy the same stability and wealth?
Well, this is a complicated one, and we’ll nod to the usual suspects: Globalization, technology, and the depletion of natural resources (especially energy) meant that the postwar boom would not last forever.
But you know what else the original Boomers brought us? Despite their dabbling with progressivism and hippie utopianism, this group served as the shock troops for market-worshipping neoliberalism and the Reagan-Thatcher shift in the ‘70s and ‘80s. They gave us junk bonds and the privatization push and Gordon Gekko. Some of them went into the corporate world and started dismantling.
Let’s hope they enjoy their retirements. But these gray Boomers and grayer Silents – not all of them, but enough to do substantial damage – put forces in motion that mean for the rest of us, the twilight years will be significantly less cozy.
Scott Timberg is a staff writer for Salon, focusing on culture. A longtime arts reporter in Los Angeles who has contributed to the New York Times, he runs the blog Culture Crash. He's the author of the new book, "Culture Crash: The Killing of the Creative Class."
Progressive policies are squeezing the life out of the economy, they are on the home stretch to de-develop the country.
"“Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries," Holdren and his co-authors wrote. "This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.” - White House Science and Technology Adviser, John P. Holdren.
The left have wanted to destroy the middle class for a while now
The fools on the left still believe the government managing the economy and “redistributing” wealth can lessen income inequality - when the fact is that such measures INCREASE income inequality.
I saw it in spades living and working in communist/socialist countries - those with government connections were able to game the system to their benefit.
Ridiculous. This has only been an issue since the last 7 years Obama has been in office. Once again, failed liberal ideology blames it on anything else.
if a decent life is to be provided for every human being —
Who provides?
What defines decent?
Karl Marx HATED the middle class.
He wanted them DEAD.
You can’t use Marx’s ideas - ANY of Marx’s ideas to help the middle class.
And yet, that’s what we’re doing in America.
Note: the middle class isn’t doing all that great in Canada, Europe or any other “socialist” place cause they’re all implementing Marxist policies.
But you middle class Marxists keep voting for it. :)
You learn a trade early or take the right major in college and you will get a good middle class job.
Not as easy as it once was, but definitely attainable.
Not one of my 42 first cousins has lost a job through this entire recession. Nor any of my friends.
Imagine how we could rebound with a great president.
However, i live in NYC where, though not as easy as it once was, there is usually a job to be had that pays pretty well if you have the skills.
"....Some of the lowest birthrates are now found in the rich, fully industrialized nations of Europe and in Japan. That’s fortunate in one respect because it is the high-consuming rich nations that place the greatest pressure on humanity’s staggering life-support systems (Ehrlich and Holdren 1971, Ehrlich and Ehrlich 2005).
The big exception is the United States, which is a center of over-consumption and whose population continues growing because of a relatively high birthrate (average family size about 2.1 children, compared with 1.4 in Italy and Spain and 1.3 in Germany and Japan) and high immigra-tion rate (4 per thousand, with Italy the same, Spain 7, Germany 0, and Japan 0). The nation has recently been in the strange position of debating immigration policy without ever discussing population policy...."
Ehrlich P. and J. Holdren. 1971. Impact of population growth. Science 171: 1212-1217.
Ehrlich P., Ehrlich A., and J. Holdren. 1977. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment . San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.
February 19, 2015: GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP NECESSARY & POSSIBLE?
"With the continued buildup of greenhouse gases and the continued apathy of governments towards the lethal results of human population growth, Paul and Anne Ehrlich believe that a potential environmental storm is building up to bring down civilization....
..... Can much of the world population come to understand that humanity’s current dilemmas of environmental destruction, inequities, unemployment, and declining democracy, are not largely an accidental result of cultural evolution, but are rather mostly the consequences of deliberate planning, by those in charge, to increase their own wealth and power? Can they move dramatically to close the gap between the rich and poor that is especially dramatic in developing nations, and growing in many rich ones, especially the United States?....
[SNIP]
.....The MAHB’s [mahb.stanford.edukey] strategy is threefold: foster collaboration between natural scientists and social scientists to better understand the issues; build understanding of what we call ‘foresight intelligence’—the ability of individuals, institutions, governments, and society to act (behave) in ‘future smart’ ways; and engage civil society (individuals and organizations), already concerned about collapse, in ways that ‘strengthen’ the political impact of their endeavors. In short, the MAHB’s main goal could be said to help generate a bottom-up program to produce large numbers of global citizens, who, in turn might be able to divert society from its suicidal course. The odds of success seem small, but what choice does any ethical person have but to try?"
Oh.....from Salon.
Well, hairdressers know everything.
GloBULLism and off shoring are what did America in. There are three ways to create wealth, mine it, make it and grow it. You can’t fake wealth creation, a “service” based economy is zero sum game and just shifts wealth around. We bought of on this service / consumer economy. What rubes we are.
Note the number of stories of late decrying boomer pensions, payments for medicare, etc. the only thing missing is the term “useless eaters.”
And this idiot with a college degree, no doubt, does not link the exponential growth and greed of the federal government to the bleak future for the coming generations that will have to pay for LBJ’s Great Rip-off Society and everything that followed it. Do these Leftists really think that money grows on trees in D. C.?
Leftists dream of a European style “middle class”. A family of 4 in a 800 square foot apartment, riding the train to work, one subcompact car per family, etc. So they assault the American middle class lifestyle. That’s why our way of life is under attack.
I don’t blame the Boomers for being the last generation to do better than their parents, but I do blame them for being so sanctimonious about it.
The Boomers are an entire generation of people born on 3rd base who think they hit a triple.
“But why couldn’t the prosperity be spread so that those born in the ‘50s, ‘60s, and after can enjoy the same stability and wealth?
Well, this is a complicated one, and we’ll nod to the usual suspects: Globalization, technology, and the depletion of natural resources (especially energy) meant that the postwar boom would not last forever.”
It is not a complicated one. The liberal progressive generation has over regulated and over taxed themselves and businesses. Remove these extreme burdens and watch the economy take off and people prosper.
We need to RIGHT NOW go to a no-loophole under 19% flat tax with a generous initial earned income exemption like what Steve Forbes proposed in 1996, then set up the mechanism so in three to four years' time, we get rid of the income tax in favor of something akin to FairTax. Do that and the US economy will rocket through the roof in no time flat.
I think the slums of New Delhi face more pressure than American cities
Bring all of that back and the middle class can return.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.