Economic Squeeze Plaguing Middle-Class Families (NY Slimes Outrights Deceives - AGAIN)

NY Times ^ | 8/28/04 | Timothy Egan

[spectre]

Missing from this NYT doom and gloom piece is one sentence regarding what their GREAT savior kerry would do about this.

We all know the reason.

[NYC Republican]

Excellent point... Also, what about all of the positives that have occurred during the past year (i.e.- booming economy/GDP growth, over a million jobs, higher stock market, tax cuts, etc)

[Southack]

"Thanks bud... Would love to see the % below and above middle class for '80 and '03 if anyone has it."

That median household chart in Post #27 comes close to giving you what you want. In 1980 (using inflation adjusted 2003 Dollars), half of all households made more than $37,000...and the other 50% made less.

Again using those same inflation adjusted Dollars, by 2003 50% of all households were earning more than $43,300 per year.

The Middle Class is that group in and around the Median. Clearly, the Median household income *increased* from 1980 to 2003, so the Middle Class at large is wealthier today than in decades past.

So if the Middle-Class is defined in such a way as to show shrinkage, then it is the Upper Class that will have to have grown in order for the Median to have increased.

In other words, your hunch that the NY Times is deceptively writing a story in a way so as to make it appear that we are more poor because of Middle Class shrinkage...is a good hunch.

The U.S. got richer from 1980 to 2003. More households were earning more money, even after adjusting everything for inflation.

The NY Times wants us to infer that we got poorer. That's incorrect.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[ninenot]

Cute stuff. GKC was always right. Try www.gilbertmagazine.com. There's a bunch of free wisdom there--

[ninenot]

Here's another from GKC: "It is terrible to see how few politicians are hanged."

[ninenot]

higher stock market

Dow's down on the year, fella.

ECRI Weekly Leading Index has been pointing downward for the last 6 months.

And of course, the trade deficit is an all-time all-time high.

[Qwinn2]

"Dow's down on the year, fella."

And up almost 50% since mid 2002.

Qwinn

[grey_whiskers]

You wrote:
"What's really interesting about that graph is that 'median income' peaked BEFORE, and was actually in decline BEFORE the 'recession' shaded area. "

I had a post earlier--couldn't find it.
Went approximately as follows:

Clinton's term:
Global Crossing
Tyco
Dot-Coms

Then Gore rescinds his concession and tries to SUE
his way into the White House
(while interest rates yanked UP by Greenspan)
Dot-bomb collapse begins

Then
9-11
Malvo sniper case
Anthrax
Afghan war
Run-up to Iraq
Iraq war
Oil to $50 / barrel

(while Bush cuts taxes)

How many job losses before BUSH TAX CUTS
How many job losses after BUSH TAX CUTS

I know I sure felt squeezed by that $800 check
returning MY MONEY. :-)

[grey_whiskers]

Or as PJ O'Rourke said once:

Term limits are not enough. We need JAIL.

;-)

[driftless]

There will always be a percentage of the population who for various reasons will fail. And some people do have bad luck. But that's been true for every society in the world throughout history. Does anyone think that that there weren't failures during the Clinton years? Of course people only have it tough whenever a Republican is in office. The instant a Republican is sworn in as prez, suddenly millions of well-off Americans lose their jobs and are thrust into dire poverty...or so the lib rags would have us believe.

The truth is that the economy is growing and there are great opportunities for people who who have the desire and who make smart choices. Everywhere I've gone in the Midwest this year, I've seen expanding businesses and nice, new homes. I've yet to see starving families on the streetcorners with tin cups in their hands.

[ninenot]

The tech-analy guys are in accord: Dow's in a secular bear mode. Most predict around 7,000 about 5-8 years out. That's not too bad.

It's been hanging in an 8% bandwidth for quite a while. That's usually a prelude to a move of some sort; the guess is down.

Greenspan's in a fix: he has to raise rates to make USTreasuries attractive, or the dollar gets hammered. But if he raises rates, the ARM crowd gets hurt, bad.

Hammering the dollar is good for exports, but will be a crucifixion if you use petroleum, or natural gas--regardless of source, they tend to move in lockstep.

OTOH, if the dollar gets hammered, UST's effective rates go up because the bonds sell at discount instead of face.

Besides all that, Greenie's made nasty noises about the upcoming SocSec and Medi-whats shortfalls--about $44 trillion--and at the same time, PBGC's going to add a boatload of liabilities.

Hell, things are just great!

[ninenot]

I dunno. I like PJO'R--but hanging lasts longer than jail.

[GSlob]

The definition of what constitutes upper, middle, and lower classes should, IMHO, account for lifestyles (actual or potential) in addition to price tags: 75K/yr in a pricey place simply does not go that far, and 25K/yr there does not go far at all.
I would like to suggest the following definitions, and would request others' input:
Upper class person does not HAVE TO work for a living, and can afford not to, while maintaining comfortable (independent) or luxurious (rich) living standard. All the price tags are somewhat subjective, of course.
Middle class person HAS TO work for a living, and cannot afford not to, so as to maintain comfortable (or better) living standard. Better-off retirees/pensioners with middle-class living standards can find themselves in the lower reaches of upper class.
Lower class person HAS TO work for a living, and cannot afford not to, so as to maintain lower than comfortable living standard.
Underclass person DOES NOT WANT TO work for a living, is not a pensioner, is frequently accompanied by social pathologies, and exists under lower than comfortable living standard.

Using their threshold numbers (25 and 75K) the upper class in this definition would be ca. 10million (4% of population, composed of 1.5M+ net worthers and better-off retirees); underclass would be 10-20mil (4-8%), and almost everyone with white-collar or skilled blue collar job would comprise the middle class (90 mil out of 140 mil workforce - some 65+% of the population, if families are included.)

[valkyrieanne]

Clearly, the Median household income *increased* from 1980 to 2003, so the Middle Class at large is wealthier today than in decades past.

So is this median adjusted for inflation? Even if it is, keep in mind that it reflects far more two-income households than in the 1960s. Even in the recession of the early 1960s, far more families were able to live on the income of a single breadwinner. The vast influx of women into the work force is *not* economic progress.

Similarly, this chart shows income increases - but it does not show the *exponential* increases in costs such as medical & dental care, tuition, insurance, costs of home maintenance & repair, and state and local taxes.

[Southack]

Yes, after factoring in *everything*, which includes inflation, tuition, medical care, etc... household incomes and wealth have increased 30% since 1967.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[jackbill]

From factcheck.org:

If the "middle class" is defined as those households with income between $25,000 and $75,000 (in dollars adjusted for inflation to 2002 levels) then that group did indeed shrink slightly during those two years. That shouldn't be surprising. There was an eight-month economic recession that started in March, 2001, and the unemployment rate climbed from 3.9% at the end of 2000 to 6.0% at the end of 2002.

During those two years, the share of households with less than $25,000 in income rose by 1.4 percentage points, while those in the middle declined by just under one percent. The middle did shrink. It's also true that the share of households in the top group also shrank. Those with income over $75,000 a year declined by 0.4%.

But Kerry naturally said nothing about the "declining upper class."

[Toskrin]

Here's the report from the US Census. The relevant data is in Appendix A.

US Census 2003 Household Income Data

1980
<25,000 33.1%
25K-75K 51.9%
>75,000 14.9%

2003
<25,000 29.0%
25K-75K 44.9%
>75,000 26.1%

Pretty clear that households are moving up rather than down.

[NYC Republican]

Thanks. There you go - the over 75k group went up by 11%, even more than the 7% change in middle class...

[hedgetrimmer]

FYI news stories



Ricardo Cavillo, 33, left-top, his wife Patricia, 41, right-top, along with their children Kimberly, 11, left, Angie, 8, center, and Pablo, 10, pose for a photograph in their two-bedroom apartment Thursday, Aug. 19, 2004, in Fullerton, Calif. The bank said the Cavillos only qualify for a $200,000 mortgage, but the median home price far exceeds $500,000 in Orange County, where Ricardo works a $38,000-a-year manufacturing job.


Ford Motor Co. is close to a final decision on where to locate a flexible manufacturing plant and Oakville, Ontario, would be 'a good place to do it,' its chief executive said on Tuesday. But with several jurisdictions eagerly lobbying for the project, Ford Chairman and Chief Executive Bill Ford Jr. refused to be drawn on the Oakville minivan plant's chances of winning the investment. In this June 24, 2004 file photo, Ford Motor Chairman and CEO Bill Ford Jr. (L), great-grandson of Ford founder Henry Ford, poses next to a Ford vehicle at Ford's Vietnam assembly plant during his one-day visit to Vietnam in Hai Duong province, 50 km (30 miles) east of Hanoi. Photo by Kham


President George W. Bush (news - web sites) holds up a pecan pie during a stop at a diner in Sidney, Ohio, August 28, 2004. Bush acknowledged U.S. manufacturing workers have seen a 'time of change' in the economy but said his private sector-based policies were the way to boost growth. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

[raybbr]

Ever notice how the free-traders are always throwing that "Look how cheap things really are when adjusted for inflation from 1980" and yet they never post increases in median income levels that might have occurred if wages had been slightly ahead of inflation for that whole time?

I don't know how to find that information. Maybe you do? I am sure the levels indicated in the graph would show a markedly different median income.