The Times has played fast and loose [the Middle Class is not disappearing]

I know many New York Times reporters and have always found them to be very good at their jobs, interested only in getting the story and getting it right. One that I don't know is Timothy Egan, who confirms most conservatives' perception of the Times as little more than a conduit for Democratic Party press releases.

On Aug. 28, Egan published an article in the Times titled, "Economic Squeeze Plaguing Middle-Class Families." I know that reporters don't write the headlines, but in this case it accurately describes the content of the article. Unfortunately, the content is deeply flawed. Indeed, it is doubtful that John Kerry's campaign staff would have written it much differently if it had been handed the assignment.

The central point of the article is that recently released Census Bureau data show the middle class is disappearing. The key data are presented in a chart accompanying the article, titled, "A Shrinking Middle Class." This chart shows that the percentage of those households with incomes between $25,000 and $75,000 have fallen from 51.9 percent in 1980 to 44.9 percent in 2003.

The clear implication is that the middle class has suffered under Republican policies -- why else start in 1980, the year Ronald Reagan was elected? If the chart had started in 1992, the year Bill Clinton was elected, it would have shown the exact same trend. In 1992, those earning between $25,000 and $75,000 constituted 47.9 percent of all households. By 2000, this fell to 46.1 percent. I don't remember the Times calling attention to this fact.

The reason is quite simple: This is actually good news, not bad news, as the Times report strongly implies.

First, it is important to know that the data in the Times story are adjusted for inflation. This is mentioned in a footnote to the chart, but nowhere else in the article. It might be useful to know that those with an income of $11,825 in 1980 now make $25,000, or that an income of $75,000 last year is the same as an income of $35,475 in 1980.

In other words, the data take account of increased prices on everything from gasoline to college tuition. Yet the article implies that increased costs for these things has taken place without a concomitant increase in household income. The effect is to make middle class families appear worse off, when in fact most are far better off than they were in 1980.

The most egregious error in the article is the clear implication that the percentage of those defined as the "middle class" has fallen because many of those who used to be considered middle class have become poor. This is totally untrue. In fact, the ranks of the poor have fallen along with those of the middle class.

Using the Times' characterization of any household with an income below $25,000 in 2003 as being poor, what do the data show? We see that this group fell from 33.1 percent of the population in 1980 to 29 percent in 2002. Looking at the data from the other end, we see that the percentage of those making more than $75,000 has risen from 14.9 percent of the population in 1980 to 26.1 percent in 2003.

In other words, the ranks of the poor and middle class have shrunk for one reason only -- more of them are rich! How can it not be a good thing for society that fewer people are now making low incomes and more are making high incomes?

Just to show that the income gains have not been confined to those who were relatively well-to-do to begin with, there has also been an impressive increase in the percentage of black families with middle- and upper-class incomes.

In 1980, 53.8 percent of black households made less that $25,000 (in 2003 dollars), which fell to 43.4 percent in 2003. The ranks of the black middle class ($25,000 to $75,000) increased from 40.5 percent to 42.9 percent. And the percentage of black families falling into the Times' definition of rich (over $75,000) rose from 5.8 percent to 13.7 percent.

The Times cites Factcheck.org, a website sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, for its analysis. But I could find nothing on this site with the same figures. The closest thing I could find is an Aug. 3 report that actually disputes Kerry's claim that the middle class is withering away under Republican rule.

In short, the Times has played fast and loose with the numbers in order to turn good news into bad news. The fact that the article also repeatedly uses the term middle class "squeeze," which the Kerry campaign frequently hypes, is further evidence that the report is seriously biased.

...It's believing that crap when the real owner of the job is the EMPLOYER that you [could] work for [if you spent less time on the Internet complaining about how two parties - parties agreeing to the terms of a transaction and then swapping things of value with one another - can make life so unfair for you in a capitalist system. And, writing all of this while telling us that you're a conservative; doing it with a straight face no less]... I had to change what I wrote to be more inclusive.

What I would like to know is, how much of this income from the earlier data is coming from single paycheck households compared to the double paycheck households prevelant today? I have no doubt the Times is playing loose with figures to promote their agenda, but there's an underlying problem here that many seem to overlook.

It seems that it used to be much easier to achieve Middle-Class on one paycheck than it is now. You technically end up with people working twice as hard for the same amount of money.

Timothy Egan

2004

• August 26 -- Swift Vets "Have Reopened Wounds" of Vietnam
Timothy Egan's "Wounds Opened Anew As Vietnam Resurfaces" lays the blame on the Swift Boat Veterans: "But the advertisements by one group of veterans attacking the war record of Mr. Kerry, advertisements that are closely tied to supporters of President Bush, have reopened wounds about class and service and frayed some of the unifying threads."

• August 9 -- Freaked-Out Librarians vs. Patriot Act
Timothy Egan takes seriously the view of some easily spooked librarians: "Whether federal agents are monitoring reading habits or not, the newfound power to do so has already had an effect on how people use their libraries, Ms. Sheketoff, the library association official, said, citing evidence from fellow librarians. Many libraries have posted notices saying that because of the law, they cannot protect the privacy of patrons' reading habits."

• June 23 -- Gassing Up For Higher Taxes
Timothy Egan pumps up prospects for an increase in the federal gas tax: "Gas prices finally headed down last week, and may have peaked for the year, the Energy Department reported….the pattern over the last 30 years suggests that this is bad news for anyone who believes that Americans, the world's biggest oil consumers, can ever curb their energy consumption."

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:E89DPh75kBYJ:www.timeswatch.org/topicindex/E/egan_timothy/welcome.asp+Timothy+Egan&hl=en

Timothy Egan

Timothy Egan is a third-generation westerner who was inspired to write this book after living in Italy for a year. The recipient of a Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for his part in a series on race in America, he has worked for the last fifteen years as a national reporter for the New York Times. He lives in Seattle with his wife, Joni Balter, and two children, Sophie and Casey.

No! We should measure income based on the purchasing power of one's budget constraints, measured by a hypothetical basket of goods and services that most of us enjoy. Then, we should compare that same basket of goods & services used in 1980 (or pick whatever year you wish) and see what the differences are between those baskets. If the median income buys a better basket today, then the question should be answered to edification.

The handouts that the government doles out are for those who fall a significant distance from the median income who cannot [will not?] get a better basket. These are political realities that must be dealt with because most people cannot [will not?] deal with inequity, even if they claim to be conservatives who champion for limited government.

I don't think looking at the trinkets people are buying is a real measure of how we're doing --- how many of those color televisions and DVD's were purchased by credit card debt? How many people will foreclose on their mortgages at some future date? What happens to all the "assets" someone thinks they have when they declare bankruptcy? A lot of what gets counted as wealth has very little real value. And someone living off all the government programs can appear to be quite wealthy if you judge by what they can afford to buy with government handouts --- new cars, homes, cell phones, the best clothes and food --- but if they can earn very little, they are still not middle class just because we've propped up their lifestyles so well.

basket of goods & services used in 1980

I don't think looking at the trinkets people are buying is a real measure of how we're doing...

Oh no? What is then?

...how many of those color televisions and DVD's were purchased by credit card debt? How many people will foreclose on their mortgages at some future date? What happens to all the "assets" someone thinks they have when they declare bankruptcy?...

While I agree with your assessment that debt is not necessarily a good thing - especially if it cannot be serviced - this has nothing to do with the income data that we're referring to nor does it have anything to do with what that income can purchase. Please stick to the current topic and debate it before we move on to this issue.

...but if they can earn very little, they are still not middle class just because we've propped up their lifestyles so well.

According to the income data/chart, you are correct. But, the welfare effect of social programs and outright redistribution does give real economic benefit or purchasing power to those who were propped up. It does not matter whether or nor the "propped up" receive cash payments or whether some good or service is directly provided, they are afforded a better standard of living as a result. I am not arguing in favor of these things, mind you; I'm simply pointing these things out to you.

I'd appreciate the answer to my original question I posed to you at the very beginning of this post.

Then I guess instead of looking at the level of government spending on all the handout programs, we could look at the national debt --- if people are going into debt, then they are worse off --- if they are coming out of debt, then they are better off. Better yet. Let's hypothetically liquidate everyone's and I mean everyone's (business ownership too) assets. Then we'll check the net value and see where we're at. I have no idea what that would yield - whether favorably or unfavorably to my position. By the way, I do not have that answer. My point is, would that really be a meaningful exercise to engage in? Would this really matter and does it really matter to our prosperity? Tough question, huh? Please give it some serious thought...but not for too long, OK!

outright redistribution does give real economic benefit or purchasing power to those who were propped up

I don't believe in Socialism or any kind of wealth redistribution that involves those getting money they never earned --- I don't think any real economic benefit is gained by Socialism --- if people are working and can support their families, then the economy is good --- if reliance on government programs is a large part of the economy then it's not good --- and if people are saving money --- living in the black it's good but living in debt is not good at all.

I agree with you. I was pointing out that some people's standard of living was improved by a redistribution effect. Do I agree with doing this? Only in a very small number of case where a person truly cannot provide for themselves because of a real disability. But general, no I do not. Because the redistribution effect has more cost in the aggregate than does the total benefit achieved.

Now, we were discussing the ambiguousness of the data and graph. Do you still wish to argue about the data as you wanted to previously or are you conceding my point and are now moving on?

Read my keys.. I don't care. It has nothing to do with the ethics of it - does it. Throwing Americans out on the streets and giving Their jobs to Mexicans because the slaves are cheaper is unethical no matter who the business owner is. Maybe it would be more clear to you if we used an example of the business owners giving American jobs to Al-Qaida members. The ethical problem wouldn't be apparent; but, at least you'd see the legal problem. Others here can see the ethical problem without such an example. Average americans can and that's why the poll numbers are so far south on the issue.

...Maybe it would be more clear to you if we used an example of the business owners giving American jobs to Al-Qaida members...

You wrote that crap above in response to this?

Unethical? Ya know what makes a great example of a completely bankrupt idea? A great example of a bankrupt idea is believing that that job belongs to you, replete with property rights on it and everything. It's believing that crap when the real owner of the job is the EMPLOYER that you work for. Sometimes the owner/employer is one person and sometimes the owners/employer are many different people with varying degrees of fractional OWNERSHIP of that company. Many times these true OWNERS delegate the personnel decisions to managers and supervisors. These people get to decide what is best for their company in order to maximize profits. Profit maximization is balanced between short, intermediate, and long-term goals and strategies - every little variable is considered and hard choices have to be made. The quicker you learn these facts, the sooner you'll be on the road to success.

I think that hiring al-Qaida members would qualify as a move that would cut profits, don't you? You're posing extreme scenarios and trying to get away from the argument at hand...this does seem to be becoming a pattern with you.

I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that you guys are ethically challenged and cannot understand issues of ethics. This is why you want to change the subject to something you think seems to make sense to you. I'm sorry you don't get it. The rest of America does. So take some tv time announce a press conference and condescend to them.

I'm sorry, but I took a good long look at #34 as well as my response to it. I personally don't see how I've changed the subject...I tried to educate you on whose job it really is and I discussed that the purpose of a business is to maximize profits. I thought I addressed your post and did stay on subject. It would be nice if someone else could reciprocate and then stop his misplaced blame on everyone else but himself.

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.