[neutronsgalore]

"Moore's figure of 18.3% is the average for all American households."

Which is why I don't trust it as a reflection of how the middle-class is doing. What I've been trying to find is how much assets and debt is among those earning between $45k and $94k a year in monthly salary/hourly wages.

"Hopefully, with a debt-to-asset ratio of 86%, you are still young and will reduce that percentage as you get older."...."However, according to the fed report, the average American household has 57% equity in their home."

Assuming the housing market doesn't undergo a dot-com style bubble-burst and wipe out most, if not all, of the equity.

[Mase]

Which is why I don't trust it as a reflection of how the middle-class is doing.

I don't know where you'll find accurate information about the debt to asset ratio's for those earning between $45k and $94k per year. However, I don't think you need that exact information to determine that the middle class is doing better now than ever.

From the same article by Moore:

"What the reports tell us is that the vast majority of Americans have not bumped into income glass-ceilings, but rather are experiencing an astonishing pace of upward income mobility. The Census data from 1967 to 2004 provides the percentage of families that fall within various income ranges, starting at $0 to $5,000, $5,000 to $10,000, and so on, up to over $100,000 (all numbers here are adjusted for inflation). These data show, for example, that in 1967 only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income, whereas now, one in six do. The percentage of families that have an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9% to 27%."

"But it's not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades. The percentage of families with real incomes between $5,000 and $50,000 has been falling as more families move into higher income categories -- the figure has dropped by 19 percentage points since 1967. This huge move out of lower incomes and into middle- and higher-income categories shows that upward mobility is the rule, not the exception, in America today."

....And examining this data leaves no room for argument: The middle class has not been "shrinking" or losing ground, it has been getting richer. For example, the Census data indicate that the income cutoff to be considered "middle class" has risen steadily. Back in 1967, the income range for the middle class (i.e., the middle-income quintile) was between $28,000 and $39,500 a year (in today's dollars). Now that income range is between $38,000 and $59,000 a year, which is to say that the middle class is now roughly $11,000 a year richer than 25 to 30 years ago. This helps explain why middle-income families can buy things like cable TV, air conditioning, DVD players, cell phones, second cars and so on, that were considered mostly luxury items for the rich in the 1950s and '60s.

The upper-middle class is also richer. Those falling within the 60th to 80th percentile in family income have an income range today of between $55,000 and $88,000 a year, which is about $24,000 a year higher than in 1967. This rapid upward income mobility indicates that the great American Dream, in which each generation achieves a higher living standard than their parents, is alive and well.

Now look back at my post #714 and consider the wealth and net worth numbers supplied by Moore. It's easy to say that the middle class, however you define it, is much better off now than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

Assuming the housing market doesn't undergo a dot-com style bubble-burst and wipe out most, if not all, of the equity.

A loss of all 57% equity we have in our homes? C'mon, what kind of catastrophe are you anticipating? This country has not experienced a year over year decline in aggregate real estate values since before WWII. The worst home price declines on record were in Los Angeles (21 percent) and Houston (23 percent). But that was because of huge local job losses of 8 percent to 10 percent. Are you expecting nationwide unemployment to rise to 8 percent to 10 percent?

I don't see anything that could possibly drive housing prices down like you suggest with demand being what it is. There is absolutely no correlation between a tangible asset, like a house, and a company valued at a billion dollars because it happens to sell dog food over the internet.