Forums | MacLife

On a case by case basis. Seriously even with it's subjective nature there are degrees of suffering that most people can agree on.

Last edited by ScifiterX (2008-08-27 2:05 pm)

Like I'd want to. I'd like to point out here I also never used "suffering" in terms of what most people are going through. I used "gotten worse" as in a degradation which measurable and quantifiable both subjectively and objectively.

Incorrect. One can mathematically prove where less money is coming in and where it nets less in return for it's printed value or where one is losing money.

Things can get plenty worse before we Americans ever reach the level of living like Haitian's. Things can get a lot worse before many countries (even third world countries) ever reach the level of living like Haitian's. Like I said we should not have the goal of not being as bad as Haiti (or whatever nation is in the worst shape at the time) but not being worse than we already are.

Thank you. I take that as a complement.

If the premise of a disappearing / weakening middle class is accepted, what kind of policy would address it ?

I doubt simple wealth distribution (eating the rich) would be a viable long term solution, and any trade barriers would also be detrimental in the long term.


I would argue that technology and economic improvement in America is the best known system of increasing (or slowing the drop of) wealth and standard of living for Americans.  But I am a robber baron Capitalist.

JakeTheTall wrote:

If the premise of a disappearing / weakening middle class is accepted, what kind of policy would address it ?

I doubt simple wealth distribution (eating the rich) would be a viable long term solution, and any trade barriers would also be detrimental in the long term.


I would argue that technology and economic improvement in America is the best known system of increasing (or slowing the drop of) wealth and standard of living for Americans.  But I am a robber baron Capitalist.

A good way to redistribute the wealth would be to decrease the burdens of health care, and increase the quality/ubiquity of education.  Also programs to get out of work low-skilled workers back to school or into some kind of training for better jobs. 

Its a very socialist approach, but the capitalist answer to those questions are "Locate the plant in Canada, they've got great health care that we don't have to pay for" and "Move our plant to China cause their low skilled workers are much much cheaper than ours...and to all you workers...good luck finding a low skilled job here in the US".  I think those are the right answers, but our gov't should be helping the citizens deal with the reality of those answers, vs. saying "good luck".

menglish wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

If the premise of a disappearing / weakening middle class is accepted, what kind of policy would address it ?

I doubt simple wealth distribution (eating the rich) would be a viable long term solution, and any trade barriers would also be detrimental in the long term.


I would argue that technology and economic improvement in America is the best known system of increasing (or slowing the drop of) wealth and standard of living for Americans.  But I am a robber baron Capitalist.

A good way to redistribute the wealth would be to decrease the burdens of health care, and increase the quality/ubiquity of education.  Also programs to get out of work low-skilled workers back to school or into some kind of training for better jobs.

You'd like to take on the teachers' union, then ?

ScifiterX wrote:

On a case by case basis. Seriously even with it's subjective nature there are degrees of suffering that most people can agree on.

Of course. For example, going from a 5000 square foot house to a 900 square foot apartment is a major setback. Going from subsistence to starvation is a major setback, too. But crazy me, I think the latter is far more serious. Shnicky seems to disagree.

freecat wrote:

menglish wrote:

freecat wrote:

Well there is no 2008 data yet, but the 2007 data from the Census Bureau showed real (inflation-adjusted) income increases, both overall and in the median. That could be from a few fat cats getting richer, but their analysis of mobility among quintiles suggests it was an overall effect.

I think the whole point of Buffet's statement was that the rise from 2006 to 2007 has _just now_ gotten things back to where they were in 1999, in real inflation adjusted dollars.

So a ~1% raise from 2006 to 2007 doesn't look so good when taken in the context of the 0% raise that's been had over the last 8 years.

Go check out the Census Bureau's recent report on 2007 trends (it looks like you may have already). The median is about the same, but a big chunk of the "middle class" moved up a quintile. The portion of households earning a "middle-class" range of $35,000 to $100,000 in real 2007 dollars is smaller than it was a decade ago, but the same is true of households earning less than $35,000 a year, while percentage over $100,000 continues to rise.  The middle class is disappearing because they are better off.

I don't think income bucket percentages is really sufficient information to draw that specific conclusion.  For instance, every bucket in the 15 to 100 range shrank, the total shrinkage of that composite group was 1.5%, the total growth of the over 100k bucket was only 0.8%...So basically half the people that moved out of the 15 to 100 range went out to the bottom side of that range. (or if we cut at 35-100 we see 1/3 of the people who left the range went down)

Also if you check out page 40 you get percentile data which seems to show that for the 10th percentile and the 20th percentile income has gone down since 1999, the median has gone down slightly, while the 80th and 90th percentiles have gone up slightly.  Which just means we're more widely distributing our income.  It would be nice if they had more than just the 10,20,80,90 so we could see exactly where the changes are happening.

freecat wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

On a case by case basis. Seriously even with it's subjective nature there are degrees of suffering that most people can agree on.

Of course. For example, going from a 5000 square foot house to a 900 square foot apartment is a major setback. Going from subsistence to starvation is a major setback, too. But crazy me, I think the latter is far more serious. Shnicky seems to disagree.

Care to quantify "major setback?"

What numbers justify the use of "major setback?" And why use the rather obtuse example of a person starting with a 5,000 square foot house?

freecat wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Buffett said the economy is in a recession because most Americans aren't doing as well today as before.

That's a reasonable definition. It's also wonderfully vague and unquantifiable. Where is the evidence that *most people*, which presumably means 50% plus one, are worse off in a measurable way?

I fully expect people to post evidence that some people are worse off, or that some average has fallen, but the distinct question is whether MOST people are worse off. Buffet's claim is very bold, when you think about it.

I keep saying it and I keep saying it. . . it's all in how you present the data. You economic apologists are so glib about saying how we're all so much better off than our parents or grandparents. . .

I'll use one popular source. According to wikipedia. . .

Since '67 median incomes have risen by 31%. In 1967 it was $33,338.00 The all time high was 1999 at $44,922.00. Presently it's $43,318.00.

Add to this, however, that most no longer enjoy employer funded health insurance and must pay all or part on their own. Additionally, defined pension plans have been pretty much trashed and those who still have a company managed plan have defined contribution plans, if anything at all. Both these things mean that the employee is earning less. This is largely statistically unreported income, from the point of annual salaries used for statistical purposes.

Now, from the same source. . . what did things cost then and now?
Average cost of a new home 
1967: $24,600 
2007: $229,100

Now, a different source:
Average cost of new house in 1967 - $14,250.00
Average cost of a new car in 1967 - $2,750.00
Sorry, this source didn't list "now" prices.

Okay, another take from "Free Republic":

As the U.S. population crossed the 300 million mark sometime around 7:46 a.m. Tuesday (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), the typical family is doing a whole lot better than their grandparents were in 1967, the year the population first surpassed 200 million.

Mr. and Mrs. Median's $46,326 in annual income is 32% more than their mid-'60s counterparts, even when adjusted for inflation, and 13% more than those at the median in the economic boom year of 1985. And thanks to ballooning real estate values, average household net worth has increased even faster. The typical American household has a net worth of $465,970, up 83% from 1965, 60% from 1985 and 35% from 1995.

Yeah, riiiiight. . .

Okay, so How in he|| are we "better off" if annual income is up 32%, but the cost of a house has risen 800% and the price of an average new car has risen by 400%? Only, perhaps, if you already bought your home and it's value has increased such that much of the higher value covers the price of a home now. It's entirely different if you're looking at the cost of "buying in" in 1967 as opposed to "buying in" now.

Sure, if you bought your house in 1967 for $20,000.00 and it's worth $180,000.00 today it's worth more numerically, and, yes, there's a difference between 1967 dollars and 2007 dollars. BUT. . . the family starting out now has less than twice the median and, conservatively, more than 5 time the average home and car price, how are they better off? I don't really have time to explore other items, food, rents, college education but I'm sure it's simple to see where I'm going with this.

Additionally, and I think that this is very significant, Homes used to remain in families. They were inherited by one or more offspring, often after grown children have already purchased their own homes. This was a significant source of "wealth boost" for a part of that "average family" cohort. Now, houses are sold to pay for health care and nursing homes when we're older, often people don't have any choice. This happens much more often in less well to do families. The wealthy can afford care and can leave their property to heirs.

So how are we "better off"?

Of course, these "statistics" are easy to cite, I could go to a government website and get data which may or may not be adjusted temporally. . . but I do know that my parents bought their house for $22,000.00 in 1969 when they earning about $25,000.00 between them and my mom sold it for $90,000 eight years ago. . .  but even in my own little anecdotal paradigm my dad wasn't earning the median.
Median then $33,338.00, house $22,000.00
Median now $44,922,00, same house $90,000.00
The paths diverge sharply in my anecdotal universe as well.

So. . . how do I trust statistics? The kind of research I demand is that which actually compares what a person or couple starting out expects to face, econommically, in 1967 compared to today. . . and again, I ask, Is that newly married couple "better off"
In fact, one could certainly guess that in one sense it's easier for married couples as opposed to single people because single people don't have 2 incomes.

I think the idea that we're all so much better off is a lot of hooey.

I'll take a 900 sq. ft. apartment!