Middle Class is Now a Minority

[kalm]

No. That's why I say "middle 68 percent" instead of "within one standard deviation of the mean." If you DO have a normal distribution + or - one standard deviation of the mean contains 68 percent. But since I know the income distribution is not normal I just say that it's the middle 68 percent.

It's not a Poisson distribution though. It's just a skewed distribution.

Of course you do. Simply define the middle-class as the majority and then they can't possibly be the minority. .

Lifestyle, John. You missed the boat big time on this one.

Did you hear that Dennis? We're now considered middle class!



Ay, we'll probably be stuck in it forever...

[Ivytalk]

Of course you do. Simply define the middle-class as the majority and then they can't possibly be the minority. .

Lifestyle, John. You missed the boat big time on this one.

Did you hear that Dennis? We're now considered middle class!



Ay, we'll probably be stuck in it forever...

(.93)

[JohnStOnge]

Guys, the people in the middle 68 percent today have better, more comfortable lifestyles in general than the people in the middle 68 percent did in the 1960s or 1970s.

I guess if you want to you can arbitrarily define "middle class" as people who make from 2/3 to twice the median and say all is lost because the proportion of people in that group is smaller.

But the bottom line is that you can go to any percentile of the population and people at that percentile are better off now than they were then. If you want to think that doesn't matter and that things have gotten "worse" because the proportion of people in the 2/3 to twice the median income range is smaller then that's what you'll do.

[houndawg]

Guys, the people in the middle 68 percent today have better, more comfortable lifestyles in general than the people in the middle 68 percent did in the 1960s or 1970s.

I guess if you want to you can arbitrarily define "middle class" as people who make from 2/3 to twice the median and say all is kmlost because the proportion of people in that group is smaller.

But the bottom line is that you can go to any percentile of the population and people at that percentile are better off now than they were then. If you want to think that doesn't matter and that things have gotten "worse" because the proportion of people in the 2/3 to twice the median income range is smaller then that's what you'll do.

Now you're being wilfully ignorant. You know my definition of a middle class lifestyle was reality and that today's middle-class can't do for their kids like our parents could. That lifestyle is now the provence of the lower end of the upper class but you put your fingers in your ears try to deflect with nonsense statistics while doing exactly as kalm predicted. You really do.

[JohnStOnge]

Now you're being wilfully ignorant. You know my definition of a middle class lifestyle was reality and that today's middle-class can't do for their kids like our parents could. That lifestyle is now the provence of the lower end of the upper class but you put your fingers in your ears try to deflect with nonsense statistics while doing exactly as kalm predicted. You really do.

No. Actually I know what you've been saying isn't reality at all both because of the statistics, which are just objective measurements/estimates provided by the CBO and the Census Bureau, and because I was alive back then living in a middle class family with a father who had a very good blue collar job working as an operator in a petrochemical refinery. There's just no basis for saying that the lifestyle was better for any particular grouping of those in the middle of the population distribution back in the 1960s or 1970s if "lifestyle" is defined in terms of how much money people made, what kinds of material things they had, etc.. By any reasonable standard the people at any given percentile of the income distribution within the middle 68 percent of the population now are generally better off in material terms than people at the same percentile generally were in the 1960s or 1970s.

[JohnStOnge]

Of course you do. Simply define the middle-class as the majority and then they can't possibly be the minority

Why would you not define the "middle" in fixed terms? I try to use something close to 68 percent due to convention. But you could just as well define it as, say, the middle 50 percent. Or if you want to make it to the minority make it the middle 40 percent.

But if you define it as the middle 40 or 50 percent the picture will be basically the same. The middle 40 or 50 percent now is better off materially than the middle 40 or 50 percent were in the 1960s and 1970s.

If you want to define "middle class" the way Pew did that's fine. But all you're saying in saying the percent of people who are within 2/3 of and twice the median income is that income is somewhat more variable now. It doesn't address the question of whether or not someone in the same relative position in the income distribution is better or worse off now than they were back then. I don't see why it should upset anybody if we say income is more variable now but if you're at the 40th percentile of the income distribution (for instance) you're materially better off than someone at the 40th percentile of the income distribution was in 1961 or 1979.

[kalm]

Now you're being wilfully ignorant. You know my definition of a middle class lifestyle was reality and that today's middle-class can't do for their kids like our parents could. That lifestyle is now the provence of the lower end of the upper class but you put your fingers in your ears try to deflect with nonsense statistics while doing exactly as kalm predicted. You really do.

No. Actually I know what you've been saying isn't reality at all both because of the statistics, which are just objective measurements/estimates provided by the CBO and the Census Bureau, and because I was alive back then living in a middle class family with a father who had a very good blue collar job working as an operator in a petrochemical refinery. There's just no basis for saying that the lifestyle was better for any particular grouping of those in the middle of the population distribution back in the 1960s or 1970s if "lifestyle" is defined in terms of how much money people made, what kinds of material things they had, etc.. By any reasonable standard the people at any given percentile of the income distribution within the middle 68 percent of the population now are generally better off in material terms than people at the same percentile generally were in the 1960s or 1970s.

Aren't you omitting factors like household debt and income?



What about student loan debt compared with the 60's and 70's?

Or smaller issues like the number of adult children living at home? The number of health related bankruptcies?

And have you considered economic mobility?

You also seem to ignore the influence of 2 income families. Has that changed at all?

The middle class and poor are both better off if measured solely by lifestyle. I'm not sure the trend is quite so positive if you look at the whole picture.

[CAA Flagship]

No. Actually I know what you've been saying isn't reality at all both because of the statistics, which are just objective measurements/estimates provided by the CBO and the Census Bureau, and because I was alive back then living in a middle class family with a father who had a very good blue collar job working as an operator in a petrochemical refinery. There's just no basis for saying that the lifestyle was better for any particular grouping of those in the middle of the population distribution back in the 1960s or 1970s if "lifestyle" is defined in terms of how much money people made, what kinds of material things they had, etc.. By any reasonable standard the people at any given percentile of the income distribution within the middle 68 percent of the population now are generally better off in material terms than people at the same percentile generally were in the 1960s or 1970s.

Aren't you omitting factors like household debt and income?



What about student loan debt compared with the 60's and 70's?

Or smaller issues like the number of adult children living at home? The number of health related bankruptcies?

And have you considered economic mobility?

You also seem to ignore the influence of 2 income families. Has that changed at all?

The middle class and poor are both better off if measured solely by lifestyle. I'm not sure the trend is quite so positive if you look at the whole picture.

Do you have a more updated version of this chart?

[kalm]

Aren't you omitting factors like household debt and income?



What about student loan debt compared with the 60's and 70's?

Or smaller issues like the number of adult children living at home? The number of health related bankruptcies?

And have you considered economic mobility?

You also seem to ignore the influence of 2 income families. Has that changed at all?

The middle class and poor are both better off if measured solely by lifestyle. I'm not sure the trend is quite so positive if you look at the whole picture.

Do you have a more updated version of this chart?

That would hurt my narrative!

I'm not your Skelly!



(OK fine! It appears to be getting better which I think some smart person said tends to happen during a recession. But at least it's still historically high when compared with the 60's and 70's )

[CAA Flagship]

Do you have a more updated version of this chart?

That would hurt my narrative!

I'm not your Skelly!



(OK fine! It appears to be getting better which I think some smart person said tends to happen during a recession. But at least it's still historically high when compared with the 60's and 70's )

I hear people talk about household debt getting lower all the time on CNBC. I was just wondering if the stats proved that to be correct. And too lazy to look it up for myself.