Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Deregulation, free trade, campaign finance. Reaganomics has been a smashing success for the upper class and lower classes as their numbers are actually increasing.

Que JSO's long post filled with manipulated stats and talk of medians and quintiles to prove this isn't true.

But it is.

Viva Trickle Down!

The nation's middle class, long a pillar of the U.S. economy and foundation of the American dream, has shrunk to the point where it no longer constitutes the majority of the adult population, according to a new major study....

The tipping point for the middle class occurred over the last couple of years of the recovery from the Great Recession as the economy continued to reward highly educated workers, well-to-do investors and those with technical skills.

Rapid growth of upper-income households, coupled with an increase in less-educated low earners, has driven the decline of the middle-income population to a hair below 50% of the total this year, Pew found. In 1971, the middle class accounted for 61% of the population, and it has been declining steadily since.

The Pew research found that the shares of upper-income and lower-income households grew in recent years as the middle shrank — with the higher-income tier growing more. In that sense, the nonpartisan group said, “the shift represents economic progress.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fi-mid ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Big thank you to tools like Baldy, Z and BDMF.

Fucking lemming who do the dirty work for oligarchs.

That graph tells me we have too many people in this country.

As this guy (I love that pen name )



points out over at Zero Hedge in a similar article, 49% of American households now receive some form of government check.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-0 ... w-minority" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Speaking of which, you sure don't hear much out of conks these days about the takers and the 47%. That meme didn't work out so well last time?

kalm wrote:As this guy (I love that pen name )



points out over at Zero Hedge in a similar article, 49% of American households now receive some form of government check.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-0 ... w-minority" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Speaking of which, you sure don't hear much out of conks these days about the takers and the 47%. That meme didn't work out so well last time?

Does the 49% include SS? If so that's not hard to believe.

Looks like a total conk victory in the War on the Middle Class. Guess where the disturbed loners will be coming from.... which won't be so bad if we can just get them to start shooting up the right events, like bankers conventions.

New slogan for the shoot 'em up crowd: Aim High!

kalm wrote:Deregulation, free trade, campaign finance. Reaganomics has been a smashing success for the upper class and lower classes as their numbers are actually increasing.

Que JSO's long post filled with manipulated stats and talk of medians and quintiles to prove this isn't true.

But it is.

Viva Trickle Down!

The nation's middle class, long a pillar of the U.S. economy and foundation of the American dream, has shrunk to the point where it no longer constitutes the majority of the adult population, according to a new major study....

The tipping point for the middle class occurred over the last couple of years of the recovery from the Great Recession as the economy continued to reward highly educated workers, well-to-do investors and those with technical skills.

Rapid growth of upper-income households, coupled with an increase in less-educated low earners, has driven the decline of the middle-income population to a hair below 50% of the total this year, Pew found. In 1971, the middle class accounted for 61% of the population, and it has been declining steadily since.

The Pew research found that the shares of upper-income and lower-income households grew in recent years as the middle shrank — with the higher-income tier growing more. In that sense, the nonpartisan group said, “the shift represents economic progress.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fi-mid ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So two adults with two kids can't find jobs making a combined $49,000 a year so they can be considered middle class? That's $12 an hour each.

kalm wrote:Deregulation, free trade, campaign finance. Reaganomics has been a smashing success for the upper class and lower classes as their numbers are actually increasing.

Que JSO's long post filled with manipulated stats and talk of medians and quintiles to prove this isn't true.

But it is.

Viva Trickle Down!

The nation's middle class, long a pillar of the U.S. economy and foundation of the American dream, has shrunk to the point where it no longer constitutes the majority of the adult population, according to a new major study....

The tipping point for the middle class occurred over the last couple of years of the recovery from the Great Recession as the economy continued to reward highly educated workers, well-to-do investors and those with technical skills.

Rapid growth of upper-income households, coupled with an increase in less-educated low earners, has driven the decline of the middle-income population to a hair below 50% of the total this year, Pew found. In 1971, the middle class accounted for 61% of the population, and it has been declining steadily since.

The Pew research found that the shares of upper-income and lower-income households grew in recent years as the middle shrank — with the higher-income tier growing more. In that sense, the nonpartisan group said, “the shift represents economic progress.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fi-mid ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

..chock full if "I thinks" and "if this is trues"..

HI54UNI wrote:

kalm wrote:Deregulation, free trade, campaign finance. Reaganomics has been a smashing success for the upper class and lower classes as their numbers are actually increasing.

Que JSO's long post filled with manipulated stats and talk of medians and quintiles to prove this isn't true.

But it is.

Viva Trickle Down!



http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fi-mid ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So two adults with two kids can't find jobs making a combined $49,000 a year so they can be considered middle class? That's $12 an hour each.

Pretty sad state of affairs ain't it?

$72k sure as fuck ain't upper lass in Cali.

SDHornet wrote:$72k sure as **** ain't upper lass in Cali.

you'd be living hand-to-mouth...

SDHornet wrote:$72k sure as **** ain't upper lass in Cali.

Yeah, that 1 size fits all chart doesn't work because of the massive disparity in cost of living across the country. You can't use 1 chart that says a family of 4 making 45k isn't middle class in rural WV, Miss, Ark, etc, and 50k is middle class in NYC, San Fran, etc..

There was another article I came across, may have been NY Times, don't remember, that recently talked about this and broke it down further to lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class. But again it was one size fits all figures, which don't work..

Are they including govt subsidies like EITC, Food stamps, subsidized rent, etc? Because a lot of "poor" families if you include the govt subsidies fall would into the lower middle income range..

houndawg wrote:

SDHornet wrote:$72k sure as **** ain't upper lass in Cali.

you'd be living hand-to-mouth...

BDKJMU wrote:Are they including govt subsidies like EITC, Food stamps, subsidized rent, etc? Because a lot of "poor" families if you include the govt subsidies fall would into the lower middle income range..

Yup working poor. Just look at Walmart employees. Those people that make careers out of low wage jobs are often on all kinds of gubmint assistance.

They're basically saying a family of 4 is middle class at about 48k and upper at 145k, thats it. No break down by state, or region for cost of living. For a family of 4 I'd break it down further to lower middle, middle, and upper middle, INCLUDING EITC, Food stamps, subsidized rent & other direct govt subsidies. The below are rougg guestimates that could play around with.

Low cost of living area/BFE (much of rural south, midwest, mtn west):
Poor: Under 25k (Again, after govt subsidies are still under 25k)
Lower middle class: 25-50k
Middle class: 50-100k
Upper middle class: 100-200k+
Wealthy: Well over 200k

"Average" cost of living areas
Poor: Under 35k
Lower middle class: 35-75k
Middle class: 75-150k
Upper middle class: 150-300k
Wealthy: Well over 300k

High cost of living areas (most northeastern & left coast metro, Chicago, few other areas:
Poor: Under 50k
Lower middle class: 50-100k
Middle class: 100-200k
Upper middle class: 200-400k
Wealthy: Well over 400k

Then for insane cost of living places like Manhattan & San Fran would go way higher. Obviously for single person, 2 and 3 people households the #s would be accordingly lower.

I don't agree with the way Pew defined middle class. Here is what they did:

Pew defined middle class as households earning two-thirds to twice the overall median income, after adjusting for household size.

When looking at distributions, the convention is to consider the "average range" or "middle" to be elements of the population in the 16th percentile through 84th percentile range. In other words: The "middle" 68 percent.

By that convention the size of the middle class never changes. It's just a question of how that middle 68 percent is doing. And that middle 68 percent is doing better in terms of inflation adjusted household income than it was in 1971 even after the losses of the most recent few years.

You can tell that by looking at the "Supplemental Data" spreadsheet at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It only goes through 2011 but hopefully we can agree that there's no way we've lost enough since 2011 to bring us back to 1979. And I think we can all agree that, in looking at the trend since the GAO started tracking things, 1979 was almost certainly higher than 1971.

In the supplemental data here is how average household incomes for each quintile of the population compared between 1979 and 2011 in terms of 2011 dollars:



There's no way around it. No matter where you go on the income distribution percentile scale someone at a given percentile in 2011 was WAY better off inflation adjusted income wise than they were in 1979. And look at the percentages by which they were better off. The averages for each quintile were higher by from 24% through 78%. The LOWEST quintile average was 40% higher in 2011 than it was in 1979.

Yes things have probably gone down some since 2011. But by better than 20%? Does anybody here believe that?

The linked article's cited conclusions are an artifact of the way Pew defined "middle class." While it wouldn't be possible to confirm it unless you had the income level of each individual percentile for each of the years you're comparing, the available evidence overwhelmingly suggests that people at any given percentile in 2011 were better off by a LOT than people at that same percentile were in 1979 and also by extension in 1971.

That's not deceptive or manipulated statistics at all. It is what is is. If you want to question the accuracy question the GAO and not me. And there really is no basis for defining the "middle class" as "households earning two-thirds to twice the overall median income, after adjusting for household size." That's totally arbitrary.

I guess at some point the convention of defining the "average range" as the middle 68 percent was arbitrary to a degree. It comes from the percent of elements that are within +/- one standard deviation of the mean in a normal distribution. But that is the convention and I don't think it's as arbitrary as what Pew did.

In any case I think it's a better way of looking at things. You define the "middle class" as some percentage of the population and look at how that "middle" percentage of the population is doing at any given time. The way Pew did it people could be doing better and you can say the "middle class" is shrinking. In fact that's exactly what happened in this case.

kalm wrote:
Que JSO's long post filled with manipulated stats and talk of medians and quintiles to prove this isn't true.

Fucking nailed it.

I looked at the Pew article on its study. It's at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/ ... ef-21084-3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

I don't see any basis for why they defined "middle class" in the way that they did. There's a footnote reference but when you click on it it takes you to a note that reads, "incomes are first adjusted for household size." No indication that it's any kind of convention.

The way Pew did it, people who make more in inflation adjusted terms now than some people in the "middle class" did in 1971 are now considered "lower class." I just don't think it's a good way of defining "middle class."

Take a look at this graphic from the Pew Report (page 14...you can see a link to it to the right on the page I linked above):



What it's showing is that a household had to make at least $31,480 in 2014 dollars in 1971 to be middle class. But suppose a household made $40,000 in 2014? The inflation adjusted income of that $40,000 household is 27 percent higher than the threshold for what it took to be "middle class" in 1971. But now it's considered "lower class" by virtue of the way the Pew people defined things. So are they "worse off" even though their income is 27 percent higher than what it took to be "middle class" in 1971 because they're now defined as "lower class" by virtue of the way Pew defined things?

I like the Pew Research Center in general but that's just a screwy way of defining "middle class." And the sad thing is that now a lot of people are going to use this just the way the author of the article linked at the start of this thread did. They'll use it to foster the false idea that the American Middle Class is "worse off" than it was during the 1970s when it's clearly not.

houndawg wrote:Looks like a total conk victory in the War on the Middle Class. Guess where the disturbed loners will be coming from.... which won't be so bad if we can just get them to start shooting up the right events, like bankers conventions.

New slogan for the shoot 'em up crowd: Aim High!

Oh yeah, our war against the middle class is going about as well as the donks war against Christmas.

Your benevolent government has taken ANY incentive to try and better yourself and completely eliminated it by ramping up government handouts 300-400% in the past 8 years. Why WORK for money when the government will TAKE it from those who DO work and GIVE it to those who willingly take it and vote them back into power every year?

Douche1Bag and dipshitdawg should be THANKING people like me. I make enough money that my taxes FULLY support at least four "lower class" families in the style to which they've become accustomed: free phones, big screen TV's, new cars, free food, subsidized housing, etc., etc., etc. In fact, douche1bag and dipshitdawg probably ARE two of those families.

93henfan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Que JSO's long post filled with manipulated stats and talk of medians and quintiles to prove this isn't true.

Fucking nailed it.

houndawg wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
So two adults with two kids can't find jobs making a combined $49,000 a year so they can be considered middle class? That's $12 an hour each.

Pretty sad state of affairs ain't it?

That's the great economy your fucking savior Obama has built.

JohnStOnge wrote:I looked at the Pew article on its study. It's at http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/ ... ef-21084-3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

I don't see any basis for why they defined "middle class" in the way that they did. There's a footnote reference but when you click on it it takes you to a note that reads, "incomes are first adjusted for household size." No indication that it's any kind of convention.

The way Pew did it, people who make more in inflation adjusted terms now than some people in the "middle class" did in 1971 are now considered "lower class." I just don't think it's a good way of defining "middle class."

Take a look at this graphic from the Pew Report (page 14...you can see a link to it to the right on the page I linked above):



What it's showing is that a household had to make at least $31,480 in 2014 dollars in 1971 to be middle class. But suppose a household made $40,000 in 2014? The inflation adjusted income of that $40,000 household is 27 percent higher than the threshold for what it took to be "middle class" in 1971. But now it's considered "lower class" by virtue of the way the Pew people defined things. So are they "worse off" even though their income is 27 percent higher than what it took to be "middle class" in 1971 because they're now defined as "lower class" by virtue of the way Pew defined things?

I like the Pew Research Center in general but that's just a screwy way of defining "middle class." And the sad thing is that now a lot of people are going to use this just the way the author of the article linked at the start of this thread did. They'll use it to foster the false idea that the American Middle Class is "worse off" than it was during the 1970s when it's clearly not.

They're doing the same thing as you John, except they know they're doing it. It being what we used to refer to "forcing the distribution". Let me set you on the right path instead of just grabbing numbers and trying to make them fit. What you need to do to compare today's middle class with back in the day is to compare lifestyles, as in what its really like out there. You may be too young to remember but there are people here who can verify that back in the day a middle class family could afford a modest house, two cars, and could save enough for two kids college tuition in 20 years. And they could do it on one income.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:

Pretty sad state of affairs ain't it?

That's the great economy your fucking savior Obama has built.