Middle class losing ground as rich get richer

This trend will lead us in the same direction as third world countries. Ever been to one? What's sadder to witness...the hordes grovelling in the streets or the gated enclaves of the rich who cower behind walled yards and barred windows just waiting for a break in? In those cases the rich are prisoners in their own homes only leaving occasionally for food, shopping or business purposes, and when they do leave they are suseptable to kidnapping, robbery, and wading amoung the unwashed beggars 'o plenty. It's not a good situation for any involved.

 

Yes I have and I can concur with what you mentioned. One of my favorite quotes is from Sen Byron Dorgan (D - ND) "The administration likes to tout figures showing how the economy is growing. Well, I like to equate it to 9 people in a bar. You start out with 8 people in a bar and take the average of their incomes and it's probably not that great. Then the 9th person walks in, Bill Gates, take that average again, and it looks like they are all doing quite well"

IMO this hits the proverbial nail on the head. A few are making monserous gains while the rest of us are stagnent or loosing ground. I've always wondered how the pro-life croud reasons this out. Here we have 46.6 million without health care, that means about 23.3 million women without coverage, out of 23 million women, I will venture to guess you come up with a fair number of pregnent women, with no means to get prenatel care for their unborn child.

 

Isn't that what all the conflict around the world is really about...the haves and the have nots??? :blink:

 

Hell, yes, it's a problem, and a big one. But isn't it the fulfilment of the Capitalist dream?

 

The new definition of "Upper Class" in America is:

"One who earns more than he/she spends in a given calendar year."

Middle class are those who spend more than they make, but still have the ability to borrow more to pay for that new xbox 360.

the "Poor" are those who have tapped out the credit market and now need to declare personal bankrupcy so they can (after 7 years) be middle class again.

With my formula, you can easily have a guy making $250k fall in the middle class... and rightfully so, that guy probably feels strapped down. Another guy making 25k that only spends 90% of it probaby feels pretty solid about that situation.

I looked around and didn't find any concrete wage ranges to let me know where I belong. The article seemed to avoid it too. It's pretty easy to throw around the labels when they didn't bother to put brackets around them.

Do they mean the 3 million a year guys are pulling away from the 200k per year guys?

or do they mean the 100k guys are pulling away from the 40k guys?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Oct 4 2006, 02:07 PM) [snapback]327980[/snapback]</div>

So what's the category for someone who earns more than he spends but can't afford to buy a house in a nice, safe area because real estate prices are through the roof?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Oct 4 2006, 11:07 AM) [snapback]327980[/snapback]</div>

I think they mean that people who have more than any honest person could possibly spend are getting richer, while people who cannot afford housing and food at the same time are getting poorer.

And yes, that's a very bad thing. It's bad for the poor because they have to watch their children's health suffer; and it's bad for the rich because it forces more and more of the desperately poor into crime.

However, not all gated communities are super-rich. I live in a gated community. The main gate is open during the day and closed at night. The back gate is always closed. The gates serve to prevent through traffic. I paid $168,000 for my house (below the average for Spokane) and the combined cost of landscaping, snow removal, garbage collection, sewer fees, community clubhouse, and roof maintenance (including periodic replacement) is $140/mo. Super-rich by world standards, but middle-class by U.S. standards. Though by Daron's definitions I am extremely wealthy because I spend less than my income. I've lived below my means most of my life, and the benefits of eliminating the stress of debt are far greater than the "benefits" of owning more stuff.

The myth is that the wealth disparity in this country is the result of some people being hard workers and others being lazy. That's bull. Wealth disparity is largely due to systemic racism and other types of unfairness and good or bad luck. Capitalism favors the rich over the poor, so that once one person has built personal wealth, he is able to increase it without excessive work, and people born into wealth have every unfair advantage, while people born into poverty have extremely limited opportunities for advancement.

This hurts us all, for the reasons I already outlined.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jared2 @ Oct 4 2006, 11:01 AM) [snapback]327846[/snapback]</div>

Isn't the bottom 25% of America still richer than practically everyone in Eastern Europe, Africa, South America, Central America 90% of China, 90% of India? Just saying...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 4 2006, 05:20 PM) [snapback]328138[/snapback]</div>

The average U.S. citizen's share of the national debt is currently over $28,000 dollars. No other country comes anywhere close to that kind of debt. Some day that will need to get paid off........

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 4 2006, 05:30 PM) [snapback]328145[/snapback]</div>

That won't be ever paid off. It's a Ponzi scheme where the debtors(europeans, japanese, chinese, even americans) will be left holding an empty bag better known as the american bond.

Unfortunately, our the Made In Chinese/Walmart towel which today is $1.99 will be $400 when the debt is called and defaulted on.

THEN the lower class in the US can bitch and moan.

 

what class you end up in depends on luck (being born into a well off family for instance), whether you can live within your means, and whether your means will pay for a reasonably comfortable life. work ethic plays in that last one, but ethics in conduct is usually negatively correlated with financial well-being.

oh yeah. and your health. you could be doing just fine and have a series of major health crises, and next thing you know you're on the verge of bankruptcy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Oct 4 2006, 05:20 PM) [snapback]328138[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, but don't worry, the current admin is working on that problem...given enough time we'll have America's bottom 25% just as poor as in those other countries. The more we that we base our socio-economic model on Africa and Central America, the better, right? :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(slortz @ Oct 4 2006, 06:38 PM) [snapback]328171[/snapback]</div>

Everything is relative. You need slaves to build great things. You think the wall of china and the pyramids and the transamerican railroad were built with a strong middle class?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Oct 4 2006, 06:07 PM) [snapback]328157[/snapback]</div>

Very good point, sure you hear the occasional rags to riches story, and even the majority of those are the result of accidental luck. But if you look at the super rich today I'll bet you find the the VAST majority were born to well to do parents. We can us the example of GW Bush as a prime example, by his own admission, he wasnot a particularly bright student in school. Well below the admission requirements for Yale, but because his father and grandfather went to Yale, he was a legacy, guess what. The real travestry here is something I've been screaming about locally. Take a kid born to parents living in Edina (very wealthy Twin Cities suburb) and say a kid born on the White Earth Reservation (very poor indian reservation, no casino). Now either one of those kids may have the proper mental capacity to say find a cure for cancer, solution for global warming, energy independance, etc. But the kid from Edina gets to go to the best schools, college is no problem, the kid from White Earth however; substandard schools at best, college, forget it (barring super athletic skills). Now wonder for a moment, what could the world be like if every child had the chance to start on a level field? Something I read in a book once, went something like "Whatever so you do to the least of my brethern, you do unto me"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Oct 4 2006, 06:07 PM) [snapback]328157[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, I don't agree with this specific part of your statement.

I lost both my parents in an accident when I was 16; by 18 I was homeless and sleeping in the '73 Pinto which I still have, and which also has provided me with my PC 'handle.'

Since then, I worked and worked (and worked some more), saved money, got a partial scholarship after much looking, and after what seemed like an eternity, was able to put myself through an undergraduate program. Then I returned for a graduate degree. Now I'm hoping to return to pursue a JD.

I'm not saying that it was easy, or that there weren't times when I was *sure* that I wouldn't make it (try putting on pantyhose in the car where you sleep, before an appointment for a job interview).

But I got the job, eventually, and the one after that...

So I simply don't buy the idea that we're all prisoners of our circumstances, and have that to blame or be glad for. Some are, but most aren't, I believe

I'd prefer to take responsibility for myself and my future, and MAKE something happen. That way, if things work out, I can claim a minimun of partial responsibility. And if they don't, at least it was (at least partially) my fault...and not something beyond my control.

With appreciation for the past, acceptance of the present, and confidence in the future,
--Pinto_Girl

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Oct 4 2006, 03:25 PM) [snapback]328047[/snapback]</div>

Resident of San Diego, CA.