Export thread

Over at Slate.com there is a fantastic article which goes into great detail on the disparity in wealth between the social classes in the United States.

Just thought I'd share an article I thought was fascinating and dispels some of the myths as to why we have experienced such a growing trend in the wealth disparity between the top 10% and the rest of the nation.

And holy GOD! The comments! I can't believe the comment section!!!

They are thoughtful, insightful and debate rather than the "hurr hurr hurr libtards/neocons" bullshit.

I agree, Dave. The comments on that article make Yahoo News! comments look like they are written in crayon.
Pretty amazing what can be done when politics is put aside for thoughtful debate.

I'm not really that despondent about income disparity in this country. I used to be someone who chased dollars, like...hard. Then I realized just how difficult it was, and that I would have to work like 60 hours a week at least. Then I said to myself....'you know what....I am happy to be in the middle class.'

My problem isn't with the people that sit in the top 1% or less. I know a lot of those people, and many of them sacrificed an amazing amount to get there. Its not easy getting that kind of wealth (if you do it honestly).

My problem is with the bottom 50%. What is considered an exceptable level for the bottom 50 is not ok. Here's a good report from 2005 on income distribution:



50k or above for 1 adult to 1.5 children is ok in my mind (25k up for no children). You may not be balling but people can live on that. But the fact that 20% (1 in 5) Americans are below 20k. Especially considering that many of them have children, and that's definitely not an income that a family can work with easily. Which creates disadvantaged families that can't raise their kids as well as someone who gets more face time with them (as a base, of course some parents are better than others regardless, but face time is an important factor in childhood development.)

As for the concept of the dissapearing middle class (didn't see that line in the article, but I've heard it before)? I dunno if I buy that so much. Personally I would consider middle class between 35k and 100k, depending on having kids of course. This survey doesn't break that down, but looking at the chart you can see that at best you are looking at 55% of americans which fall in that range. As a wild guess I would expect that number to fall more around 40 or so (as the 35-50k with kids would fall below the middle class line in my mind). That's still a LOT of people.

When I worked at Carlisle (a tire factory) I made 35K in my final year there. I was married and had a pet. I will tell you this- we were NOT middle class. That is with no kids.

It'll be interesting to see what he has to say about the global economy we have now. You'd think with the ease at which companies can operate around the world now, the rich would be siphoned off from other countries to larger countries like the US or in Europe or wherever, where they are based. Which would make the rich here richer, causing an increase in our income disparity but lowering it in other countries.:noidea:

I'd actually be more interested in how the average salary has changed over time.

I wish that article, while otherwise good, talked more about real income versus purchasing power. The disparity is more the symptom, while the decreasing purchasing power of the US population is the real concern, IMO. According to the World Almanac (linked in the wiki article), real median income in the US between 1990 and 2004 only increased by (spitballing, here) 7%, while the inflation rate over the same time period was around 45%.

Naturally, you can break it down further than that if you want to (the BLS website is very complete, if not especially user friendly), but if American income, as a whole, isn't able to keep up with inflation, that's really, really bad for the people on the wrong side of the median line.

From today's article:

Consider the sad tale of the bank teller. When is the last time you saw one? In the 1970s, the number of bank tellers grew by more than 85 percent. It was one of the nation's fastest-growing occupations, and it required only a high school degree. In 1970, bank tellers averaged about $90 a week, which in 2010 dollars translates into an annual wage of about $26,000. But over the last 30 years, people pretty much stopped ever stepping into the lobby of their bank; instead, they started using the automatic teller machine outside and eventually learned to manage their accounts from their personal computers or mobile phones.
Today, the job category "bank teller" is one of the nation's slowest-growing occupations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a paltry 6 percent growth rate during the next decade. The job now pays slightly less than it did in 1970, averaging about $25,000 a year.

Click to expand...

That's just depressing. I will say that the tellers I know would be very happy to make $25k a year.

Krisken said:

When I worked at Carlisle (a tire factory) I made 35K in my final year there. I was married and had a pet. I will tell you this- we were NOT middle class. That is with no kids.

Click to expand...

No kidding, especially when you live in a bigger city.

Espy;435743][QUOTE=Krisken said:

When I worked at Carlisle (a tire factory) I made 35K in my final year there. I was married and had a pet. I will tell you this- we were NOT middle class. That is with no kids.

Click to expand...

No kidding, especially when you live in a bigger city.[/QUOTE]

Depends on the city I guess. Out of college that was my starting salary. I lived a pretty darned comfortable life. I wasn't balling, but I was able to make ends meet, and still afford to go out for drinks or buy some game whenever I wanted to, and never had to worry about not making a bill (while still able to contribute to my 401k). To me that qualifies as middle class. Granted that is at the very low end of the spectrum, but I think that's what the middle class is.

Now, when you are talking about a city like San Francisco or NYC or some other place where the standard of living is obscene, its a different story. The way I see it, just living in a city like that is a luxury, and its a luxury that people pay handsomely for.

In Krisken's case I'm guessing you were working in Dallas. The cost of living there is pretty darned reasonable. You can get a basic but decent apartment for what, 550? Lets say a 2 bedroom for 750. Its not going to be in the sexiest neighborhood, but it would be decent and safe. Lets assume both of yall were making 35 a year (as that would be the minimum I would qualify as middle class). At that income (~2.2k per month per person after taxes) you could pay for the 750 with less than one weeks pay between the two of you (roughly 1.5 weeks pay per person.) That's considerably less than most people consider the limit for housing ( I've read that you should spend less than 1/3 of your income on housing.) That should still leave room for 2 car payments (300$ total, remember I said not balling), car insurance (200$), food (300$), utilities(100$), gas (150$), health insurance (500$), retirement savings (400$), phones (100$) that still leaves 1600$. Lets say another 800$ went to all the other expenses I didn't mention, that leaves you with 800$ for entertainment.

That's making the assumption that your wife was bringing in the same amount. A single person with 35 income will have it tougher, but will not be spending as much on certain items. Rent (550), car payment (150), car insurance (100), food (150), utilities (100), gas (100), health insurance (250), retirement (200), phone (60), that leaves 540$. Much tighter budget. So you may only have like 200$ a month to go towards entertainment.

hrm. Maybe 35k for an individual isn't middle class. I guess it also depends on benefits. I pretty much assume that anyone middle class either has benefits provided by their employer or they make enough money that it isn't hard for them to pay for it out of pocket. So, lets change the 35k to 35k + benefits. I think that would be middle class.

No, I live in Wisconsin. The rent at my last place was $600 a month for a one bedroom apartment. My wife was a student at the time and I was the only income earner. As I said, $35,000 is not middle class. At best it can be called Lower Middle Class, but that is at the very edge of the spectrum.

All those numbers are easily crunched and come out nice and clean. Life is never nice and clean. Like needing clothing. Or repairs on the car. Or Christmas gifts for the nieces. Or helping a family member when they hit hard times. Yes, we lived comfortably, but the phrase "middle class" implies the ability to save up for a retirement future and advancement, not just live on meager earnings.

35k for two people would not be what I would call middle class. That's somewhere in between.

Necronic said:

My problem isn't with the people that sit in the top 1% or less. I know a lot of those people, and many of them sacrificed an amazing amount to get there. Its not easy getting that kind of wealth (if you do it honestly).

My problem is with the bottom 50%. What is considered an exceptable level for the bottom 50 is not ok. Here's a good report from 2005 on income distribution:

Click to expand...

You do realise that in order for the bottom 50% to make more you have to take it from somewhere, right?! That's why the top 1% matters... the more they have the less everyone else does.

Shakey said:

From today's article:

Consider the sad tale of the bank teller. When is the last time you saw one? In the 1970s, the number of bank tellers grew by more than 85 percent. It was one of the nation's fastest-growing occupations, and it required only a high school degree. In 1970, bank tellers averaged about $90 a week, which in 2010 dollars translates into an annual wage of about $26,000. But over the last 30 years, people pretty much stopped ever stepping into the lobby of their bank; instead, they started using the automatic teller machine outside and eventually learned to manage their accounts from their personal computers or mobile phones.
Today, the job category "bank teller" is one of the nation's slowest-growing occupations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a paltry 6 percent growth rate during the next decade. The job now pays slightly less than it did in 1970, averaging about $25,000 a year.

Click to expand...

That's just depressing. I will say that the tellers I know would be very happy to make $25k a year.

Click to expand...

Bank tellers here make $18-$20/hour starting wage. Of course it's a union shop so that makes a significant difference. (And yet they still complain they don't make enough money, despite having just high-school education...)

God damn. That's twice our starting pay for tellers. You wouldn't think it would make that much of a difference. Hell, I'd be a teller if I could make that.