The Myth of the Disappearing Middle Class

LA4Bama said:

I'm just going to take a shot in the dark here to make the point. Once you factor in the real cost of living, we probably need closer to 200% of the adjusted income to live near the "norm". So, for example, to live a life near the social median standard of living in 1965 took about $6500-$13,000 per household, today that is about $50,000-100,000. But to truly live with the "normal" things that technology provides, one has to double that... to $100,000-200,000. So the author's range is wrong. Instead of calculating the middle class as those people who made $50,000 and 100,000, he needs to consider it around $100,000 to 200,000 per household.

The people that this author called upper middle class are actually the middle class, and everyone else has dropped below that!

Don't get me wrong; we do have great benefits today and we need to learn to be happy with the simpler things sometimes (as Buzzard's hypocritical oilmen associates were saying). But just because we live in this amazing time doesn't mean the National Review gets to play fast and loose with what it costs to live today and the pressure that puts on real people.

Click to expand...

All this does is present moving goalposts. No matter what you do, someone will ALWAYS be better off than someone else. If we have 2 people eating Kobe ribeye, 6 people eating American sirloin, and 2 people eating hamburger, and ten years later, we have 5 people eating Kobe, 4 people eating sirloin, and 1 person eating hamburger, what can you really say about that? Why would we complain about the shrinking number of people eating sirloin?

Suppose the prevailing fashion trend were to wear celebrity endorsed shoes costing $2000. Why does this absurd luxury contribute to an "adjustment for normality" when I am perfectly able to reject the idea and wear sensible shoes?

Just as I reject the $2000 footwear, I reject the notion that a tendency toward overconsumption of luxury items presents a meaningful issue in terms of a problem for the "middle class" that needs addressing. Downward adjustment of expectations is what I would suggest. Stop trying to keep up with the Joneses when the Joneses are stupid, wasteful, and irresponsible.

cbi1972 said:

All this does is present moving goalposts. No matter what you do, someone will ALWAYS be better off than someone else. If we have 2 people eating Kobe ribeye, 6 people eating American sirloin, and 2 people eating hamburger, and ten years later, we have 5 people eating Kobe, 4 people eating sirloin, and 1 person eating hamburger, what can you really say about that? Why would we complain about the shrinking number of people eating sirloin?

Suppose the prevailing fashion trend were to wear celebrity endorsed shoes costing $2000. Why does this absurd luxury contribute to an "adjustment for normality" when I am perfectly able to reject the idea and wear sensible shoes?

Just as I reject the $2000 footwear, I reject the notion that a tendency toward overconsumption of luxury items presents a meaningful issue in terms of a problem for the "middle class" that needs addressing. Downward adjustment of expectations is what I would suggest. Stop trying to keep up with the Joneses when the Joneses are stupid, wasteful, and irresponsible.

Click to expand...

Your metaphor is misleading. As long as all 10 people receive calories, we are talking luxury is the difference between Kobe and hamburger. But I'm not talking luxury. I'm talking necessity, in the sense that technology makes itself necessary for basic functioning. You can reject the expensive smart phone in favor of the cheap one, but you can't reject all smart phone access without rendering yourself ineffective in this world. When I went to college there were phone books and phone booths everywhere. Now good luck finding a public phone much less a phone number without a smart phone. The car is the same... the things that have been added are in many cases not considered (and should not be considered) luxury; like ABS and seat belts and computers, etc. Granted you can still choose the regular or deluxe trim, but that was also a difference in 1965. The addition of many many necessities is what makes the difference. Is it moving goal posts... it's called technical progress, and unless you want fewer and fewer to enjoy more and more while more and more enjoy fewer and fewer of the benefits of technology, we have to continue to redefine the meaning of "normal" lifestyle, and that is going to lead us to redefine what the cost of that is.

One more example. When I was young you could still apply for employment without a computer. Now I can't imagine doing that.

And, there was a time, before I was born, when shoes themselves were considered a luxury item. Of course the goalposts move, and thank goodness.

LA4Bama said:

Your metaphor is misleading. As long as all 10 people receive calories, we are talking luxury is the difference between Kobe and hamburger. But I'm not talking luxury. I'm talking necessity, in the sense that technology makes itself necessary for basic functioning. You can reject the expensive smart phone in favor of the cheap one, but you can't reject all smart phone access without rendering yourself ineffective in this world. When I went to college there were phone books and phone booths everywhere. Now good luck finding a public phone much less a phone number without a smart phone. The car is the same... the things that have been added are in many cases not considered (and should not be considered) luxury; like ABS and seat belts and computers, etc. Granted you can still choose the regular or deluxe trim, but that was also a difference in 1965. The addition of many many necessities is what makes the difference. Is it moving goal posts... it's called technical progress, and unless you want fewer and fewer to enjoy more and more while more and more enjoy fewer and fewer of the benefits of technology, we have to continue to redefine the meaning of "normal" lifestyle, and that is going to lead us to redefine what the cost of that is.

One more example. When I was young you could still apply for employment without a computer. Now I can't imagine doing that.

And, there was a time, before I was born, when shoes themselves were considered a luxury item. Of course the goalposts move, and thank goodness.

Click to expand...

As I suspected, you and I have vastly different ideas on what constitutes a necessity.

You can dang well drive a car without ABS, seat belts, or a computer.

And you can see people walking into a place of business, asking for an application and filling it out in pen on the spot. This happens all the time at fast food places.

Granted, use of a computer is fast becoming a necessity in modern life, but that doesn't mean you need to be replacing your computer every year to keep up your friend who likes to brag about his. That's waste, and a lot of what we take for granted falls into this category. We don't "need" 200 channels of cable.

Bamabuzzard said:

I would argue fast food jobs aren't middle class jobs, and we are talking about the middle class. I looked for a job for five months in 2016. I applied for over 30 jobs. Take a guess how many of them REQUIRED you to apply online? All of them. NOT ONE accepted hand written applications submitted in person. I'm not saying that method doesn't still exist. But it is FAST becoming a method of the past.

Regarding the vehicles. Just like the application method, vehicles with no ABS, seat belts, power steering, computers etc are quickly becoming a thing of the past and not easily found. 15 years ago my wife and I were trying to find a stick shift Honda Accord. They had to order one because car lots greatly reduced the number of stick shifts they carry. I can only imagine trying to find one now.

However, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the waste. We are a very wasteful society.

Click to expand...

Lots of businesses use agencies to deal with their staffing needs. If you went through one of them, you could get them to deal with the specific requirements of any potential employer without you having to deal with it. They'd take a cut, but they save you a lot of effort in dealing with the process. The low end of that would be a temp agency. A higher-end version would be a contracting agency. I imagine you could do plenty of business as a plumber, HVAC technician, auto mechanic, or other skilled service jobs without having to have a smart phone or any other kind of modern tech that wasn't available 20 years ago.

cbi1972 said:

Lots of businesses use agencies to deal with their staffing needs. If you went through one of them, you could get them to deal with the specific requirements of any potential employer without you having to deal with it. They'd take a cut, but they save you a lot of effort in dealing with the process. The low end of that would be a temp agency. A higher-end version would be a contracting agency. I imagine you could do plenty of business as a plumber, HVAC technician, auto mechanic, or other skilled service jobs without having to have a smart phone or any other kind of modern tech that wasn't available 20 years ago.

Click to expand...

Don't know about mechanics, but a lot of those others use computerized scheduling systems that send and receive updates via smartphone.

jthomas666 said:

Don't know about mechanics, but a lot of those others use computerized scheduling systems that send and receive updates via smartphone.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, but then it's like a business tool and it might as well be a ratchet and a set of sockets needed to do the job. Maybe provided by the employer, or compensated by them if the employee is expected to provide his own tools.

cbi1972 said:

As I suspected, you and I have vastly different ideas on what constitutes a necessity.

You can dang well drive a car without ABS, seat belts, or a computer.

And you can see people walking into a place of business, asking for an application and filling it out in pen on the spot. This happens all the time at fast food places.

Granted, use of a computer is fast becoming a necessity in modern life, but that doesn't mean you need to be replacing your computer every year to keep up your friend who likes to brag about his. That's waste, and a lot of what we take for granted falls into this category. We don't "need" 200 channels of cable.

Click to expand...

You watched a lot of The Beverly Hillbillies back in the 60s, didn'tcha? The real world is not so easily divided between filthy rich snobs and the simplicity of the Clampetts.

crimsonaudio said:

Meh, there are public spaces like libraries that offer free online access.

Is it more difficult to live without easy access to the internet? Certainly. Is it impossible? Certainly not.

Click to expand...

That is true but the question is whether that is middle class lifestyle today, and the answer is, no. Living homeless is not impossible, but it isn't middle class either.

cbi1972 said:

Maybe so, but then it's like a business tool and it might as well be a ratchet and a set of sockets needed to do the job. Maybe provided by the employer, or compensated by them if the employee is expected to provide his own tools.

Click to expand...

Bingo!!!! It's a business tool. You have to have it. And for that you have to pay for it.

LA4Bama said:

You watched a lot of The Beverly Hillbillies back in the 60s, didn'tcha? The real world is not so easily divided between filthy rich snobs and the simplicity of the Clampetts.

Click to expand...

I wasn't around in the 60s, but I had an Oldsmobile that was. Of 1962 vintage, it didn't have ABS, seat belts, or a computer. I sold it because it was too hard to find parts for, not because it failed me in modern features.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here regarding class divide. If you're filthy rich, you have only yourself to blame if you're unhappy your yacht is only 40 feet instead of 60 like that other tryhard at the club. Nobody made you try to be competitive in those circles. Similarly, if you're middle class, you don't need a new iPhone every 6 months. Sure, you can buy it if you want, but if you then complain to me about the pressure of necessities or how it takes two incomes to keep up that standard, I will pretend to commiserate while noting all your wasteful habits and reviewing my own.

LA4Bama said:

Bingo!!!! It's a business tool. You have to have it. And for that you have to pay for it.

Click to expand...

You apparently skipped right over this part: "Maybe provided by the employer, or compensated by them if the employee is expected to provide his own tools."

crimsonaudio said:

Never said otherwise - I was talking about people in the poverty level - even today, they have access to things they didn't have fifty years ago.

That said, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who qualifies as 'middle class' under any measure that cannot afford some form of internet access, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Click to expand...

That's fine, then we don't disagree. Buzz specified that he was talking about the middle class, so if you were talking about the impoverished that was something I didn't note from the context.

My point is the same as it has been, which is that being "middle class" now includes the cost of many technological advantages which we didn't imagine in 1965 (the period relevant to the NR article), therefore it is irrelevant to simply adjust income for inflation.

I'm not sure it is true that a family earning $50k (or even 90k where cost of living is high) can assume they are going to be able to afford a middle class lifestyle, when one adds up not just internet but all of the cost of all the technical advancements that we basically assume now.

cbi1972 said:

You apparently skipped right over this part: "Maybe provided by the employer, or compensated by them if the employee is expected to provide his own tools."

Click to expand...

Your initial point was that it is a luxury. Now you say it is a tool. That's the difference; it's a necessity somebody has to pay for.

cbi1972 said:

You apparently skipped right over this part: "Maybe provided by the employer, or compensated by them if the employee is expected to provide his own tools."

Click to expand...

I don't want to sidetrack this whole thread, but I would like to throw this out from an aviation maintenance perspective.

Tools are sometimes provided by the employer, but the majority of aviation maintenance jobs (other than airlines) still expect you to tool up on your own dime. That includes laptop, smartphone, and several $K worth of hand tools. It's considered your personal investment in your profession.

It seems to me that folks don't really bother with the 'why' of the whole thing.

First of all - I reject the notion there's any such monolithic concept as 'the economy.' You can give me unemployment rates, but they don't really mean anything if I have a job meeting my needs. That's not so much selfishness as it is fundamental reality. You can give me inflation rates, but they don't usually make much difference with rare exceptions like the late 1970s.

And despite what people say nobody REALLY honestly gives a damn about the federal budget deficit. Give them a choice between a job with a trillion dollar debt or no job and a balanced budget - guess which one every single person is going to choose?

But some of these things are more fundamental lessons of economics and it literally does not matter who is in the White House. I'm always amused by this argument one way or the other.....as if Barack, the Georges, Bill, Ron, or Jimmy sit up there in DC and say, "Well, I'm gonna make sure Bobby has a job but I'm gonna stick it to Terry."Presidents are seemingly (mostly ) judged on an economy that Congress has more power to control than do they.

Yet here's some simple facts that shouldn't take much more than a little common sense to evaluate:
1) society is much more automated than it was fifty years ago
2) fewer jobs + wider available work force = lower wages

I love that meme that goes around about 1971 - where back then only the Dad worked and your salary was enough for you to be able to afford a house, a car, and Mom could stay home. And somehow this is always Ronald Reagan's fault. But simple thinking - in 1971, blacks had only actually BEGUN to be treated as people SOME places. The CRA was only passed in 1964 and many if not most blacks esp in the South had been held back by the system so they were not competitive at all for jobs that they needed to feed their families as well.

You had an influx of black people and right on the heels of that came a huge influx of women thanks to the women's movement of the early 70s. Given that they basically made up 1/2 the population you now had even more competition for jobs....which necessarily LOWERED the wage any employer actually had to pay. Simple economics: if I have a job and have to pick just one out of five applicants, I need to pick the best AND I have to be competitive in that field so the salary has to be higher.

If I have 3,000 people applying for the same job, I can easily lower benefits/salary and someone is going to take it. And unless you're both professionals, it was almost pointless for the two-income family after you spent money on day care/clothes/gas for work.

It's mostly just the result of the natural progression of society. And then we inflate the debt because our old people are living substantially longer and drawing much longer from both Social Security and Medicare.

One final note: if conservative Ben is saying "hey things are good," is he actually giving Obama credit for it?????