Middle Class shrinkage: Cold water effect or real problem?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No, it's simply common sense. If you prefer an absolute measure of poverty you should feel free to establish a baseline of for example conditions in hunter gatherer societies 200.000 years ago and declare everyone to be stinking rich, but it would be a rather pointless declaration. You could of cause also set the baseline as something that makes sense in a modern context, but then you'd really still be setting a relative standard. Unless of cause you can give some reasonable explanation for why exactly the conditions of the west in 2007 should be considered the universal baseline for poverty. I’m looking forward to you explanation for that.

Except that what you end up with is resources being targetted at moving people from 59% of median earnings to 61% because that is "reducing poverty" and you can achieve a much bigger reduction in poverty rates by doing that than by devoting the same resources to helping those who are scraping an existence much lower down the earnings scale.

And of course such a calculation assumes that people stop being poor if all the rich people emigrate - even if they are in exactly the same financial position.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"it's just common sense." Why is that phrase usually supportive of poor logic or bad facts?

 

[Kerberos]

Except that what you end up with is resources being targetted at moving people from 59% of median earnings to 61% because that is "reducing poverty" and you can achieve a much bigger reduction in poverty rates by doing that than by devoting the same resources to helping those who are scraping an existence much lower down the earnings scale.

Accepting that the only sensible criterion for poverty is relative does not mean that pushing people over whatever arbitrary line you set for poverty should be the main objective. In fact the exact same straw man could be levelled against somebody who championed an absolute standard for poverty. Why should we try to push people over whatever arbitrary line you might declare to be the absolute standard for poverty?

And of course such a calculation assumes that people stop being poor if all the rich people emigrate - even if they are in exactly the same financial position.

True, and that does seem somewhat bizarre, but as I pointed out an absolute standard of poverty entails it's own absurdities. Would you care to take a shot at defining such an absolute standard an explaining why that exact standard is the everlasting universally correct one?

 

[Kerberos]

"it's just common sense." Why is that phrase usually supportive of poor logic or bad facts?

let's hear some good logic and good facts then. I'm sure you can provide some. What is the universal and absolute standard for poverty and why is it whatever it is?

 

[Kerberos]

No, it's not. It sets up a metric where poverty rates can decrease if people make less money. That's not common sense, that's perverse.

It should be obvious, but apparently it needs to be pointed out to some people: Reducing poverty rates should obviously never be the sole purpose of a government. And of cause the question I've asked the others applies to you too. What is the absolute criterion for poverty and why is it where it is? I'm just dying to hear a good answer to that one.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Accepting that the only sensible criterion for poverty is relative does not mean that pushing people over whatever arbitrary line you set for poverty should be the main objective.

Doesn't mean it should be, however experience suggests that it is.

In fact the exact same straw man could be levelled against somebody who championed an absolute standard for poverty. Why should we try to push people over whatever arbitrary line you might declare to be the absolute standard for poverty?

If the absolute standard has some meaning (ability to feed, clothe, shelter and educate yourself and family) for example then pushing people over that line makes sense and ensures that funding is focussed on those who have a genuine need for something that society decides is an essential.

True, and that does seem somewhat bizarre, but as I pointed out an absolute standard of poverty entails it's own absurdities. Would you care to take a shot at defining such an absolute standard an explaining why that exact standard is the everlasting universally correct one?

Why do you assume that a non relative standard will not change over time? Why does it have to be everlasting?

For example in the 10 seconds of thought example above, "educate" is likely to mean something massively different today than it did 100 years ago (school to age of 18 instead of 12).

 

[Kerberos]

Doesn't mean it should be, however experience suggests that it is.



If the absolute standard has some meaning (ability to feed, clothe, shelter and educate yourself and family) for example then pushing people over that line makes sense and ensures that funding is focussed on those who have a genuine need for something that society decides is an essential.



Why do you assume that a non relative standard will not change over time? Why does it have to be everlasting?

For example in the 10 seconds of thought example above, "educate" is likely to mean something massively different today than it did 100 years ago (school to age of 18 instead of 12).

Because then it is not an absolute standard, it's a relative standard then. It's not a relative standard define as a % of average income, but it's relative none the less. I really don't see any difference between you absolute standard and my relative one.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What is the universal and absolute standard for poverty and why is it whatever it is?

Inability to afford food and shelter.

 

[Kerberos]

Inability to afford food and shelter.

Ok, so being able to afford cave and a basic diet, but dying from pneumonia or appendicitis because you can't afford a doctor is not poor. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but I don't think your definition is likely to become the standard one anytime soon. At least not in the west.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think your definition is likely to become the standard one anytime soon. At least not in the west.

Think you can? Perhaps something more concrete than your previous attempt and can be explained in one or two sentences.

 

[firecoins]

I thought poor people were the ones that lived on the wrong side of the train tracks? I never knew which side was the wrong one but they are the ones on that side. Its a very precise fact. It should clear everything right up.

 

[steverino]

I don't know, it's like people want me to believe that our country has two categories, rich and poor. However, most people I know and interact with are neither.

This is a touchy subject for me. I was middle class, making about $40,000-$60,000 a year with photography, plus a home owner.

Because of the digital age, (cheap high quality cameras, etc.) and, yes, my own business short-comings, I am at ten bucks an hour and renting an apartment. Other photographers I know are in the same boat. My friends on the Chicago Tribune may be working at Home Depot within two years.

Some of the low unemployment statistics consider realtors as employed people. However, many, or most, make $15,000 or less annually on commissions. Plus, like travel agents, people are selling their own homes through "FSBO" type agencies charging low flat fees.

Many "working class" people who made $16-$20 painting, hanging drywall, and such, are making $8 an hour now, due, in part, to being underbid by illegal workers.

Many middle-class families are surviving on refinancing their inflated-valued houses, rather than on their job incomes. And they are expected to do more work, spend more hours on the job, and are losing health benefits.

Some here might think I am some kind of capitalist pig as I stick up for Limbaugh and Cheney on these threads. The reality is that I am disillusioned by America's economy, and my own. There seem to be the "haves" and "have-nots." I am very fortunate to have parents to pay my phone bill and dentist now and then.

What worries me is when I chat with someone doing one of those jobs that supposedly "Americans don't want to do," and I learn that person is educated, articulate, and used to be middle class, like me.

 

[Kerberos]

Think you can? Perhaps something more concrete than your previous attempt and can be explained in one or two sentences.

I notice you didn't answer my question. At least I don't think you did. It's a bit hard to tell since your reply doesn't make any sense.

 

[steverino]

I notice you didn't answer my question. At least I don't think you did. It's a bit hard to tell since your reply doesn't make any sense.

If you are having trouble grappling with- "Who exactly is struggling economically, how is this all defined, and where is that line drawn?" - Then you are probably in pretty good shape, economically...for now.

 

[Ziggurat]

It should be obvious, but apparently it needs to be pointed out to some people: Reducing poverty rates should obviously never be the sole purpose of a government.

I never claimed otherwise. But if you set up a metric which can display an "improvement" even in cases where things get obviously worse for everyone, then the metric is just screwed up. You aren't measuring poverty, but only disparity, and the two aren't the same. Whether or not reducing poverty is the sole purpose of government, it's still going to be something government tries to do, regardless of whether or not it should, because that's popular. So don't use a bad metric, or you can get bad policy which exploits the flaws of the metric to produce "progress" which is actually nothing of the sort.

And of cause the question I've asked the others applies to you too. What is the absolute criterion for poverty and why is it where it is? I'm just dying to hear a good answer to that one.

EVERY metric is arbitrary to some degree. Hell, yours is just as arbitrary (why use 60% of median income, and not 55%?) as any absolute criteria. But a criteria which uses some sort of absolute scale (such as, for example, calculating the cost of food needed to survive and multiplying by some fixed factor) doesn't have the fatal flaw that your relative metric has: it cannot fall under conditions in which those under the poverty line are all getting worse off. It can ONLY drop if those who are moving above the poverty line really are experiencing an improvement.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, so being able to afford cave and a basic diet, but dying from pneumonia or appendicitis because you can't afford a doctor is not poor.

In the US, what you describe is covered under emergency care for life-threatening conditions, and hospitals MUST provide such emergency care (plus baby deliveries) to EVERYONE who requires it, regardless of their ability to pay.

 

[Beerina]

No, it's simply common sense. If you prefer an absolute measure of poverty you should feel free to establish a baseline of for example conditions in hunter gatherer societies 200.000 years ago and declare everyone to be stinking rich, but it would be a rather pointless declaration. You could of cause also set the baseline as something that makes sense in a modern context, but then you'd really still be setting a relative standard. Unless of cause you can give some reasonable explanation for why exactly the conditions of the west in 2007 should be considered the universal baseline for poverty. I’m looking forward to you explanation for that.

Actually, using the same standard for a caveman society, a pre-industrial one, an industrial one, "our modern one", and a "modern communist one" is all perfectly fine, if your goal is actual science to see how well each does in increasing the quality of life for people (assuming you have no problem experimenting on unwilling victims, which, for some odd reason, we consider highly unethical in every other aspect of society.)

If you move the goalposts like this, how in god's name do you know if your society is doing any better year after year?

It's a fraudulent metric designed to buttress the scientifically pointless, but rhetorically powerful idea of OH MY GOD THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN RICH AND POOR IS WIDENING!

This is a pointless and fraudulent concept because it has nothing to do with average quality of life. Indeed, the vast majority of people alive would have no problem having the rich multiply their worth by 100 if it doubled their standard of life today. It is part of the politics of anger and class warfare, and has nothing to do with real economic studies of society.

 

[firecoins]

I measure the size of the middleclass from the base on my penis. This ios how I know the cold water effect is going on.

 

[Roswell-Perseis]

There are five socio-economic classes used in sociology. Try this link from my soc. class. This is designed to give people an idea, but I would not use it as more than a jumping off point. I would like to add that this crisis of the middle class consists of three major events that distort the picture: 1. an increase of knowledge of the class-based system and discrimination of minority groups (this has been building for years, but I think people thought we were further along than the reality has shown us).
2. The change of the manufacturing economy to a diverse economy. I know people want to call this the technological revolution, but I'm not sure it will take the place of manufacturing in terms of jobs and wages. I think we are headed for a very diverse economy that has less security per job or industry, but hopefully will have better security in the over all economy.
3. Americans are addicted to consumerism and have put themselves in an unstable position. The use of credit cards and loans have put Americans in a untenable situation.

I do believe the middle class is shrinking and that we are in a time of change. However, that no one seems willing (in the media) to talk about the issues surrounding this and that is a sad state of affairs.

(http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/)

 

[steverino]

I do believe the middle class is shrinking and that we are in a time of change. However, that no one seems willing (in the media) to talk about the issues surrounding this and that is a sad state of affairs.

I could open the general link, but not the story.

Anyway, Obama's website used to mention "strengthening unions and retraining under-employed workers for middle class jobs." That seems to have dropped from his updated website.

Hillary mentions it here, even though it is so transparent and fake that she wants to "continue Bill's work" on the middle class issue, as if Bush single handedly unraveled the middle class in 6 years after Hillary's husband had it humming right along.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031100065.html

In a speech to a Democratic Party fundraising dinner, Clinton echoed economic themes from her husband's first presidential campaign in 1992. Then, Bill Clinton talked about the forgotten middle class. Under Bush, the New York senator said, middle class Americans have been ignored.

Then there is Edwards and his "Two Americas" theme. It's cute, but once I almost lost my house to a slip-and-fall lawyer. Their whole M.O. is fear-based and threat-based.

I just don't think government can do a whole lot. Look at Detroit. People want Toyota's, not Dodge's. Michigan's senator, Carl Levin, seems to care about the little guy, but what can he do?

Ma & Pa businesses can't compete with Walmart, China, etc. I suppose government can offer assistance to community college training, or maybe low interest loans for people wanting to start up a small business.