I Wish I was Middle Income!

[JoeTheJuggler]

In fairness to Zig, his point is valid.

Tu quoque arguments aren't valid; they're irrelevant.

Obama has used absurdly high numbers for exactly the same reason, to mark a cut off point for taxation.

That's what I said, except that I think Obama has been careful never to refer to $250K as "middle income" but rather that income level as being part of the "middle class". As I said earlier, one could argue that the term "middle class" is no longer a relative notion, but rather refers to a socio-economic class that one time didn't exist at all but now accounts for something like 80% of the American population. I don't necessarily accept that myself, but it's a defensible position, unlike the assertion that up to $250K is "middle income".

His reason for using that number (and Romney's) was for political purposes but I don't think anyone should consider $150k or $200k a year middle class. There are many ways to come up with what "middle class" means but I don't think anything in the 6 digits counts.

I agree. Please read my posts in this thread.

In short, I don't think Romney should be raked over the coals for this one, what's good for the goose as they say.

Tu quoque fallacy. (A type of irrelevant argument.) Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Ziggurat]

Tu quoque arguments aren't valid; they're irrelevant.

You apparently think repeating this phrase excuses hypocrisy. It doesn't.

The thing is (and I've already told you this) I'm really not arguing Romney is right. You are completely free to think Romney is wrong. I have never once said he isn't. But there is no fallacy in pointing out a fact. Nor is expecting logical consistency a fallacy.

Tu quoque fallacy. (A type of irrelevant argument.) Two wrongs do not make a right.

Once again, I never said they did. All I said is if they are wrongs, then it is indeed two wrongs, not one. No fallacy involved. You have resorted to misrepresenting my argument in order to make that case.

 

[not_so_new]

Tu quoque arguments aren't valid; they're irrelevant.


That's what I said, except that I think Obama has been careful never to refer to $250K as "middle income" but rather that income level as being part of the "middle class". As I said earlier, one could argue that the term "middle class" is no longer a relative notion, but rather refers to a socio-economic class that one time didn't exist at all but now accounts for something like 80% of the American population. I don't necessarily accept that myself, but it's a defensible position, unlike the assertion that up to $250K is "middle income".


I agree. Please read my posts in this thread.


Tu quoque fallacy. (A type of irrelevant argument.) Two wrongs do not make a right.

Sorry, my fault. I should have inserted the words "I pretty much agree with Joe on most points here" in my post, that's what I was thinking at the time but was posting quickly because I was in the middle of something.

 

[Corsair 115]

This online article contains a graph showing the breakdown of household income in $5,000 increments for 2010, according to Census Bureau data. If middle income is defined as being the middle quintile, then middle class household income ranged from about $37,000 to $62,000. Looking at that distribution of income, where would folks say the middle class falls?

The source Census Bureau data for the graph can be found here. Those interested can graph the data for themselves if they so wish.

 

[Snide]

Sorry, my fault. I should have inserted the words "I pretty much agree with Joe on most points here" in my post, that's what I was thinking at the time but was posting quickly because I was in the middle of something.

By "in the middle of something," do you mean you were 95% done? 5%? I gots to know.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

I don't think that's an accurate reading of his statement at all. English being what it is and an interview being different than a written statement, there's some grammatical ambiguity, but the most sensible interpretation is that he took Stephanopoulos's question to mean that he was asking if $100,000 marked the top end of middle income. Mitt is using a more expansive definition where that isn't the top, but that's all the "no" refers to. I don't see any reason to conclude that he thinks it's below middle income. Both parties basically don't say where the bottom of the middle is, because there's no political advantage in doing so. So it frankly makes no sense to conclude that he's putting the bottom above $100k.

Of course you may be correct. It may be that Romney simply misunderstood the question. But I don't agree with the assertion that "So it frankly makes no sense to conclude that he's putting the bottom above $100k". The question was a grammatically fairly simple one. And the answer "no" even more simple. So while it is possible that he may have misunderstood the question, I think that concluding that he meant what he actually said is not an unreasonable one to make.

Now, if you can find some other reference where he clearly indicates that he does think that $100K falls into the "middle-income" range, I would then agree that the most reasonable conclusion is that he simply misunderstood the question and thought he was being asked if $100K is the upper limit. Likewise if he or his official representatives make a public response to the article clarifying that this is what he meant.

 

[PixyMisa]

In a discussion about what Romney said. You're responding to criticism of Romney by saying Obama is guilty of the same thing. That's exactly what a tu quoque argument is.

Wrong.

It would be a tu quoque argument if he was claiming that Romney was correct because Obama said the same thing. Simply pointing out that Obama said the same thing just shows that those who continue to criticise Romney but not Obama are hypocrites.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

A guy making 50k in the middle of Nebraska has a much higher standard of living than a guy making 50K in New York or San Francisco.

188k in Manhattan was the median family income back in 2005 for example.

This is why I so dislike wage comparisons across different sections of the country and why the median income number is misleading unless you happen to live in a place where the national median is the same as the local median. The national median covers so many disparate areas as to really be meaningless as a point of comparison.

 

[not_so_new]

By "in the middle of something," do you mean you were 95% done? 5%? I gots to know.

Nope, I was in the middle of watching a movie with my girlfriend and she got up to get a snack and some wine.... so I posted something quickly without really reviewing my post all that well (not that it would have helped much to review more I guess )

 

[AlBell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

Vernacular middle class

The term middle class in more colloquial language use may refer to all those individuals who might at one point or another be identified as middle class, as they occupy neither extreme of the socio-economic strata. Most of those with households income between $40,000 and $95,000 identify as "middle class." The term can also be used to describe those at the actual center of the income strata, who may also be referred to as the middle-middle class. There are many different theories on the middle-middle class. The middle-middle class may be composed of those households with annual incomes of 80% to 120% of the national median household income. Persons in this income range could, in accordance to solely economic reasoning, be referred to as the American average. Such households would boast annual incomes ranging from $35,200 to $52,800, and thus be located in the middle of the income range.[13]

Some of these households, while actually being in the middle and thus sometimes referred to as being middle class, cannot, however, afford the middle class lifestyle.[9] Yet another definition states that the statistical middle class includes all those households with income ranging from $25,000 to $100,000.[1] This is, however, a very vague definition, as it includes persons from all but the lowest quintile. Using this definition creates a class so economically fragmented that it would lump together those who are struggling to make ends meet with two incomes and those who are able to live the iconic middle class lifestyle with just one income and are highly educated.

Weberian definition

Some modern theories of political economy consider a large middle class to be a beneficial, stabilizing influence on society, because it has neither the possibly explosive revolutionary tendencies of the lower class, nor the absolutist tendencies of an entrenched upper class. Most sociological definitions of middle class follow Max Weber. Here the middle class is defined as consisting of professionals or business owners who share a culture of domesticity and sub-urbanity and a level of relative security against social crisis, in the form of socially desired skill or wealth. Thus the theory on the middle class by Max Weber can be cited as one that supports the notion of the middle class being composed of a quasi-elite of professionals and managers, who are largely immune to economic downturns and trends such as out-sourcing which affect the statistical middle class.[10]

Wiki echoes my understanding of middle class. I read an article recently but have no cite that many families, who most would consider poor, see themselves as middle class.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have never once said he isn't. But there is no fallacy in pointing out a fact.

What you're doing is a textbook example of the tu quoque fallacy. You are responding to criticism of Romney by pointing out that Obama has done something similar.

All I said is if they are wrongs, then it is indeed two wrongs, not one.

And pointing out that Obama has done the same wrong in response to criticism of Romney's doing wrong is the tu quoque fallacy. I'm not making this up.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It would be a tu quoque argument if he was claiming that Romney was correct because Obama said the same thing. Simply pointing out that Obama said the same thing just shows that those who continue to criticise Romney but not Obama are hypocrites.

It's irrelevant to the criticism of Romney to point out that Obama is also guilty. (Do you know what quoque means?) That is in fact the tu quoque fallacy. It's meant to divert attention from the topic at hand.

 

[timhau]

What a mentally, socially, and politically retarded misunderstanding we have going on in this thread.

Romney isn't saying that middle income is from $200-250,000. He's saying middle income is from [whatever the lower bound is] to somewhere around $200-250,000.

I think I lost brain cells from having to explain this.

He's less than clear about it, but if $100,000 isn't yet middle income, his lower bound for the category is still absurdly high.

 

[Ziggurat]

What you're doing is a textbook example of the tu quoque fallacy. You are responding to criticism of Romney by pointing out that Obama has done something similar.

What textbook are you using? Because facts are never fallacies, Joe.

And pointing out that Obama has done the same wrong in response to criticism of Romney's doing wrong is the tu quoque fallacy. I'm not making this up.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

"Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge."

First off, Obama isn't the "accuser" here. So that part obviously isn't a fit. Secondly, and more importantly, as I've repeatedly stated, I am not defending Romney. Your source is quite correct that the original charge against Romney is in no way dependent upon what Obama did. But I never argued otherwise. You keep pretending that I did, but I didn't.

The only fallacy here is your repeated straw man.

 

[Upchurch]

Not tu quoque?

I never said it should. But the number does coincide with Obama's definition. From that same story,

"Obama also has set his definition for "middle class" as families with income of up to $250,000 a year."

So why take exception to only Romney's definition, rather than to both of their definitions? That is... inconsistent.

You brought up Obama. You made the argument that criticizing Romney was "inconsistent" (read "wrong") because Obama did it too.

Sounds tu quoque to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

You brought up Obama. You made the argument that criticizing Romney was "inconsistent" (read "wrong") because Obama did it too.

Sounds tu quoque to me.

No. Pay attention. Criticizing Romney is obviously NOT inconsistent or wrong if one also criticizes Obama, and I said so repeatedly. Criticizing Romney but defending Obama for the same thing is inconsistent. That's basic logic. Calling it tu quoque doesn't change that. You have perverted the meaning of the phrase into a defense of hypocrisy.

 

[Upchurch]

No. Pay attention. Criticizing Romney is obviously NOT inconsistent or wrong if one also criticizes Obama, and I said so repeatedly. Criticizing Romney but defending Obama for the same thing is inconsistent. That's basic logic. Calling it tu quoque doesn't change that. You have perverted the meaning of the phrase into a defense of hypocrisy.

But no one was talking about Obama's position until you brought it up in Romney's defense. No one was not criticising Obama. He simply wasn't the topic of conversation.

No, you added Obama into it, making criticisms of Romney "inconsistent" if others did not also admit that Obama did it too.

(Of course, you'd have to ignore statements from both Romney and Obama for that to be true, but whatever.)

 

[Ziggurat]

But no one was talking about Obama's position until you brought it up in Romney's defense. No one was not criticising Obama. He simply wasn't the topic of conversation.

The topic was not simply Romney. The topic was also where the cutoff for middle class was. And people rather regularly bring up new stuff related to the original topic. I'm not doing something that everybody else doesn't do.

No, you added Obama into it, making criticisms of Romney "inconsistent" if others did not also admit that Obama did it too.

And isn't that true? Isn't it inconsistent to think Romney is wrong but Obama isn't? Repeating "tu quoque" can't make that inconsistency disappear.

(Of course, you'd have to ignore statements from both Romney and Obama for that to be true, but whatever.)

Yeah, not so much, or else you'd be using that, rather than your false charge of tu quoque.

 

[Upchurch]

Yeah, not so much, or else you'd be using that, rather than your false charge of tu quoque.

Excluded middle, now? Hm.

I already made my case on that. You rejected it for no particular reason (apparently, context is only for convenient moments). As I've said, it's there for others to read and you aren't really fooling anyone, try though you might.

 

[Ziggurat]

Excluded middle, now? Hm.

I already made my case on that. You rejected it for no particular reason (apparently, context is only for convenient moments). As I've said, it's there for others to read and you aren't really fooling anyone, try though you might.

So... still nothing. That's what I thought.