• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,050
Reaction score
33,368
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?hp&_r=0
The American middle class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.

While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.

Thanks to govt debt and tax laws as far as I'm concerned.
 

You can start pointing fingers all you want but also realize how did we do it...

Well for a start, people dont go bankrupt if they get sick in Canada.

You pay the $50, 000 in medical bills now, that person either doesn't die or end up on disability and produces hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax revenue and economic activity in their lifetime.

Its economical and civilized to boot.
 

I'm a little confused as to how you came to that conclusion.

First, did you actually read the article? Or just the headline? Allow me to quote:

Although economic growth in the United States continues to be as strong as in many other countries, or stronger, a small percentage of American households is fully benefiting from it. Median income in Canada pulled into a tie with median United States income in 2010 and has most likely surpassed it since then. Median incomes in Western European countries still trail those in the United States, but the gap in several — including Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden — is much smaller than it was a decade ago...

Three broad factors appear to be driving much of the weak income performance in the United States. First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs.

The second reason it cites is that the most productive companies are contributing wealth mostly to its top executives, and that the cash flow isn't making its way to the middle class. Unions are declining and our minimum wage is lower than in many other countries, including the ones gaining ground on us. The third reason is the the United States, despite favorite Republican talking points, does not redistribute wealth like Western European countries do, which hurts middle and lower class families.

It's ironic that your conclusion appears to be in stark contrast to what the article - and the facts - say. You want a stronger middle class? Then vote for the liberals, dude. The rich in America are better off than anywhere else in the world. On the other hand, the middle class need access to education and health care at a cost they can afford, which is something that other countries are accomplishing. But we aren't.
 
I'm a little confused as to how you came to that conclusion.

First, did you actually read the article? Or just the headline? Allow me to quote:



The second reason it cites is that the most productive companies are contributing wealth mostly to its top executives, and that the cash flow isn't making its way to the middle class. Unions are declining and our minimum wage is lower than in many other countries, including the ones gaining ground on us. The third reason is the the United States, despite favorite Republican talking points, does not redistribute wealth like Western European countries do, which hurts middle and lower class families.

It's ironic that your conclusion appears to be in stark contrast to what the article - and the facts - say. You want a stronger middle class? Then vote for the liberals, dude. The rich in America are better off than anywhere else in the world. On the other hand, the middle class need access to education and health care at a cost they can afford, which is something that other countries are accomplishing. But we aren't.

Blacks have done so well voting for liberals, yeah. :roll:
 
It's ironic that your conclusion appears to be in stark contrast to what the article - and the facts - say. You want a stronger middle class? Then vote for the liberals, dude. The rich in America are better off than anywhere else in the world. On the other hand, the middle class need access to education and health care at a cost they can afford, which is something that other countries are accomplishing. But we aren't.

How would voting for liberals help the middle class?

I thought the ACA gave everyone access to affordable healthcare?
 
Hardly a surprise at all saying many posters on DP think it's perfectly acceptable to pay the lowest wages possible.
 
I'm a little confused as to how you came to that conclusion.

First, did you actually read the article? Or just the headline? Allow me to quote:



The second reason it cites is that the most productive companies are contributing wealth mostly to its top executives, and that the cash flow isn't making its way to the middle class. Unions are declining and our minimum wage is lower than in many other countries, including the ones gaining ground on us. The third reason is the the United States, despite favorite Republican talking points, does not redistribute wealth like Western European countries do, which hurts middle and lower class families.

It's ironic that your conclusion appears to be in stark contrast to what the article - and the facts - say. You want a stronger middle class? Then vote for the liberals, dude. The rich in America are better off than anywhere else in the world. On the other hand, the middle class need access to education and health care at a cost they can afford, which is something that other countries are accomplishing. But we aren't.

These conclusions are absurd and completely ignore the primary basis for the changes. At the heart of the matter is the dramatic loss in manufacturing jobs in the United States. Until we address this fact with honest conversations and actions, the transition to servicing other countries products will continue.

The first place to start, which continues to be ignored, is the intense regulatory environment we ask small business to operate in. What typically happens is the demagogues step in and start a finger pointing session that includes words like greed and exploitation, with massive doses of "shipping jobs overseas" thrown in. In response to honest hardworking businesspeople seeking relief we get narratives from the regulators that suggest those seeking help want a business environment void of any regulation at all. Oh what a barren landscape they paint! Blade Runner gone wild.

The bottom line is, it is impossible to create middle class wealth by earning a portion of what is charged per hour to process paperwork, or fix a computer. Until we can once again generate good wages across a broad line of manufactured goods, it will be nothing but meaningless words, empty promises, and pointless accusations.

The rich will always be rich, Dude.
 
How would voting for liberals help the middle class?

I thought the ACA gave everyone access to affordable healthcare?

That's not entirely true. There are a lot of families that have to pay a ridiculous premium under Obamacare. They were paying a ridiculous premium before the ACA and depending on how much they make, they could certainly be paying even more now. That's for middle class families, of course. The ACA does a tremendous amount of good for those impoverished people who you contend don't need help.

I don't like to talk about Obamacare without mentioning how incredible it has been for me. I pay about 75% less than I used to and have better coverage. I see a doctor a minimum of 3 times a month, and I will probably continue to do so for the next 50 years, so I'm quite pleased with the bill. But it's two steps in the right direction and one step in the wrong direction.

Education is a different matter. To get an education at a public institution, you have to pay 40% more than you had to 10 years ago. For a public institution, tuition has gone up about 30% in that same time frame. That's after adjustment for inflation. If we want to have an advanced society, you shouldn't have to spend your entire life paying back student loans. It's just absurd. Judging by the other thread, you seem to have a rather poor understanding of how difficult it is to take the "right" path in this day and age.
 
These conclusions are absurd and completely ignore the primary basis for the changes. At the heart of the matter is the dramatic loss in manufacturing jobs in the United States. Until we address this fact with honest conversations and actions, the transition to servicing other countries products will continue.

The first place to start, which continues to be ignored, is the intense regulatory environment we ask small business to operate in. What typically happens is the demagogues step in and start a finger pointing session that includes words like greed and exploitation, with massive doses of "shipping jobs overseas" thrown in. In response to honest hardworking businesspeople seeking relief we get narratives from the regulators that suggest those seeking help want a business environment void of any regulation at all. Oh what a barren landscape they paint! Blade Runner gone wild.

The bottom line is, it is impossible to create middle class wealth by earning a portion of what is charged per hour to process paperwork, or fix a computer. Until we can once again generate good wages across a broad line of manufactured goods, it will be nothing but meaningless words, empty promises, and pointless accusations.

The rich will always be rich, Dude.

What you're ignoring is the fact that economic growth in the United States is stable, and is equal to or better than the other countries mentioned in this article. The US leads the world in income from manufacturing jobs. Well, that was true until 2011, when China topped us, but China has a slight advantage in terms of its gigantic population. Manufacturing has improved in recent years, as well. There were plenty of jobs lost due to outsourcing, but the money never stopped flowing. You are right, though, that the money from the manufacturing industry started increasingly flowing to rich people, executives, and the Koch Brothers.

Still, other countries - Canada is a good one to mention - has a growing middle class whose median income has exceeded the median income in the United States. Yet Canada's manufacturing industry isn't growing any faster than ours. Their manufacturing jobs have actually been decreasing.

So our manufacturing industry is getting larger, and Canada's is getting smaller. And yet their median income now exceeds ours. I believe your argument has been busted, sir.
 
The ACA does a tremendous amount of good for those impoverished people who you contend don't need help.

I challenge you to find one post from me where I made any such statement. I said no such thing about impoverished people.

I'll wait for the post where I said poor people don't need help.
 
I challenge you to find one post from me where I made any such statement. I said no such thing about impoverished people.

I'll wait for the post where I said poor people don't need help.

I was inferring. You had several posts about how all people have equal opportunity to succeed. Therefore, one can infer from that belief that impoverished people, who have the same chance of success as anybody else, do not require help.

I'll wait for the logic that contradicts my conclusions about your beliefs.
 
I was inferring. You had several posts about how all people have equal opportunity to succeed. Therefore, one can infer from that belief that impoverished people, who have the same chance of success as anybody else, do not require help.

I'll wait for the logic that contradicts my conclusions about your beliefs.

If you "inferred" that from my posts about a subject that had nothing to do with the ACA, that's on you. People who don't know what people think shouldn't pretend to be mindreaders over the internet.
 
If you "inferred" that from my posts about a subject that had nothing to do with the ACA, that's on you. People who don't know what people think shouldn't pretend to be mindreaders over the internet.

So using logic to infer is a supernatural occurrence to you?

Magnets, bro, how do they work?
 
So using logic to infer is a supernatural occurrence to you?

Magnets, bro, how do they work?

I'm not your "bro", and you put words in my mouth about the ACA that I never posted. You even admitted I never posted them.

If you would like to know my thoughts on the ACA and how it helps the poor people, I would suggest you go into the ACA section and read my posts. I state repeatedly in there that the ACA is a great entitlement for those who need it, and say repeatedly that there are millions in this nation who need help paying for their healthcare insurance.

I detest when people are dishonest, which is exactly what you just were, and I called you out on it.

Now have a nice night.
 
I'm not your "bro", and you put words in my mouth about the ACA that I never posted. You even admitted I never posted them.

If you would like to know my thoughts on the ACA and how it helps the poor people, I would suggest you go into the ACA section and read my posts. I state repeatedly in there that the ACA is a great entitlement for those who need it, and say repeatedly that there are millions in this nation who need help paying for their healthcare insurance.

I detest when people are dishonest, which is exactly what you just were, and I called you out on it.

Now have a nice night.

Sorry, I thought your name was "Tres BROrachos," I simply misread.

Anyway, I think you're trying to have it both ways. It isn't relevant to this thread, but I assert that thinking affirmative action isn't needed but the ACA is needed to help the poor are contradictory beliefs. They're needed for the exact same reason, which is allowing those who are born into a bad situation to have access to health care and education, which I think are the two things our government can help people attain to give them a chance to work toward a life that is better than their parent's life.

That's what growing a middle class is all about, giving them access to the things that probably a minimum 80% of wealthy people take for granted. Again, I just don't know how you can say that everybody has a fair shot in this country but also say that the ACA is great for people who need it. If everybody has a fair shot, they don't need anything, right? I guess wrong, according to you. We'll agree to disagree about what you agree and disagree with.
 
These conclusions are absurd and completely ignore the primary basis for the changes. At the heart of the matter is the dramatic loss in manufacturing jobs in the United States. Until we address this fact with honest conversations and actions, the transition to servicing other countries products will continue.

The first place to start, which continues to be ignored, is the intense regulatory environment we ask small business to operate in. What typically happens is the demagogues step in and start a finger pointing session that includes words like greed and exploitation, with massive doses of "shipping jobs overseas" thrown in. In response to honest hardworking businesspeople seeking relief we get narratives from the regulators that suggest those seeking help want a business environment void of any regulation at all. Oh what a barren landscape they paint! Blade Runner gone wild.

The bottom line is, it is impossible to create middle class wealth by earning a portion of what is charged per hour to process paperwork, or fix a computer. Until we can once again generate good wages across a broad line of manufactured goods, it will be nothing but meaningless words, empty promises, and pointless accusations.

The rich will always be rich, Dude.

Globalization has taken the manufacturing jobs and they aren't coming back. Rather than trying to emulate and compete with 3rd world economies by racing to the bottom we should focus on high technology, science, advancing our civilization to the next level. To do this we need heavy investment in higher education, particularly STEM.
 
Low information voters piss me off.

1. The number one predictor of downward economic mobility is a single parent home. This has increased steadily since the 1960s.

2. Globalization has moved employment opportunity overseas.

3. The steady increase in women in the labor market has increased the workforce.

4. The combination of globalization, increased participation of women in the labor force, as well as the rise in single parent homes (which has also contributed to driving women into the workplace) has created more competition for fewer jobs. This depresses the labor market and drives down the price of labor.

Conservatives want you to believe over-regulation has driven the labor market downward, while liberals want you to believe the greed of the rich has gobbled up all the wealth. The reality is that the world has changed. The US is sharing their hyper-consumer population with the labor markets of the world. This is extremely good for the rest of the world, but all of those who weren't already rich to begin with (or the extreme cases of industry creators like Zuckerberg) are sucking hind tit. Those who were already possessed of great financial control were poised to make large gains under the new dynamic; those who were merely affluent, middle class, or poor saw their purchasing power reduced as a greater percentage of their income and holdings as American wealth at large went overseas. This is nothing the rich did or the poor failed to do, other than follow the nature inherent to wealth and control in the first place.
 
Well they are much simpler just the tax rates are higher.

I prefer to keep taxes as low as possible, and I think spending needs to be curbed.
 
Back
Top Bottom