A Thread for People Who've Deeply Considered the Topic: Arguments and Counter Arguments

[Xelor]

If one is free to use their own definition, especially one that is subjective, then discussion of that term is all but impossible. Middle class (like rich and poor) is generally defined in terms of household income range.

https://www.thebalance.com/definition-of-middle-class-income-4126870

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm aware too that sometimes household wealth can be used, but because wealth is accumulated income rather than "current" income, it can be a somewhat misleading figure.

Be that as it may, I would use income, not wealth as the basis for qualifying one's economic class and wealth as a key factor in qualifying social class. I would because income is more reliably reported (as pay in firm's IRS filings and as information collected in individuals IRS filings), summarized and obtained. Wealth, on the other hand, is a function of net asset value. One can make a ton of money and be not-wealthy and vice versa.

Be that as it may, none of that is germane to the two propositions that are the thread discussion topic.

 

[KevinKohler]

To the extent that what it takes to achieve a middle class life is/is not the problem, that is addressed in the OP (parts III, V and VI).

I don't live in CT, but I visit from time to time. It seems like fairly "white collar" state, due, I presume, to it's proximity to Manhattan.

Real Median Household Income: Connecticut, National

CT is polarized...there is no middle class except the few remaining hold out factory workers. Mostly military industrial complex. If you can get a job building Sikorsky helicopters, or jet engines, or military generators, good for you, you get to be both blue collar and middle class in CT. But that's a small portion of the population and, some of it generational (due to the probability of getting one of those nice factory jobs if mommy or daddy works/worked there).
The rest are service sector workers, who have to agree to salaried jobs often requiring over 60 hours per week, in order to see more than 40k per year. Hell, I even have a buddy who is a bio chemist, and he only makes 55k per year, lol. I work retail and out earn him by a country mile. Embarrassing, IMO.

 

[Xelor]

CT is polarized...there is no middle class except the few remaining hold out factory workers. Mostly military industrial complex. If you can get a job building Sikorsky helicopters, or jet engines, or military generators, good for you, you get to be both blue collar and middle class in CT. But that's a small portion of the population and, some of it generational (due to the probability of getting one of those nice factory jobs if mommy or daddy works/worked there).
The rest are service sector workers, who have to agree to salaried jobs often requiring over 60 hours per week, in order to see more than 40k per year. Hell, I even have a buddy who is a bio chemist, and he only makes 55k per year, lol. I work retail and out earn him by a country mile. Embarrassing, IMO.

I wonder whether CT is like D.C. (proper, not the metro area). D.C. proper has a middle class; it's just that the middle income workers/housholds in D.C. earn ~$100K to ~$300K per year. That they do makes them look as though they are near to or in the lower rungs of upper middle. The thing about that is that the upper middle class is still middle class.

ETA:
Frankly, it's not hard to come by jobs paying in that range in D.C., which gets to the point I argued in the OP series....

 

[KevinKohler]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm aware too that sometimes household wealth can be used, but because wealth is accumulated income rather than "current" income, it can be a somewhat misleading figure.

Be that as it may, I would use income, not wealth as the basis for qualifying one's economic class and wealth as a key factor in qualifying social class. I would because income is more reliably reported (as pay in firm's IRS filings and as information collected in individuals IRS filings), summarized and obtained. Wealth, on the other hand, is a function of net asset value. One can make a ton of money and be not-wealthy and vice versa.

Be that as it may, none of that is germane to the two propositions that are the thread discussion topic.

I disagree. Middle class is a life style.


Close your eyes and think, middle class family. What comes to mind? A bunch of numbers representing pay scales by state/city? Or, do you picture a family living a certain specific lifestyle?

For me it's the former. And the reason why pay can't really be used, has been discussed...but one more needs to be added. If 40k is the ticket to middle class, but you have to work 80 hours per week to get it...you don't have a middle class lifestyle. You have a crap standard of living.

 

[ttwtt78640]

They are related, but not that closely. Inheritance and personal debt play as much of a role in lifestyle as pay does...and location plays a larger role.

My wife has family who's parents GAVE them their first house, valued at the time at just over 400k. For that reason, and that reason alone, they have enjoyed a much higher standard of living over the last 20 years than me and my family, despite us being more highly educated, making more money, etc.

Gifts are income but may not be taxable. I agree with you that wealth and income are not synonymous and that location definitely affects median income (the basis most commonly used to define middle class). Obviously, if one only had to pay property taxes and insurance (paid no rent/mortgage) then they would require far less income to occupy/own a similar home.

In most cases, standard of living is absolutely tied to income for the vast majority of US households. I do agree with you that one's rent/mortgage plays a big role in their lifestyle - if our rent was not so low ($300/month) then we would not be able to afford many other luxuries which we now enjoy.

 

[KevinKohler]

I wonder whether CT is like D.C. (proper, not the metro area). D.C. proper has a middle class; it's just that the middle income workers/housholds in D.C. earn ~$100K to ~$300K per year. That they do makes them look as though they are near to or in the lower rungs of upper middle. The thing about that is that the upper middle class is still middle class.

80k is what you can make as an assembly line worker with zero specialized skills (other than being able to tolerate mind numbing monotony?) after doing it for 10 years or so.

I'm lower middle, like, bottom rung, and between the wife and I, we clear 150k after bonus. But that's because we shell out well over 800 per month in student loans. No student loans, and we'd be solidly middle class.

Her uncle is upper middle, he's a construction contractor, no idea what he makes, but his house is worth over 1 million, and he drives a Mercedes (new when he bought it). He might only make 80k per year, but he used his skills and his labor to constantly build onto his house and increase its value, which he then leveraged to buy rental properties.

This is why pay is not the best metric, lifestyle and quality of life is.

 

[Xelor]

I disagree. Middle class is a life style.


Close your eyes and think, middle class family. What comes to mind? A bunch of numbers representing pay scales by state/city? Or, do you picture a family living a certain specific lifestyle?

For me it's the former. And the reason why pay can't really be used, has been discussed...but one more needs to be added. If 40k is the ticket to middle class, but you have to work 80 hours per week to get it...you don't have a middle class lifestyle. You have a crap standard of living.

Come on....You know as well as anyone that whatever be the lifestyle one envisions as "middle class," a certain quantity of income is necessary to obtain it. That income (or range of it) is the best proxy for comparing/evaluating economics. (You did notice this is the economics subforum, right?)

Sure, one can qualitatively describe "middle class;" however, doing so isn't measurable and comparable enough across geographies and individuals to be of any value.

 

[Xelor]

80k is what you can make as an assembly line worker with zero specialized skills (other than being able to tolerate mind numbing monotony?) after doing it for 10 years or so.

I'm lower middle, like, bottom rung, and between the wife and I, we clear 150k after bonus. But that's because we shell out well over 800 per month in student loans. No student loans, and we'd be solidly middle class.

Her uncle is upper middle, he's a construction contractor, no idea what he makes, but his house is worth over 1 million, and he drives a Mercedes (new when he bought it). He might only make 80k per year, but he used his skills and his labor to constantly build onto his house and increase its value, which he then leveraged to buy rental properties.

This is why pay is not the best metric, lifestyle and quality of life is.

Red: Again. Addressed in the OP series.

Blue: Whatever part of the middle class one is -- lower, middle or upper -- it's all still middle class. The qualitative alternatives are impoverished and upper income. The reason there is a "middle" is because the most convenient "big picture" types of analysis work best with quintiles. It makes for a nice "bell" shape that easily evaluated and apportioned across large and small populations.

(Quantitative analysis all about statistics and standard deviations and the like. As you can see, quintiles fit quite nicely across standard deviation graphs.)

 

[Pedestrian]

Part XI of X (sorry...)

Notes continued from part X of X.

1. .
2. .
3. .
4. .
5. .
6. .
7. .
8. Morgan, of course, had his fingers in everything. He did because there was great opportunity to be had in everything and Morgan understood then what any prudent investor does: diversification is essential to not losing out too badly when the bottom fell out of any one thing. An interesting side note and line of inquiry is why and how it comes to be that while prudent people have long understood the value of diversity in finance, they didn't for ages perceive its value in the composition of a society.
   
   FWIW, Morgan came from a moneyed family, moneyed in two senses -- they were wealthy but in addition they were in the business of money. And Morgan understood at a very early age that money was what made everything else happen. Pierpont’s father, Junius Morgan, was a powerful London-based American banker who had introduced his son to his network of European investors, and taken pains to ready him for a life in finance. “I wish to impress upon you the necessity of preparation for responsibilities,” Junius told his only surviving son. “Be ready to assume & fulfill them whenever they shall be laid upon you.” Junius was a very exacting but also very attentive father, so he was very, very interested in Pierpont’s moral, intellectual health and development. J.P.'s father had groomed him for business, and Pierpont accepted his farther's guidance and took eagerly to charge of and least matching and, ideally, exceeding his father's accomplishments.
9. One must not forget that the rise of populism in America owed no small measure of its appeal to Karl Marx whose writings on the ills of capitalism had been published only shortly before the Civil War. At them time, and particularly for white Americans, none of capitalism's downsides pervaded the U.S. economy and by the time the foundations were laid for them to do so, the Civil War consumed everyone's focus, thereby delaying adoption of Marx's gripes by the likes of George, Lease and others.

Of all of JP Morgan's alleged expertise and mostly because he had the money to buy up competing NY banks, his greatest financial coup, was that 80% of
Morgan's 'success' was owned by the Rothchilds. This was not discovered until his death and probate of his estate.

The whole capitalist industrial regime of the time inevitably lead them to violently show their power. Just a few years after Rockefeller's hired 'state' national
guard to put down labor at a coal mine (Ludlow tent colony) that resulted in the national guard killing 62 men, women and children.

Carnegie blew his undeserved rep. with labor by hiring the Pinkertons to stop any unionizing who then shot down and killed strikers in 1903.

The above is how the capitalists thinks and as exemplified by only being two generations away from outright slavery.

Which is also the pedigree of 21st century capitalists whose only regret is, they...can't just kill them now.

 

[Xelor]

Of all of JP Morgan's alleged expertise and mostly because he had the money to buy up competing NY banks, his greatest financial coup, was that 80% of
Morgan's 'success' was owned by the Rothchilds. This was not discovered until his death and probate of his estate.

The whole capitalist industrial regime of the time inevitably lead them to violently show their power. Just a few years after Rockefeller's hired 'state' national
guard to put down labor at a coal mine (Ludlow tent colony) that resulted in the national guard killing 62 men, women and children.

Carnegie blew his undeserved rep. with labor by hiring the Pinkertons to stop any unionizing who then shot down and killed strikers in 1903.

The above is how the capitalists thinks and as exemplified by only being two generations away from outright slavery.

Which is also the pedigree of 21st century capitalists whose only regret is, they...can't just kill them now.

How are the above remarks -- interesting as they may or may not be -- relevant to either of the propositions that are the thread's topic?

 

[trblmkr]

Usually a multi page OP is nothing more than a rant. This took a while to go through and to digest. I would congratulate you on a very well prepared piece. (Is this, by chance, part of a college thesis?) It would be a good one.
I, at first, wanted to deny your black and white portrayal of the issue. That it has to be one or the other. But I realized my argument came down on the side of:
The lack of pay is not the real problem for the decline of themiddle class. The bolded is mine.
My argument is based upon all of outside forces that are applied to today's member of the middle class, and those who aspire to the middle class.
Your argument seems basically that those who can't or don't make it to the middle class, just do not see or take advantage of the opportunities that are there. I do agree with this. I remember reading something years ago that people who feel like they have been left behind go through three thought process. First, "what is happening to me"? Then, "how did this happen to me"? Followed by, "who did this to me?" The last is the one that sticks. And in many cases, what is true is that, you did it to your self. You didn't think ahead, you didn't plan. (See Coal Miners)
But now I think I part ways.
First. Prior to the 2008 mortgage crisis, the number one cause of bankruptcy was medically related. Which meant, no matter your income level, the cost of a catastophic health care issue could ruin you. Remove your income, remove your savings.
Maybe drastically affect all future earnings, your children's education, etc, etc. Life altering.

Second. The cost of secondary education has grown exponentially. College debt can hobble even high earners from entering the middle class until well into their thirties or later.

Third. Jobs are available around the country going unfilled. Not just because there is not a qualified applicant, but because that applicant in trapped in a lease 1,000 miles away. Can't sell his house at the moment. Or, Just doesn't have the money to move. Or the current job has a 401K and the better paying one does not.

So while I agree that pay scale is not the reason, I would argue that "life" plays a role that should not be ignored. Personally, I know. I thought that 10 years from retirement, I had it made. Then life happened. I think I can still retire at 66, but I wake up in the middle of the night worrying that just one more thing could ruin it all. Like a trade war that destroys my 401K.

 

[KevinKohler]

Red: Again. Addressed in the OP series.

Blue: Whatever part of the middle class one is -- lower, middle or upper -- it's all still middle class. The qualitative alternatives are impoverished and upper income. The reason there is a "middle" is because the most convenient "big picture" types of analysis work best with quintiles. It makes for a nice "bell" shape that easily evaluated and apportioned across large and small populations.

(Quantitative analysis all about statistics and standard deviations and the like. As you can see, quintiles fit quite nicely across standard deviation graphs.)

Ok, real simple, then, lol. Everyone making the median (45k?) is middle class.


But wait, that doesn't WORK!

 

[Xelor]

Ok, real simple, then, lol. Everyone making the median (45k?) is middle class.


But wait, that doesn't WORK!

You know, if you weren't so focused on who or what exactly makes one be middle class or not and instead focus on the substantive aspect -- middle class isn't poor and it isn't rich -- you'd be able to move on to deal with the contextual notions of one of the two propositions noted in post 1, one of which must existentially and necessarily be preponderantly true. Pick the one you feel you can argue best and present your argument for that proposition's preponderant verity.

 

[KevinKohler]

You know, if you weren't so focused on who or what exactly makes one be middle class or not and instead focus on the substantive aspect -- middle class isn't poor and it isn't rich -- you'd be able to move on to deal with the contextual notions of one of the two propositions noted in post 1, one of which must existentially and necessarily be preponderantly true. Pick the one you feel you can argue best and present your argument for that proposition's preponderant verity.

I already did. Pay isn't the issue, its merely a symptom.

But I do have to stress, when considering the plight of the middle class in this country, it behooves us to understand fully what it is we mean when we say middle class. Is it a pay range? Sorta, but not really. Is it a culture? It used to be, but now it spans many cultures. So what is it?

I contend it is a lifestyle and a measurable quality of life.

But that doesn't help this debate, because then the question must become, is pay the reason quality of life is declining for Americans who aren't rich?

 

[Xelor]

I already did. Pay isn't the issue, its merely a symptom.

But I do have to stress, when considering the plight of the middle class in this country, it behooves us to understand fully what it is we mean when we say middle class. Is it a pay range? Sorta, but not really. Is it a culture? It used to be, but now it spans many cultures. So what is it?

I contend it is a lifestyle and a measurable quality of life.

But that doesn't help this debate, because then the question must become, is pay the reason quality of life is declining for Americans who aren't rich?

Well, if think the answer you provided to the proposition you selected leads to that question, I'd say the question is one you should have addressed in your argument for the proposition you chose.

If you read my argument, you'll have observed that I say that pay isn't the problem, but the things that I identify as the problem are environmental, behavioral and cognitive.

 

[KevinKohler]

Well, if think the answer you provided to the proposition you selected leads to that question, I'd say the question is one you should have addressed in your argument for the proposition you chose.

If you read my argument, you'll have observed that I say that pay isn't the problem, but the things that I identify as the problem are environmental, behavioral and cognitive.

I didn't answer it yet, because it requires too long of an answer, and I'm currently on my iPad, which I loath typing on.

 

[Xelor]

I didn't answer it yet, because it requires too long of an answer, and I'm currently on my iPad, which I loath typing on.

Whenever you have time will be fine....I'm certainly not rushing anyone....