... I'll admit, I've never understood this obsession on the left, or the weird arguments it pushes you into. Please explain how you think rising incomes among the top 1% mean that rising incomes among the middle/upper middle class somehow, magically, didn't occur.
I'll admit, I've never understood the obsession on "the right" about manipulating data when the facts don't fit preconceived notions...
(Wanna stick to reality with me, or do you prefer name calling and stereotyping?)
The meager growth for everyone but the top quintile is the point. Wealth disparity is far more significant than income growth, anyway, but it'd be nice if you read and digested the citations before popping off.
growth, however, was not the same across the income distribution. For the lowest quintile and the middle three quintiles, it was 33 percent (or 0.8 percent per year), but for the highest quintile, it was 99 percent (or 1.9 percent per year). For the top 1 percent of the income distribution, it was 218 percent (or 3.2 percent per year). Because of those differences in growth rates, income inequality was greater in 2016 than it was in 1979 (see the interactive graphic below).
That disparity has grown far worse since. How is that happening?
The middle classes are getting squeezed particularly hard by the rising costs of education, health care and housing, the OECD writes. College fees are up, in the U.S. and elsewhere. Homes are much more expensive relative to incomes.
The short answer to the complicated question is that they are getting paid more but benefiting less. A .08 percent pay raise is all well and good except when expenses rise 2%. In the
real world, that means moving backwards.
There are really two faults in the "analysis" you provided. The first is that the data is deliberately skewed to obscure its "meaning/import". This is a classic methodology of AEI. They tend to lump "classes" together to paint a rosier picture, and change the framework to reach their conclusion. Finer granularity in detail would not support their generalizations. For example, using $35,000 as the bottom of "middle class" is ridiculously low, as is $100,000 as the "top". Note that they didn't use income quintiles or poverty figures in picking this arbitrary measure. Wonder why?
The second fault is that they only used general "inflation". Over such a short period (2016-2019) THAT is almost meaningless. Specific costs (e.g., health care, education, housing) are far more significant. Getting a $300 raise (or tax cut) is all well and good, except when health care costs go up $1000, housing goes up $100, and education remains unaffordable. Get the picture?
