1% Close to Surpassing Wealth of Entire Middle Class

[Iceman 2978]

2 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Sorry pal - I am 1% and I vote for your pocketbook way more than I do my own...

THIS is the issue.  The millions and millions who vote against their own financial interests bc the GOP uses some boogeyman to scare them into voting a certain way.  

Increased taxes are no boogeyman.

stoptrying tohelp my wallet, bro.  i’m good...

Edited November 11, 2019 by Iceman

[staboner 5084]

2 hours ago, Junior Miller said:

The end results of communism and unchecked capitalism are exactly the same.

We're seeing that play out now. 

If you don't find and work to keep middle ground it'll always get worse for the vast majority of the population. 

this is it, and always will be. arguing in ideologies is just hot air. 

hard part is here there is no way to short circuit the downfall of any ideology, government or system cuz people. people are the worst. 

sucks but thats the way it is. 

[ChiTownDoc 21345]

27 minutes ago, Iceman said:

Increased taxes are no boogeyman.

stoptrying tohelp my wallet, bro.  i’m good...

Not you Slorch - there's millions of Americans in the lowest bracket that are at little to no risk for increases...but imagine the scary Mexicans coming to take over their shitty jerbs!!!!!

Those are the people voting against their own best interests. 

[Iceman 2978]

15 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Not you Slorch - there's millions of Americans in the lowest bracket that are at little to no risk for increases...but imagine the scary Mexicans coming to take over their shitty jerbs!!!!!

Those are the people voting against their own best interests. 

Meh...elongating the rotten teat of government assistance ain’t the answer either.  I know you THINK you’re helping, but ya ain’t.

[Bama Chick 28596]

If you are not part of the 1% it’s because you didn’t pull yourself up by the bootstraps hard enough.

The greatest con the Republican Party ever pulled was convincing JoeBob, the night guard at Kroger, and Krystal, the nail technician with a GED that they have all the opportunity in the world to become wealthy through just sheer hard work.

That fantasy of possibility makes them vote for policies that don’t benefit their reality. They vote based on what their future could be. And when that future fantasy never materialize, they blame everyone but the politicians that sold them the snake oil and turn into angry “It’s the deep state, burn it all down, ‘economic anxiety’ voters.

And as income, wealth, and opportunity gaps grow larger more of them are created.

It’s an unsustainable situation.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5905]

Damn. Well, if you don't want to read the thread, it's essentially Hpslugga doing this to seed man... 

[F250 29199]

4 hours ago, hpslugga said:

It’s only been attempted on small scales, a la the Israeli kibbutzim and Catalan in Spain during the 1930’s, neither of which were in any remote fashion whored by some dictator who only used those same buzzwords for his own selfish political ambitions.
 

Catalan fell because it was invaded by a fascist with an army of foreign mercenaries, and the kibbutzim is arguably still alive, though crippled due to economic destabilizations that could be blamed both on them and the State of Israel back in the mid 1990’s. 

Your use of the buzzwords is curious because it seems to indicate that you’re just another American that thinks socialism/communism is an economic practice that was concocted by Karl Marx in the 19th century and was carried through as a political reality via Vladimir Lenin, which couldn’t be more wrong even if it was phrased as “Karl Marx, the black lesbian nun, had a secret affair with Lenin while Trotsky filmed and Engels fluffed.”

That you use such confident-sounding verbiage just exposes you as yet another sufferer of the Dunning Kruger effect.

It's been years since I read up on the subject but as I recall, Catalonia's fall was a result of interference by communist forces loyal to Stalin as well as Stalin sabotaging the Leninist communist and anarchist factions on the Republican side throughout the civil war. Without the support of the Anglo capitalist nations or the Soviet Union the Republican alliance was never going to hold off the fascists and due to their proclivities towards socialism they had to turn to Moscow but Stalin had already rejected internationalism at that point in time. Basically that experiment was doomed due to the bigger geopolitical movements occurring in Europe and the Republican forces lacking the military strength to provide an adequate defense for themselves. 

 

[SaucyJack 3519]

3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

And you haven't showed me where it worked.

[Neonmoon 38130]

I find it hilarious that Jaime Dimon and Leon Cooperman bought interviews on CNN to say they’re not the bad guy. And that Warrens wealth tax is crazy. You know her ides might actually make a difference when the billionaires are starting to whine on air about them

[WBT 20972]

6 hours ago, Blotto said:

Hell, I'm not even a democrat, I disagree with about 50% of their platform. But here's the deal.... for me, income inequality is the single biggest issue facing this country today. A lot of the other flashpoint issues (health care, education, even racism/classism, etc....) all stem from the fact that it's getting harder and harder for people to get by, let alone prosper and they are fucking pissed off.

The US is the wealthiest country in the world, if we cant make it work shame on us. Yet starting with the Reagan tax cuts and their trickle down economic bullshit, there's a very small subset of this country that gets better off every year. The GOP party relentlessly pushes legislation that worsens this situation. Yet Bubba Shit-for-Brains in SEC country keeps voting for them cause....muh guns. The 1% laugh at these fucking rubes and how easy it is to hoodwink  these morons. 

So yeah, I will hold my nose and vote democrat, because for all their faults, they at least recognize what's happening to the 99% and the risks of continuing to ignore them. It's the GOP that started this downward slide and they are only continuing to exacerbate it. If you really believe this ends badly for the US, how the fuck do you keep voting GOP? Maybe it's not a big deal for you, and you are more concerned with building a wall, 'bortions, guns, etc... but for me it is THE issue. So fuck the GOP.

Wanna guess what year the Reagan tax cuts started?

So what happened between 1985 and 1994?  What caused the inflection point in 1994 and the slope between 1994 and 2000 to be steeper than between 1981 and 1986?  The 1.5 years at the beginning of the graph is also hardly long enough to declare a stable trend before 1981.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11860]

17 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I find it hilarious that Jaime Dimon and Leon Cooperman bought interviews on CNN to say they’re not the bad guy. And that Warrens wealth tax is crazy. You know her ides might actually make a difference when the billionaires are starting to whine on air about them

Yeah, like that one lady said, if they’re so worried about their finances they should get a second job or just work harder.  

[gsoda3 3362]

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Nope, but I have a shitload more than I need or makes any god damned sense relative to what I actually provide the world.

ah so you're not in education.

[workswithseed 2204]

43 minutes ago, SaucyJack said:

That means communism? 

[workswithseed 2204]

4 hours ago, hpslugga said:

Except I did. I gave examples of where it was tried. You interpret their current status as being “failed,” but “failed” in that context means that it was destroyed internally. If external factors contribute to its demise, that’s not a failure. For example, it’s hardly a “failure” of libertarian socialism when a ruthless thug bludgeons the entire area with a foreign army of mercenaries as Franco did with his merry band of Northern Africans in the late 1930’s. 

Beyond that, you’re showing your ass with these piss ant exhibitions of mental gymnastics. You first argued that, as B_T put it, “What we really need is a worldwide dictatorship of the proletariat and a dissolution of nations” had been tried. You were wrong because such a dictatorship has never existed. Lenin was by no means a proletarian. He was the kind of union buster and statist that Ronald Reagan couldn’t have been even in his wettest fucking dreams, as were Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc.And after I explain that to you, you shift the discussion from “Marxism tried to take over the world” very seamlessly to “socialism has never succeeded” as if the two were even remotely the same topic.

Either way, to be a communist/socialist, it takes more than merely proclaiming yourself to be one. The same is true of capitalism, Christianity, Islam, having a big dick, being smart, etc.

I mean, sure that's why the USSR and Communist China, and North Korea put in policies to take away property rights, and everyone was equal, except some people were more equal. You can claim those are "true" communism, but the other communist weren't is weak. It's been said a million times. Why can't you admit that big government will never give power back to the people? 

[hpslugga 4097]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I mean, sure that's why the USSR and Communist China, and North Korea put in policies to take away property rights, and everyone was equal, except some people were more equal. You can claim those are "true" communism, but the other communist weren't is weak. It's been said a million times. Why can't you admit that big government will never give power back to the people? 

You post a video about straw men and then come at me with this indefensible nonsense? 
 

I don’t support big government, and I never have. That’s just you jacking off again.

As to the idea that “everyone was equal” in those societies, that’s just a bad joke and there’s not a shred of evidence to support your claim. You are a liar. 

[hpslugga 4097]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

It's been years since I read up on the subject but as I recall, Catalonia's fall was a result of interference by communist forces loyal to Stalin as well as Stalin sabotaging the Leninist communist and anarchist factions on the Republican side throughout the civil war. Without the support of the Anglo capitalist nations or the Soviet Union the Republican alliance was never going to hold off the fascists and due to their proclivities towards socialism they had to turn to Moscow but Stalin had already rejected internationalism at that point in time. Basically that experiment was doomed due to the bigger geopolitical movements occurring in Europe and the Republican forces lacking the military strength to provide an adequate defense for themselves. 

 

I don’t necessarily agree with the former, but the latter is correct. That was never meant to be a large scale thing and it just happened at the wrong point in history 

[workswithseed 2204]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

You post a video about straw men and then come at me with this indefensible nonsense? 
 

I don’t support big government, and I never have. That’s just you jacking off again.

As to the idea that “everyone was equal” in those societies, that’s just a bad joke and there’s not a shred of evidence to support your claim. You are a liar. 

Yeah, Cause it's funny.

I mean ever since you told me what your picture meant, I figured. I never said you liked it, but I did say that it would never give up power.

Yeah, everyone was equally poor. Why are you defending non-communist?

[Brisketexan 106886]

THIS is the issue.  The millions and millions who vote against their own financial interests bc the GOP uses some boogeyman to scare them into voting a certain way.  

Yep. I’m not at your level, but I’ve done quite alright. And I definitely vote against my narrow near-term economic interests. Of course, I have a larger interest in a functioning society, so...yeah.

We’re all in this together, and we really, really need to figure that out. But...

this is it, and always will be. arguing in ideologies is just hot air. 
hard part is here there is no way to short circuit the downfall of any ideology, government or system cuz people. people are the worst. 
sucks but thats the way it is. 

This.

We’re going to consume our seed stock, and we’ll suffer exactly the effects you’d expect. And I’m convinced there’s no stopping it. We’re dead set on destroying this thing we’ve built, and we’re getting really good at it.

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

The real crime here is some billionaires might pay a little more in taxes:

 

[babysdaddy 2731]

Can you post that story?  No subscription.  It looks like hospitals are getting more aggressive on collections.  Consumers may have figured out that unpaid medical bills no longer affect their credit score therefore no incentive to pay.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

11 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Can you post that story?  No subscription.  It looks like hospitals are getting more aggressive on collections.  Consumers may have figured out that unpaid medical bills no longer affect their credit score therefore no incentive to pay.

I'm going to guess that private equity, which now owns a lot of hospitals (because they are immensely profitable) has fewer compunctions about aggressively collecting than "native" health care entities.

[horn4life 3838]

Well the GOP has been working as hard as humanly possible for this outcome for a very, very long time.  Both legislatively and esecially judicially.  Like the decision that corporations had the same rights as human beings when it came to spending money politically.  So unlimited Dollars by people so wealthy it makes sense to spend $100 million, because the math is simply, you make it back very quickly with the poroper legislation.

Don't ever again pretend that GOP economic, fiscal, or legislative policy has anything to do other than making the wealthy wealthier and nothing else. 

The wealthy have gotten their money's worth from the GOP!  The country?  Not so much.

 

 

 

 

[hpslugga 4097]

7 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Well the GOP has been working as hard as humanly possible for this outcome for a very, very long time.  Both legislatively and esecially judicially.  Like the decision that corporations had the same rights as human beings when it came to spending money politically.  So unlimited Dollars by people so wealthy it makes sense to spend $100 million, because the math is simply, you make it back very quickly with the poroper legislation.

Don't ever again pretend that GOP economic, fiscal, or legislative policy has anything to do other than making the wealthy wealthier and nothing else. 

The wealthy have gotten their money's worth from the GOP!  The country?  Not so much.

 

 

 

 

That's the problem: to them, there's no difference. To them, the corporations are the country and the country is the corporations. Why else do they so easily, in their own minds at least, get away with saying shit like "Reagan cut EVERYONE's taxes!!!"

[CooterBrown 18288]

For lack of a better thread to put this, this is an interesting article simply explaining why the middle class is broke as fuck.

 

This chart is the best explanation of middle-class finances you will ever see

 

 

 

Christopher Ingraham

 

Can't understand why people feel financially stressed in a booming economy? Check this chart out.

Economists and financial experts have been telling us for years how great things are for U.S. workers and consumers. The stuff we buy is dirt cheap, and living standards are higher than ever. Wages are keeping pace with inflation. Inequality probably isn’t as bad as you’ve been led to believe. The stock market is booming!

So why, then, do so many of us feel like we can barely make ends meet?

A new report published by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, offers a clear explanation for the disconnect between the economy described by economists and the one experienced by regular people. It all boils down to the startling shift illustrated in the chart below.

Lead author Oren Cass distills it as follows: “In 1985, the typical male worker could cover a family of four’s major expenditures (housing, health care, transportation, education) on 30 weeks of salary,” he wrote on Twitter last week. “By 2018 it took 53 weeks. Which is a problem, there being 52 weeks in a year.”

Cass calls this calculation the Cost-of-Thriving Index. It measures the median male annual salary against four major household expenditures:

• Housing, defined as the annual rent for a three-bedroom house in the 40th percentile of the local housing market.
• Health care, defined as the annual premium on a typical family health insurance policy.
• Transportation, defined as the average cost of owning and operating a car driven 15,000 miles per year.
• Education, defined as the average cost of tuition, fees, and room and board at a four-year public college.

In 1985, the typical male breadwinner could cover those costs and still have 22 weeks of pay left for everything else a family wants and needs, such as food, clothing, entertainment and savings. Today, the typical salary doesn’t even cover the four basics.

It’s worth noting that Cass constructed his index around male earnings because men historically were more likely to be sole breadwinners. Plus, polls show that Americans still view men as the primary provider within a family, even though that’s increasingly no longer the case

Cass also ran the numbers for female earners, whose median wage is about 80 percent that of men. In 1985, the typical woman needed to work 45 weeks to cover the four big annual expenses; today she needs 66 weeks. That means it was easier for a female breadwinner to provide for her family in 1985 than it is for a lone male earner today.

On the cost side, the decisions are more straightforward. Cass notably bases education costs on one semester of public college. That’s because putting two kids through college would require socking away nearly a semester’s worth every year for each year of their childhood.

As for health care, even those with employer-sponsored insurance have been steadily contributing more toward their coverage. The share of the non-elderly with employer-sponsored insurance is actually falling, meaning many families are having to purchase health care plans on their own.

Additionally, the cost of health care is a major concern for many families when a parent switches jobs or is laid off for an extended period.

“A generation ago,” Cass writes, the typical male worker “could be confident in his ability to provide for his family not only the basics of food, clothing, and shelter but also the middle-class essentials of a comfortable house, a car, health care, and education. Now he cannot.”

Families, of course, have had to adapt to conform to these new realities. Families have become reliant on government for health care. People find ways to skimp on medical care. Some are taking on more debt to pay for housing.

But Cass contends that every adjustment represents an economic challenge. If both parents are working, who is supervising the kids after school? What happens if a family is maxed out on their mortgage, then one spouse loses a job? How long can you avoid the doctor before chronic health conditions catch up with you?

It’s these realities, Cass writes, that are most salient for the middle-class families who tell pollsters they live paycheck to paycheck and worry that their kids’ standard of living will be lower than theirs. Traditional economists might look at the plummeting price of flat-screen TVs as a sign that standards of living are increasing. But how useful is a cheap TV when you can’t afford your insulin?

In recent years, long-held orthodoxies about economics have been challenged by a new generation of liberal economists who see the free-market embrace of staggering economic inequality as a threat to everyone’s well-being. Similarly, Cass’s work pushes back against those same orthodoxies — but this time, from the right.

His concern about what he calls “market fundamentalism” derives from the way those markets are failing American families.

“You can have a rising GDP,” he told The Washington Post’s James Hohmann last week, “but if it’s in the context of collapsing families and people no longer getting married and declining fertility rates and so on and so forth, you haven’t necessarily enhanced well-being.”

[ChiTownDoc 21345]

On 11/12/2019 at 12:08 PM, babysdaddy said:

Can you post that story?  No subscription.  It looks like hospitals are getting more aggressive on collections.  Consumers may have figured out that unpaid medical bills no longer affect their credit score therefore no incentive to pay.

Hospitals maybe partnering w PE.  For example blackstone and PE bought a lot of physician groups and balance bill etc.  

That was in our clause. No balance billing.  And we get full autonomy on what we bill.  

[Goredho 17650]

7 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

For lack of a better thread to put this, this is an interesting article simply explaining why the middle class is broke as fuck.

 

This chart is the best explanation of middle-class finances you will ever see

 

 

 

Christopher Ingraham

 

Can't understand why people feel financially stressed in a booming economy? Check this chart out.

Economists and financial experts have been telling us for years how great things are for U.S. workers and consumers. The stuff we buy is dirt cheap, and living standards are higher than ever. Wages are keeping pace with inflation. Inequality probably isn’t as bad as you’ve been led to believe. The stock market is booming!

So why, then, do so many of us feel like we can barely make ends meet?

A new report published by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, offers a clear explanation for the disconnect between the economy described by economists and the one experienced by regular people. It all boils down to the startling shift illustrated in the chart below.

Lead author Oren Cass distills it as follows: “In 1985, the typical male worker could cover a family of four’s major expenditures (housing, health care, transportation, education) on 30 weeks of salary,” he wrote on Twitter last week. “By 2018 it took 53 weeks. Which is a problem, there being 52 weeks in a year.”

Cass calls this calculation the Cost-of-Thriving Index. It measures the median male annual salary against four major household expenditures:

• Housing, defined as the annual rent for a three-bedroom house in the 40th percentile of the local housing market.
• Health care, defined as the annual premium on a typical family health insurance policy.
• Transportation, defined as the average cost of owning and operating a car driven 15,000 miles per year.
• Education, defined as the average cost of tuition, fees, and room and board at a four-year public college.

In 1985, the typical male breadwinner could cover those costs and still have 22 weeks of pay left for everything else a family wants and needs, such as food, clothing, entertainment and savings. Today, the typical salary doesn’t even cover the four basics.

It’s worth noting that Cass constructed his index around male earnings because men historically were more likely to be sole breadwinners. Plus, polls show that Americans still view men as the primary provider within a family, even though that’s increasingly no longer the case

Cass also ran the numbers for female earners, whose median wage is about 80 percent that of men. In 1985, the typical woman needed to work 45 weeks to cover the four big annual expenses; today she needs 66 weeks. That means it was easier for a female breadwinner to provide for her family in 1985 than it is for a lone male earner today.

On the cost side, the decisions are more straightforward. Cass notably bases education costs on one semester of public college. That’s because putting two kids through college would require socking away nearly a semester’s worth every year for each year of their childhood.

As for health care, even those with employer-sponsored insurance have been steadily contributing more toward their coverage. The share of the non-elderly with employer-sponsored insurance is actually falling, meaning many families are having to purchase health care plans on their own.

Additionally, the cost of health care is a major concern for many families when a parent switches jobs or is laid off for an extended period.

“A generation ago,” Cass writes, the typical male worker “could be confident in his ability to provide for his family not only the basics of food, clothing, and shelter but also the middle-class essentials of a comfortable house, a car, health care, and education. Now he cannot.”

Families, of course, have had to adapt to conform to these new realities. Families have become reliant on government for health care. People find ways to skimp on medical care. Some are taking on more debt to pay for housing.

But Cass contends that every adjustment represents an economic challenge. If both parents are working, who is supervising the kids after school? What happens if a family is maxed out on their mortgage, then one spouse loses a job? How long can you avoid the doctor before chronic health conditions catch up with you?

It’s these realities, Cass writes, that are most salient for the middle-class families who tell pollsters they live paycheck to paycheck and worry that their kids’ standard of living will be lower than theirs. Traditional economists might look at the plummeting price of flat-screen TVs as a sign that standards of living are increasing. But how useful is a cheap TV when you can’t afford your insulin?

In recent years, long-held orthodoxies about economics have been challenged by a new generation of liberal economists who see the free-market embrace of staggering economic inequality as a threat to everyone’s well-being. Similarly, Cass’s work pushes back against those same orthodoxies — but this time, from the right.

His concern about what he calls “market fundamentalism” derives from the way those markets are failing American families.

“You can have a rising GDP,” he told The Washington Post’s James Hohmann last week, “but if it’s in the context of collapsing families and people no longer getting married and declining fertility rates and so on and so forth, you haven’t necessarily enhanced well-being.”

Which is why "white male privilege" pisses off so many people who are white, male and broke as a fucking joke.  If you are working your ass off and falling further behind, no one should see you as "privileged".  That's the context of out-of-touch condescension that allows someone like Trump to rise up and take control.

We are increasingly becoming a country of haves and have nots and the haves have done a masterful job of turning the have nots against each other.

[Biff Tannen 46163]

8 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Which is why "white male privilege" pisses off so many people who are white, male and broke as a fucking joke.  If you are working your ass off and falling further behind, no one should see you as "privileged".  That's the context of out-of-touch condescension that allows someone like Trump to rise up and take control.

We are increasingly becoming a country of haves and have nots and the haves have done a masterful job of turning the have nots against each other.

Also this.

[Goredho 17650]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Also this.

Absolutely correct.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

18 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Which is why "white male privilege" pisses off so many people who are white, male and broke as a fucking joke.  If you are working your ass off and falling further behind, no one should see you as "privileged".  That's the context of out-of-touch condescension that allows someone like Trump to rise up and take control.

We are increasingly becoming a country of haves and have nots and the haves have done a masterful job of turning the have nots against each other.

Great post.

The privilege still exists, but it's not exactly like most of white maledom is really wielding it like a cutlass.  It's something that everyone, including white males, should be aware of and conscious of, but not made to feel guilty about it.

Obama and others had points and were not wrong-wrong with the guns and religion, etc., but politically it lit a fuse that led almost directly to Trump.  Neither party has had anything to say to lower middle workers for 20 years or more.

Edited February 25, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 46163]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Great post.

The privilege still exists, but it's not exactly like most of white maledom is really wielding it like a cutlass.  It's something that everyone, including white males, should be aware of and conscious of, but not made to feel guilty about it.

For sure, and to be clear, that privilege doesn't boil down to just how much money you make, but the opportunities you have been afforded.  I had a close brush with the law when I was 17.  Had I not been in the position I was, there's a good chance it could have affected my entire life going forward.  As it was, I paid $400 and did 40 hours of community service.

I'm very aware of certain situations that might have been different had I not been a white male.  That said, I also don't feel guilty for it.  I feel that it's shitty that others aren't afforded the same benefit of the doubt and would like to think the awareness of said privilege is a step toward making it more fair for everyone.

If that made any sense.

[DixonHur 11959]

32 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

For lack of a better thread to put this, this is an interesting article simply explaining why the middle class is broke as fuck.

 

This chart is the best explanation of middle-class finances you will ever see

 

 

 

Christopher Ingraham

 

Can't understand why people feel financially stressed in a booming economy? Check this chart out.

Economists and financial experts have been telling us for years how great things are for U.S. workers and consumers. The stuff we buy is dirt cheap, and living standards are higher than ever. Wages are keeping pace with inflation. Inequality probably isn’t as bad as you’ve been led to believe. The stock market is booming!

So why, then, do so many of us feel like we can barely make ends meet?

A new report published by the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, offers a clear explanation for the disconnect between the economy described by economists and the one experienced by regular people. It all boils down to the startling shift illustrated in the chart below.

Lead author Oren Cass distills it as follows: “In 1985, the typical male worker could cover a family of four’s major expenditures (housing, health care, transportation, education) on 30 weeks of salary,” he wrote on Twitter last week. “By 2018 it took 53 weeks. Which is a problem, there being 52 weeks in a year.”

Cass calls this calculation the Cost-of-Thriving Index. It measures the median male annual salary against four major household expenditures:

• Housing, defined as the annual rent for a three-bedroom house in the 40th percentile of the local housing market.
• Health care, defined as the annual premium on a typical family health insurance policy.
• Transportation, defined as the average cost of owning and operating a car driven 15,000 miles per year.
• Education, defined as the average cost of tuition, fees, and room and board at a four-year public college.

In 1985, the typical male breadwinner could cover those costs and still have 22 weeks of pay left for everything else a family wants and needs, such as food, clothing, entertainment and savings. Today, the typical salary doesn’t even cover the four basics.

It’s worth noting that Cass constructed his index around male earnings because men historically were more likely to be sole breadwinners. Plus, polls show that Americans still view men as the primary provider within a family, even though that’s increasingly no longer the case

Cass also ran the numbers for female earners, whose median wage is about 80 percent that of men. In 1985, the typical woman needed to work 45 weeks to cover the four big annual expenses; today she needs 66 weeks. That means it was easier for a female breadwinner to provide for her family in 1985 than it is for a lone male earner today.

On the cost side, the decisions are more straightforward. Cass notably bases education costs on one semester of public college. That’s because putting two kids through college would require socking away nearly a semester’s worth every year for each year of their childhood.

As for health care, even those with employer-sponsored insurance have been steadily contributing more toward their coverage. The share of the non-elderly with employer-sponsored insurance is actually falling, meaning many families are having to purchase health care plans on their own.

Additionally, the cost of health care is a major concern for many families when a parent switches jobs or is laid off for an extended period.

“A generation ago,” Cass writes, the typical male worker “could be confident in his ability to provide for his family not only the basics of food, clothing, and shelter but also the middle-class essentials of a comfortable house, a car, health care, and education. Now he cannot.”

Families, of course, have had to adapt to conform to these new realities. Families have become reliant on government for health care. People find ways to skimp on medical care. Some are taking on more debt to pay for housing.

But Cass contends that every adjustment represents an economic challenge. If both parents are working, who is supervising the kids after school? What happens if a family is maxed out on their mortgage, then one spouse loses a job? How long can you avoid the doctor before chronic health conditions catch up with you?

It’s these realities, Cass writes, that are most salient for the middle-class families who tell pollsters they live paycheck to paycheck and worry that their kids’ standard of living will be lower than theirs. Traditional economists might look at the plummeting price of flat-screen TVs as a sign that standards of living are increasing. But how useful is a cheap TV when you can’t afford your insulin?

In recent years, long-held orthodoxies about economics have been challenged by a new generation of liberal economists who see the free-market embrace of staggering economic inequality as a threat to everyone’s well-being. Similarly, Cass’s work pushes back against those same orthodoxies — but this time, from the right.

His concern about what he calls “market fundamentalism” derives from the way those markets are failing American families.

“You can have a rising GDP,” he told The Washington Post’s James Hohmann last week, “but if it’s in the context of collapsing families and people no longer getting married and declining fertility rates and so on and so forth, you haven’t necessarily enhanced well-being.”

It's not just the middle-class, America is broke as shit.  The question is can it be fixed?  Or should we just let it burn to the ground and start over.

America is currently ranked 88th out of 135 countries for achieving the "American Dream"...and of the 47 countries worse than the US, only 3 are developed economies.  Think about that a moment.  The US is now the 4th worst developed nation for achieving the American Dream.  

Spoiler

31 countries where the 'American Dream' is more attainable than in the US

Andy Kiersz

 

Aug 18, 2019, 8:49 PM

One of the core elements of the American Dream is the idea that anyone can make it to the top, regardless of where one starts out in life.

But, according to a 2018 report on intergenerational educational and economic mobility from the World Bank, that dream is more realistic in most other high-income countries than in the US.

The report and its associated Global Database on Intergenerational Mobility include several metrics of how the economic and educational opportunities of children are related to the situations of their parents.

One of the World Bank's measures is the share of children born to parents in the bottom half of the educational attainment in a country that end up in the top quarter of that distribution as adults — that is, how likely it is that someone born into a family with a more modest background can grow up to have similar educational opportunities to his or her peers with more affluent parents.

The US does not fare particularly well on this metric: 12.5% of children born in the 1980s to parents in the bottom half of the educational attainment distribution ended up in the top quarter. 88 of the 135 countries for which the World Bank estimated this figure had a higher share, and all but three of the 35 countries the World Bank identified as high-income, developed economies had a higher share.

Here are the 31 high-income countries in the World Bank's database where a higher share of children born into the bottom half ended up in the top quarter, ranked from lowest to highest on that measure:

 

31. Ireland: 12.9% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

30. Italy: 13.0% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

29. Hungary: 13.3% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

28. Latvia: 13.3% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

27. Croatia: 13.9% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

26. France: 14.9% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

25. Switzerland: 14.9% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

24. Spain: 15.0% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

23. Poland: 15.0% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

22. Austria: 15.1% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

21. Belgium: 15.3% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

20. Finland: 15.6% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

19. Lithuania: 15.7% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

18. Slovak Republic: 15.7% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

17. Norway: 15.9% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

16. Australia: 16.1% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

15. Portugal: 16.3% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

14. Canada: 16.3% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

13. Taiwan: 16.3% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

12. Czech Republic: 16.7% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

11. Israel: 16.8% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

10. South Korea: 17.0% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

9. Netherlands: 17.1% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

8. Germany: 17.1% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

7. Estonia: 17.6% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

6. Japan: 18.1% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

5. Sweden: 18.5% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

4. United Kingdom: 18.6% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

3. Slovenia: 19.2% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

2. Denmark: 21.1% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

1. Cyprus: 22.8% of children with parents in the bottom half ended up in the top quarter.

 

[workswithseed 2204]

What the fuck is that formatting, cooter?

[ChiTownDoc 21345]

On 11/12/2019 at 12:21 PM, TwiceHorn said:

I'm going to guess that private equity, which now owns a lot of hospitals (because they are immensely profitable) has fewer compunctions about aggressively collecting than "native" health care entities.

Missed this.  Yes. 

[Brisketexan 106886]

Fantastic post by Cooter....and utterly depressing.  Because Twice is also correct in that the two major parties haven't had much to offer the lower middle class for several decades.  And even more depressing when the loudest message to that demographic has been Trumpism: blame the weakest (to divert attention from the real systemic problems at the top), xenophobia, and lies (dude...NOBODY is bringing back coal, stop lying to those poor fuckers in W. Va.).  It's certainly why Bernie is an attractive alternative -- he's speaking very loudly to the problems of the lower middle class (what we used to call the working class).

My response to every right winger who hollers about "YOU WANT SOCIALISM!" is "nope....I just want us to be where we were economically (on an individualized basis) in 1988 or so -- however we can get there is great, but I don't see you putting forth any fucking ideas on how to do that."

I support pathways to making college, housing, and healthcare cost the same percentage of family income that they did 30 years ago.  That's it, it's not radical, it's common sense.  And we continue to ignore it at our peril.  "The stock market is doing great!  Look at your 401k!  Don't you love your tax cut?!?!?" -- all bullshit to everyone on that graph above.  Almost every metric of "the economy is great!" favors the top 5% -- and at best they're neutral to the remainder of the population, but in many cases, they are at the EXPENSE of the other 95% (newsflash -- e.g, all the great "tax cuts" that resulted in slashing state support of universities helped lead to skyrocketing tuition that Joe 95% has to pay).

I have zero optimism that anyone will -- or will be able to -- address this issue meaningfully.  It's only going to get worse.  A lot worse.  We're going to create a nation of two classes: the wealthy, and debt slaves.  We're well on our way to that.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

Your second paragraph is spot on for me.

And my corollary to it is, I still believe in capitalism, but the flavor we've had for a good long while is a nasty one and it needs to change.  There's no pure capitalism and there will be no pure socialism here.  

[Goredho 17650]

54 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Great post.

The privilege still exists, but it's not exactly like most of white maledom is really wielding it like a cutlass.  It's something that everyone, including white males, should be aware of and conscious of, but not made to feel guilty about it.

Obama and others had points and were not wrong-wrong with the guns and religion, etc., but politically it lit a fuse that led almost directly to Trump.  Neither party has had anything to say to lower middle workers for 20 years or more.

I agree with you and @Biff Tannen both.  It is not a level playing field within the working class, but by far the rigging of the game is for the economic elite.  Shaniqua in Detroit and Cletus in Odessa have much more in common with each other than they do with Donald Trump or Mike Bloomberg.  Their's are the same struggle.

The inequality that exists between the groups that make up the working class will never be fixed by attacking each other.  That inequality is crafted and tenderly cared for by the 1%.  And until Shaniqua and Cletus unite against the Trumps and Bloomberg's to claim their right to a decent life for themselves and their families, they will both be in dire straits and susceptible to manipulation.

That's why I'm realllllly close to going full Berntard.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Goredho

[ChiTownDoc 21345]

We are a relatively young country.  The UK is a great example of how a country grows dumber and lazier over time.  We fucked.  

[Brisketexan 106886]

We are a relatively young country.  The UK is a great example of how a country grows dumber and lazier over time.  We fucked.  

You get it. We have the most vocal and active part of our working class....having joined a cult that uses xenophobia and lies to hide the fact that the cult is governing for the exclusive benefit of the 1%. And the U.K. has been doing so for some time as well.
Populism sounds cool, until you realize that it’s almost always stupid and manipulated populism.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

11 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

We are a relatively young country.  The UK is a great example of how a country grows dumber and lazier over time.  We fucked.  

Maybe we're just the tail of the comet on this whole western civilization thing.

You think about it, it started in Italy/Central Europe and moved gradually westward, progressively leaving countries more or less in shambles.

Edited February 25, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[DixonHur 11959]

30 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

We are a relatively young country.  The UK is a great example of how a country grows dumber and lazier over time.  We fucked.  

Are we?  I guess it depends on how you define a country's age...we have the oldest active constitution in the world.

[Goredho 17650]

To complete the comparison of Shaniqua and Cletus:

• Are living paycheck to paycheck
• If in a marriage, both parents are working
• Are having their children educated by a decaying and underfunded public system
• Have little to no savings
• Have little to no equity in their home
• Cannot afford to educate their children past high-school without crippling debt
• Would be wiped out by a job or health emergency
• The family breaking out of this caste often requires some generation to literally or metaphorically hit the lottery (good enough to play pro sports, etc...)

Compare that to Trump & Bloomberg:

• Are free from financial want and worry
• No one in the marriage is really working anymore
• Children are educated by the finest private and preparatory schools
• Have inexhaustible wealth
• Own multiple properties outright and never have to worry about the roof over their heads
• Children go on to well-regarded universities and emerge with no student loan indentured servitude
• Have the resources to withstand any emergency
• Wealth is passed from generation to generation, perpetuating the elite status of the family unless there is some gross mismanagement involved (even a Trump was able to avoid this)

Shaniqua is not Cletus' enemy, and vice versa.  They are in the exact same leaky life-raft in the middle of the ocean trying to paddle to shore with a popsicle stick.  All while the Trump's and Bloomberg's are busy erecting barriers at the shoreline while yelling "Shaniqua!  Look at Cletus popsicle stick!  Its bigger than yours!" and "Cletus!  Shaniqua wants your popsicle stick and will kill you to take it!"

Edited February 25, 2020 by Goredho

[Brisketexan 106886]

....and telling cletus and shaniqua that the REAL problem that’s causing their lives to suck is the other person in the raft.

[Goredho 17650]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

....and telling cletus and shaniqua that the REAL problem that’s causing their lives to suck is the other person in the raft.

You slipped that in as I was editing to add the last sentence, but exactafuckingmundo.

[formermav43 4628]

30 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Are we?  I guess it depends on how you define a country's age...we have the oldest active constitution in the world.

And that depends on how you define a constitution.

[bonnieblue 542]

1 hour ago, Goredho said:

To complete the comparison of Shaniqua and Cletus:

• Are living paycheck to paycheck
• If in a marriage, both parents are working
• Are having their children educated by a decaying and underfunded public system
• Have little to no savings
• Have little to no equity in their home
• Cannot afford to educate their children past high-school without crippling debt
• Would be wiped out by a job or health emergency
• The family breaking out of this caste often requires some generation to literally or metaphorically hit the lottery (good enough to play pro sports, etc...)

Compare that to Trump & Bloomberg:

• Are free from financial want and worry
• No one in the marriage is really working anymore
• Children are educated by the finest private and preparatory schools
• Have inexhaustible wealth
• Own multiple properties outright and never have to worry about the roof over their heads
• Children go on to well-regarded universities and emerge with no student loan indentured servitude
• Have the resources to withstand any emergency
• Wealth is passed from generation to generation, perpetuating the elite status of the family unless there is some gross mismanagement involved (even a Trump was able to avoid this)

Shaniqua is not Cletus' enemy, and vice versa.  They are in the exact same leaky life-raft in the middle of the ocean trying to paddle to shore with a popsicle stick.  All while the Trump's and Bloomberg's are busy erecting barriers at the shoreline while yelling "Shaniqua!  Look at Cletus popsicle stick!  Its bigger than yours!" and "Cletus!  Shaniqua wants your popsicle stick and will kill you to take it!"

I think the really interesting part is when Brett and Lauren start to realize their lives are closer to S and C than Trump/Bloomberg as well:

• Are living paycheck to paycheck - it's a bigger paycheck and there may be some savings, but they also have bigger bills, the mortgage, student loans etc.
• If in a marriage, both parents are working
• Are having their children educated by a decaying and underfunded public system - or paying too much of that above paycheck to get them into a private school/ or higher mortgage for the better public
• Have little to no savings - they have some, but again, bigger bills
• Have little to no equity in their home - they might, if they were ever able to get a down payment together to buy that house
• Cannot afford to educate their children past high-school without crippling debt
• Would be wiped out by a job or health emergency - better able to handle the unexpected simple knee surgery, but one major care wreck could really tilt their world upside down
• The family breaking out of this caste often requires some generation to literally or metaphorically hit the lottery - better odds than the former, but the ability to afford their children's college and their children's access to traditional gate keeping institutions (the Ivys, certain prep schools, unpaid internships, connections, even acting/music etc.) is getting smaller

[hayden_horn 11402]

throughout history, when wealth concentration becomes this imbalanced, the result is either terrible for the masses, or really fucking terrible for the wealthy.

[Jive Turkey 12996]

1 hour ago, Goredho said:

To complete the comparison of Shaniqua and Cletus:

• Are living paycheck to paycheck
• If in a marriage, both parents are working
• Are having their children educated by a decaying and underfunded public system
• Have little to no savings
• Have little to no equity in their home
• Cannot afford to educate their children past high-school without crippling debt
• Would be wiped out by a job or health emergency
• The family breaking out of this caste often requires some generation to literally or metaphorically hit the lottery (good enough to play pro sports, etc...)

Compare that to Trump & Bloomberg:

• Are free from financial want and worry
• No one in the marriage is really working anymore
• Children are educated by the finest private and preparatory schools
• Have inexhaustible wealth
• Own multiple properties outright and never have to worry about the roof over their heads
• Children go on to well-regarded universities and emerge with no student loan indentured servitude
• Have the resources to withstand any emergency
• Wealth is passed from generation to generation, perpetuating the elite status of the family unless there is some gross mismanagement involved (even a Trump was able to avoid this)

Shaniqua is not Cletus' enemy, and vice versa.  They are in the exact same leaky life-raft in the middle of the ocean trying to paddle to shore with a popsicle stick.  All while the Trump's and Bloomberg's are busy erecting barriers at the shoreline while yelling "Shaniqua!  Look at Cletus popsicle stick!  Its bigger than yours!" and "Cletus!  Shaniqua wants your popsicle stick and will kill you to take it!"

this post reminds me of one of the best skits SNL has done in the last decade.  it was so on point.

 

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

22 minutes ago, bonnieblue said:

I think the really interesting part is when Brett and Lauren start to realize their lives are closer to S and C than Trump/Bloomberg as well:

• Are living paycheck to paycheck - it's a bigger paycheck and there may be some savings, but they also have bigger bills, the mortgage, student loans etc.
• If in a marriage, both parents are working
• Are having their children educated by a decaying and underfunded public system - or paying too much of that above paycheck to get them into a private school/ or higher mortgage for the better public
• Have little to no savings - they have some, but again, bigger bills
• Have little to no equity in their home - they might, if they were ever able to get a down payment together to buy that house
• Cannot afford to educate their children past high-school without crippling debt
• Would be wiped out by a job or health emergency - better able to handle the unexpected simple knee surgery, but one major care wreck could really tilt their world upside down
• The family breaking out of this caste often requires some generation to literally or metaphorically hit the lottery - better odds than the former, but the ability to afford their children's college and their children's access to traditional gate keeping institutions (the Ivys, certain prep schools, unpaid internships, connections, even acting/music etc.) is getting smaller

Great post.  It's not just the poors, it's the middle class.

I've always said we when we measure class by trappings and not by status, it looks completely different.  Middle class used to mean you owned a home in a good school district.  Your spouse may work, may not.  You had some savings and you took a vacation in the summer.  Your car was somewhat new or reliable.  Now, by definition, that is upper class.  

[Nivek 17408]

Carter was a good man who told us what we needed to hear.   So we elected a liar who made us feel good about running up the debt, compromising values, and kicking the shit out of some pissant island to make us feel powerful.  

We won't listen to Bernie/Warren.

 

 

[Biff Tannen 46163]

5 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Great post.  It's not just the poors, it's the middle class.

I've always said we when we measure class by trappings and not by status, it looks completely different.  Middle class used to mean you owned a home in a good school district.  Your spouse may work, may not.  You had some savings and you took a vacation in the summer.  Your car was somewhat new or reliable.  Now, by definition, that is upper class.  

This is where "Boomers" (not all of course) seem to lose track with reality.  They compare now to when they grew up.  Post-war, the middle class could realistically own their own home with a white picket fence, one family car, and one income stream (with a pension), along with a couple of kids.  It's laughable to have that now in the middle class.