Why has the Middle Class so declined?

[dead0man]

<snip>

Yet, today, if I was to work a blue collar type job, and if I had a wife and children, we would probably live a lower, lower middle class to almost low class lifestyle.

When did that change? Why?

Well you could live the exact same middle class life your grandparents lived.  They probably had (at most) a 1100sqft home, a car.....maybe two....probably one...that they HAD to replace every few years.  They didn't have A/C or a second bathroom, only had broadcast TV, certainly no smart phone or netflix or PC.  But they spent a higher percentage of their income on food than you'll have to (thanks in part to GM crops/better pesticides, better irrigation, just better farming practices in general)....so perhaps you could swing the smart phone as long as it's not a Mac.  Just one, certainly not one each for you, the wife and the 1.7 kids.

The middle class hasn't declined as much as what's excpected of a middle class family to own has increased.



Of course blaming your political enemy is easier.....

[dead0man]

The point is that they could afford what was considered the "latest technology" of that era - television sets, washing machines, etc.

And middle class people today can still do that.  Certainly somebody that heads a city department and his medical receptionist wife would certainly own 2 cars, have cable TV/DVR/a TV bigger than the rich guy in the 50s could ever dream of, Netflix, several PCs, several smart phones, and live in a decent home in not a bad part of town.  They couldn't afford to own two late model cars at the same time or get a new computer every year, but they'll do alright if they aren't horrible with money.  Even the working poor today do better than the middle class of our grandparents.  I'll agree that it's harder for the unskilled to make it to the middle class today than it was for the unskilled of that generation and that that is probably a bad thing, but really, other than a brief couple of decades, that's always been the case.

[dead0man]

Red herring - the middle class, quite frankly, did not exist in your grandparents' time.

That's the OP's entire premise.  He's not going to take that well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Equality in opportunity, sure, that should be the goal of everyone that wants to advance civilization.  It's better for everybody if the "cream" rises to the top, no matter where it started from.  No, we aren't there yet, probably never will get all the way down that road.  Equality in results is whole 'nuther thing and that clearly shouldn't be the goal.

[dead0man]

The term is plenty amorphous as it is, though I don't believe we are heading in that direction in any sense of the word. There are job opportunities out there, in hospitality or on rich people's yachts. But this idea of servitude, for me if not for you, seems degrading compared to an executive or manufacturing position.

Yeah, because putting the same fender on the same Ford in a dingy factory or tightening the same 15 screws on the back of a refrigerator for 30 years is SOOOO rewarding.  Clearly we see things through different colored glasses.

[dead0man]

The point is that they could afford what was considered the "latest technology" of that era - television sets, washing machines, etc.

And middle class people today can still do that.  Certainly somebody that heads a city department and his medical receptionist wife would certainly own 2 cars, have cable TV/DVR/a TV bigger than the rich guy in the 50s could ever dream of, Netflix, several PCs, several smart phones, and live in a decent home in not a bad part of town.  They couldn't afford to own two late model cars at the same time or get a new computer every year, but they'll do alright if they aren't horrible with money.  Even the working poor today do better than the middle class of our grandparents.  I'll agree that it's harder for the unskilled to make it to the middle class today than it was for the unskilled of that generation and that that is probably a bad thing, but really, other than a brief couple of decades, that's always been the case.

But what does any of that have to do with anything, Deadman? The problem with youur posts on this topic fundamentally conflates technological advances with economic ones.

The fact internet access, larger screen TVs, cellphones, etc are now accessable readily cheaply, doesn't begin to make up for the fact health insurance and home ownership are increasingly inaccessable.

But what does any of that have to do with anything, Badger?  The fact remains that people that make a middle class living (like the OP's example) can have health insurance and a home AND have most modern technology.  They might not be able to get a new car every 2 years, but not getting a new car every 2 years isn't a tragedy.

Again, sure it sucks that the unskilled are less and less likely to achieve these things, but I'm not sure homeownership for all is actually all that worthy of a goal.  I've come around on the health insurance front and think that the best we can hope for at this point is to go the way the rest of the western world has gone.  I don't think it's the best solution (but I don't know what the best solution would be), but it's probably better than what we got or had.

[dead0man]

Yeah.. it's netflix and iPhones that have broken the middle class

Reading comprehension, it's what the cool kids do!  I'm not even arguing the middle class is broken much less that it's broken because of the cool toys we get to play with now-a-days.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

cite?  nah, I'll do it for you.  cite

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Food costs have gone up a bit in the past couple of years...but "soared"?  And clearly the long term trend is going down.


I've ignored the impotent anger which was the rest of your post.

[dead0man]

But you are starting from the point that the mdidle class isn't being squeezed...

Except I'm not.  I've even said, twice, that it's harder for the unskilled to live a middle class life style than it has been in the recent past.  I'm saying that people that do have middle class incomes are doing just fine, great in fact.  I've not said that none were being "squeezed" by stagnated wages. (yes I do see the issue with previous two sentences)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't refuse to believe that, you just assume that I do.  Maybe I'd change some of the verbage, but not the gist.


Re-reading the OP, I think I may have misunderstood what he was asking.