patrick.net

(Peter P, top this!)

I believe we're living near the end of history, so whether the middle class is a historical aberration or not is irrelevant.

astrid,

Please elaborate.

My theory is that the tax structure in the U.S., which has placed a heavier burden on the middle class, has driven those in the middle class to seek a higher class where they can enjoy tax shelters. For those who can chase the dollar endlessly, and were shrewd enough to create wealth out of thin air, they can indeed move up. For those who thought work hard, play by the rules, and everything will be fine...well, they are finding themselves suddenly not so middle class.

I think it's a generational shift as well. My parents and their parents never bought a single stock. My siblings and I and our cohort could not imagine life without a portfolio. So the average Joe has become much more savvy in the market and the things that make the economy tick.

Probably a lame theory but it's an interesting thought exercise. I have also wondered about what middle class even means anymore, in terms of monetary wealth. A middle class person in San Francisco is considered wealthy in many other parts of the US.

Great topic HARM.

Thanks, LSR!

I agree the rules of the game have definitely changed since our parent's (mostly Boomer & Silent) generations.

I believe we’re living near the end of history, so whether the middle class is a historical aberration or not is irrelevant.

The end of history? Huh?

I believe we’re living near the end of history, so whether the middle class is a historical aberration or not is irrelevant.

I see. Your sophistry is not bad either.

But whether we are living near the end of history is moot. History will have never existed if we go outside of the picture.

But, although the gap is growing, I think the overall standard of living for the mass middle class has improved tremendously. Everything is relative.

Very true. Just 10 years again, even the wealthiest CEOs did not have iPods. Now we have virtual worlds in which poor people can be rich and ugly people can engage in cartoon sex.

Those who with the same salaries, but who bought property over the years, and over the past 10 years especially have seen their Asset Column grow at a faster rate than those with the same income who rented.

Asset owners have always been, are presently, and will always be the overlords of the salaried servants. This fact is not up for discussion.

The thing in question is whether acquiring certain assets at certain price level is wise.

HARM,

Other than a way to spur Peter P into greater sophistry?

Well, I believe our technological capability is outpacing humanity's coping ability. We're soon due for either some kind of a radical realignment of human civilization or total destruction. The outcome of either case can be said to be the "end of history" in which our current concept of class and civilization will be obliviated.

But, although the gap is growing, I think the overall standard of living for the mass middle class has improved tremendously. Everything is relative.

I disagree. 35 years ago, your average middle-class college graduate my age would have a nearly paid-for house (if not 2), job security and employer-provided health insurance --even in CA. Now he has crushing student loan debt, no job security, little if any employer-provided health insurance, and can only afford a starter house with a neg-am NINJA special.

Cartoon sex and iPods are very nice, but they don't quite compensate for the astonishing drop in my overall standard of living vs. the Boomer generation.

It’s about changing perspective and spending energy improving oneself, rather than hoping those who have more than us start losing, so we can catch up.

This misstates the primary concerns over rising inequality. I recommend re-reading the thread topic. No one wants the successful to "lose" or an undeserved handout at the expense of productive people. It's all about providing a fair opportunity for everyone, so we end up with a better, happier, and more stable society that benefits all.

BB, I think you missed HARM's point. It's no longer about renting property versus owning property, it's about renting property versus renting money. RE, like the very definition of middle class, has shifted over the years. Middle class used to mean that you had a mortgage, period. The idea of a middle class family which rents property is a new phenomena. In regions like the Bay Area, this is more obvious and prevalent. Six-figure earners who cannot or do not buy mortgages are quite common now. That just was not the case 20 years ago. And that's where the questions begin....why is that? Is is that there are just proportionally more people who like to sit around and be bitter, and wish ill will upon the wealthy? Or might there be another reason?

Is is that there are just proportionally more people who like to sit around and be bitter, and wish ill will upon the wealthy? Or might there be another reason?

Exportation of all manufacturing to Chindia by greedy boomer fucks (GBF) whose sole motivation is making their stock rise by 2% so they can collect their extra fucking bonus? Ok how about the gutting of benefits so GBF stock can go up 2 pts? Or was it just the very savvy GBF that figured out less for others equals more for them? Or was it changing the scope of the game so that entry is all but impossible to Gen-Xrs?

Or maybe it's just that I like sitting around and being bitter.

good topic harm - my impassioned posts must be having an effect ;)

good point, surfer -- we are seeing increasingly unscrupulous behaviour from people with their hands on the reins with increasingly large sums of money being moved about in increasingly mysterious ways. consequently, there has been a 'hollowing out of the diamond' of the middle class to a pyramid structure. even property speculation has gone right down to the middle middle class as a practice as a result of easy credit.

- The devolution of our economy, from “free market” capitalism, based (at least somewhat) on the concepts of rule-of-law, meritocracy, competition and personal responsibility, to one based more on kleptocracy, plutocracy, corruption, and political connections.

- The growing phenomenon of “Privatize Profits, Socialize Risks”, where politically well connected big businesses and de-facto cartels attempt to insulate themselves from competition, and seek to transfer the consequences of their own bad financial decisions to taxpayers, via federal laws, subsidies and bailouts.

very well written topic, but on these two points I'm not sure that it hasn't ever been thus. there is a 'two tier' system of entitlement, where it's the meritocracy and gruelling HR selection processes for the average joe, and establishment favouritism, nepotism and cronyism for the elite.

the 50s and 60s saw a temporary burst of relative wellbeing and elevation of the working class to a middle class quality of life. I guess we are seeing that project unwind now, through the very application of avowed principles of 'free market capitalism' (when it suits the elite) -- I disagree that a 'free market' is guaranteed to provide good social outcomes by itself, you also had a lot of New Deal policies, GI resettlement an education programs, and a generally booming economy to thank for full employment and increasing income during those decades -- 'free market capitalism' I guess only served to facilitate the more rapid creation of the wealth as the engine-room of the economy, but not to drive social policy -- this is an essential point of difference...

an interesting development here -- the husband of a Federal shadow Minister, convicted at 19 for trafficking heroin and did 3 years in stir for it, was offered the unadvertised position of Director-General of Education at $387K. he has a hyphenated name and went to an exclusive boys school. only thing is, this is the 'Labor' party pulling the strings, also prone to nepotism... in the two tier meritocracy, it's not what you know, it's who you know...

@Muggy,

Thanks. Check out the "Black Swan" concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

@DS,

Glad you're pleased by my choice of topic :). Perhaps we can both enhance our knowledge by considering the other's POV once in a while. Constructive dialog sure beats shouting matches any day.

I love your style Surfer-X. You remind me of Jon Stewart. I hope you take that as a compliment, because that's how I mean it.

We should take some solice in the fact that Chindians are human too. Outsourcing will come back to bite corporate America.

There are a few blogs about the RE bubble in India. Here's one for starters: http://ecophilo.blogspot.com/2005/03/real-estate-boom-in-india-bangalore.html

Sounds so familar, doesn't it?

Is Different Sean-style socia1ism the only way?

whatever that looks like. here it’s worth researching the ’social democracies’ of northern europe. I would argue that it’s not ‘Communism’ that’s failed in the 2nd world (whatever that was supposed to look like) but a loss of faith in the promises of totalitarian states.

is there any correlation with the Press Freedom Index that comes out each year(/some years)?

very well written topic, but on these two points I’m not sure that it hasn’t ever been thus. there is a ‘two tier’ system of entitlement, where it’s the meritocracy and gruelling HR selection processes for the average joe, and establishment favouritism, nepotism and cronyism for the elite.

I agree that American --or W. European-- style capitalism has never created a complete "meritocracy" in the truest sense of the word, and probably never will. That's a utopian pipe dream. However, as you pointed out, things have grown strikingly more un-equal and bifurcated in my short lifetime.

the 50s and 60s saw a temporary burst of relative wellbeing and elevation of the working class to a middle class quality of life. I guess we are seeing that project unwind now, through the very application of avowed principles of ‘free market capitalism’ (when it suits the elite) — I disagree that a ‘free market’ is guaranteed to provide good social outcomes by itself,

If you look back on previous posts on the subject, neither I nor most others here (esp Randy H) see the "free market" as some sort of automatic, magical entity, completely independent of human policy. Quite the contrary, "free" markets are designed, created and maintained only through human effort. The object of those efforts has a huge impact on the results.

I have always thought of Peter P as a Stephen Colbert doppleganger.

Quite the contrary, “free” markets are designed, created and maintained only through human effort. The object of those efforts has a huge impact on the results.

well yes, I would argue that the market is like a car, and no more intelligent. do you want to drive the car somewhere in a purposive way to benefit the driver, or do you just lash a brick to the accelerator and jump out and see where it goes?