What's (Not) the Matter With the Middle Class?

prospect.org ^ | 09.04.06 | Stephen Rose

[kellynla]

For more than a decade, the Democratic Party -- the self-proclaimed party of the middle class -- has consistently lost the middle class at election time.

In 2004, voters with family incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 went for Bush by 6 percentage points, while Congressional Democrats lost this group by 4 points. Among white middle-class voters (one-third of the electorate), Bush won by 22 points and Congressional Republicans by 19 points.

What's the matter with the middle class? Democrats like to pin their defeats on national security and culture issues alone, but the progressive economic message is also to blame. What progressives generally say about the economy is unrelentingly pessimistic -- stagnant wages, rising costs, overwhelming burdens of debt. It's a message that doesn't resonate with the middle class -- not only because it's overly negative (by itself political poison), but because it's simply flat out wrong.

Don't believe me? Believe the numbers:

$63,300. That's the 2004 median household income of people in their prime working years, ages 25-59 (it's $70,000 for married households and nearly $80,000 for two-earner households). $248,700. That's the median net worth of pre-retirement Americans, ages 55-64. Zero. That's the median credit card debt for all American households. Drowning in debt? Squeezed to the gills? Living paycheck to paycheck? I don't think so.

These numbers all add up to this one: $23,700, the household income at which a white voter was more likely to vote Republican than Democratic in the 2004 congressional races.

No question, the middle class faces challenges, such as rising costs for health care and college tuition and the declining real earnings for non-college-educated men. There's also no question that the wealthy have received the lion's share of economic growth over the past 25 years.

[GSlob]

"Zero. That's the median credit card debt for all American households."
Fellatious statement. Since the minimal credit card debt is zero [if the balance is being paid in full, or if the household does not even possess a credit card] and since quite a few households do have a non-zero credit card balance and carry it from month to month, it necessatily follows that the median credit card debt is greater than zero. Besides, one needs to arrive at better definition of middle [and other] classes. The income boundaries in NYC are not the same as in Mobile.

[VoiceOfBruck]

These numbers all add up to this one: $23,700, the household income at which a white voter was more likely to vote Republican than Democratic in the 2004 congressional races.

I wonder at what household income does the average tilt back to demos?

[ottothedog]

If half the households have no credit card debt (which is what this article says), then it is zero.

[VoiceOfBruck]

You're thinking average. The median could very well be zero, which would mean at least half have no CC debt.

[dakine]

"There's also no question that the wealthy have received the lion's share of economic growth over the past 25 years..."

What is with this "received" crap...?

[Bernard]

I forget which Sunday talk show had somebody make this comment, but it was something along the line of, "The Democrats lose in Kansas all the time, but their question is never, What's wrong with Democrats? it's always "What's wrong with Kansas?"

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"Zero. That's the median credit card debt for all American households."

"Fellatious [sp. Fallacious] statement. Since the minimal credit card debt is zero [if the balance is being paid in full, or if the household does not even possess a credit card] and since quite a few households do have a non-zero credit card balance and carry it from month to month, it necessatily follows that the median credit card debt is greater than zero."

False. You're confusing mean and median. Mean is the arithmatic average of a population. Your statement is correct for the mean.

Median is the mid-point of a population. By saying the median is 0, that says that at least half plus one households have 0 credit card debt.

[arthurus]

"There's also no question that the wealthy have received the lion's share of economic growth over the past 25 years..."

What is with this "received" crap...?

That is the share awarded to them by the Republican Apportioning Office.

[bannie]

Funny thing about "class": Someone as wealthy as parishilton can have NONE; yet someone who is struggling to live in a one-room apartment might have MUCH.

[seowulf]

I think you mean "fallaceous". That other word would be very, let's say, Clintonian.

As others have said the median is half are above that number and half are below, so half of Americans have no debt.

[Renfield]

"...Fellatious statement..." Did you really mean "fellatious", or were you trying (and not succeeding) to spell ,"fallacious"?

[Gordongekko909]

I would've just said "false." But hey, however he wants to do it.

[psychoknk]

You must have Clinton on the mind. "Fellatious" != Fallacious

[Onelifetogive]

What's the matter with the middle class?

Uhh? Those we define as "middle class" have homes, cars, cell phones, cable, college education, vacations, etc., etc., etc....Thus, by any reasonable world or historical standard, they are "rich"! Rich people vote for the GOP!

[ClaireSolt]

Should be middle income, not middle class. There are no classesa in America.

[hophead]

I hate the term "middle class" in a story like this. I prefer "middle income". Most people if asked would consider themselves "middle class". I believe "middle class" is a state of mind, not an income level.

[GSlob]

"state of mind"? -up to a limit. Maybe one should define the "middle class" as those between the limits of hunger and satiety. To introduce the psychological dimension along the most prominent divide of having to work and not having to, I tend to use the following definitions:
Those who have to work [crime included] to survive form the lower class;
Those who have to work to live [i.e. to exist under more decent conditions, or the verb "to survive" would be used instead] form the middle class;
Those who have to work to live under conditions of opulence form the upper middle, or lower upper class; and
Those who do not even have to work to live. This normally would be the upper class, but since this definition would include the retirees, they are to be excluded and then reclassified according to their standard of living.

[GOPJ]

bump