I blame Willie Green for this misperception.
Posted on 04/27/2007 1:43:18 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
..... The second, related story is about instability. Layoffs seem to happen more frequently than they once did, and these job losses — combined with the spread of bonus pay — have caused workers’ incomes to bounce around a lot more than in the past. So not only have middle-class families been getting meager raises, their finances have also become more volatile....
The bottom line, though, is that the picture is likely to look mixed. Volatility may or may not have increased over the last generation, but it does not appear to have changed in a fundamental way.....
As the C.B.O. pointed out, these jolts do happen a lot, even if they don’t happen more than in the past. In 2003, a whopping 20 percent of workers saw their earnings drop 25 percent or more compared to the previous year. (For about 22 percent of workers, earnings rose at least 25 percent.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I blame Willie Green for this misperception.
When the “middle class” no longer exists, the stage is set for a govt revolution.
So more citizens (I refuse to use the NYT term “workers”) had earnings rise by 25% than fall by 25%. What’s bad about that? Don’t wage earnings usually fall as one approaches retirement? And as one retires, wage earnings should fall precipitously.
Oh, I forgot. The idea of earnings lifecycle, though well-accepted by economists, doesn’t fit into the Schumer-Webb frame of a dying middle class.
You bet. And those evil (soon to be higher taxed) dividends increase.
The idea that the middle class in America is dying, or as the headline says, “being squeezed”, is absurd. And if there is any anxiety in the middle class, it is self imposed. My guess would be a total lack of honest perspective is responsible for the silly idea.
What’s so great about the middleclass anyway?
The end of the article clearly sums things up:
In an economy where volatility was the main problem, you might want to protect jobs by making it harder for companies to cut them. In an economy where inequality was the problem, you would want to protect people. You would help them pay for health insurance, retirement, their children’s education and other basic needs when the market, left to its own devices, was not doing so.
Yup, only government intervention and higher taxes on the rich can save the middle class. And Upchuck Schumer is just the guy to make it happen. The middle class should be afraid....very afraid.
Are you saying that something that's enacted to hurt the rich and help the middle class, like the AMT, might one day also hurt the middle class? I don't believe you.
Exactly. Those unintended consequences are never the government’s fault. The AMT is just their way of telling you that you’re making too much money.
“What’s bad about that? Don’t wage earnings usually fall as one approaches retirement?”
Social Security is not income - retirees are not considered in the ranks of the employed.
And therein lies the answer to what's "squeezing " the middle class. For many of us taxes are the single biggest item in the household budget. Rising taxes are what killed the single income family in America. Don't expect the Slimes to mention that however.
Bush's tax cuts have increased the annual take home pay, after taxes, for the median family of four by about $1,500. I believe that since Reagan, federal income tax rates for the middle class have fallen. State and local taxes may have risen faster than incomes but so much of that depends on where a family lives.
The middle class is, in terms of income, doing very well.
That’s my point- This analysis only counted “wage income”.
Taxes, and over regulation by intrusive government thugs.
The Times, for once, almost halfway gets it here. Unfortunately, the writer gets stuck in a liberal mantra of government control.
The bottom line is that there is no “middle class squeeze”. And Schumer and the author seem so surprised. Schumer’s “intuition” tells him that the middle class is doing badly. But the disappearing middle class is nothing but a boogeyman from capitalism haters.
The middle class bears the greater burden because that’s where the majority of the populations is. When the middle class disappears, i.e. small portion become rich and the majority become like the poor, the middle class disappears and society is left with only the rich and the poor where society’s burden falls on the latter. Since there are more poor than rich, leaders will emerge to overthrow the governing rich. Perfect example is the French Revolution. There’s an interesting book that I read in college called “The Anatomy of a Revolution” that might interest you.
That assumes that nations continue to exist in their present state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.