Is the middle class a false reality?

[p911dad]

The middle class is certainly not a lie. Membership is not automatic though, one needs to work and accumulate wealth to rise in the American version of the middle class. It is not guaranteed either. You don't have a birthright to class membership in the USA. Even the upper class get catch the elevator down. Where I live there are all classes and I agree the middle class is under stress right now. Easy credit is not a new thing, people have been struggling with that for generations. Leverage is a great tool, but it can be like a drug. Easy to abuse for the last 10 years, and now those that did are in trouble.
One thing I didn't see mentioned in this thread that helped create America's vast wealth and middle class was the homestead acts of the 19th century that virtually gave away huge chunks of land to anyone that would work it and improve it. That free land was the key, as in europe the landowning class is very small and exclusive. As the immigrants filled these empty spaces, all sorts of good things happened, and left behind the building blocks for a huge middle class. Towns grews, the industrial revolution came along and the wealth increased exponentially.
The middle class grew to enormous size, and is still huge.
Once we get through this pain and get through the de-leveraging we will trive again. It's gonna be ugly for a while, though. And as someone mentioned above, plenty of spots in this country are still thriving and doing well(the low cost places that never had a bubble in real estate).

[berettafan]

Great stuff!

[Superman]

Originally Posted by tabs

Since the Middle Ages there has been a Middle Class. ..........In America one could become Middle Class and be an unskilled facotry worker (Unionized) starting in the 1950's. .

Each time there has been prosperity for tradesmen, it was brought about by unionism. Back in the day, there were the Masons. It became a brotherhood of workers who had the skill and training to make things out of stone. They limited their membership and were in solidarity regarding rates of pay and working conditions. Same as now.

[ben parrish]

The middle class is alive and well. There are always persons that want to live above their means..it just seems that that number of people has risen sharply over the past few years. The "New Middle Class" will consist of those that didn't allow their wants to exceed their needs. Merchants, skilled tradesmen, entrepreneurs, physicians, optometrists, attorneys, accountants,etc. will continue to fill the ranks of the middle class.

Superman, you frequently swing conversations to support your pro-union stance. You obviously like unions; I don't. What I do believe though is that you take the union serious as I am sure you do your profession. I am sure you surround yourself with well educated craftsmen and see the benefits of the union reward those that really work hard at being professionals.

What most who don't like unions see is the blatant overpayment of unskilled labor, such as a factory worker at GM making $40-75 per hour. (Hell there are some GP's that don't make that much per hour.) Or the abuse of power that unions use, such as making it "against company policy" to change your own light bulb or move your filing cabinet.
Skilled, dedicated craftsmen/tradesmen are hard to come by. A skilled worker can make what the market bears for their service. The more skilled the person, the higher their earning potential is. Unions are not the reason deserving tradesmen's income has increased, the skill of the worker should dictate the rate of pay.

Ben

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Superman

Each time there has been prosperity for tradesmen, it was brought about by unionism. Back in the day, there were the Masons. It became a brotherhood of workers who had the skill and training to make things out of stone. They limited their membership and were in solidarity regarding rates of pay and working conditions. Same as now.

You want to tell that to all of the non-union workers in factories, making a good wage? Or all of the non-union tradesmen that make a good living? In the 19th century there was a place for unions to protect the employees. Today that role has been taken over by government agencies, leaving the union to fill the role of extortionists.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by ben parrish

What most who don't like unions see is the blatant overpayment of unskilled labor, such as a factory worker at GM making $40-75 per hour. (Hell there are some GP's that don't make that much per hour.) Or the abuse of power that unions use, such as making it "against company policy" to change your own light bulb or move your filing cabinet.
Skilled, dedicated craftsmen/tradesmen are hard to come by. A skilled worker can make what the market bears for their service. The more skilled the person, the higher their earning potential is. Unions are not the reason deserving tradesmen's income has increased, the skill of the worker should dictate the rate of pay.

Ben

I work at an aircraft company with union labor. Today I was told that I can't carry an engine inlet and exhaust MAYBE 100 yards to be modified for a project I am running. These are relatively small and lightweight parts, I could carry each with one hand and would prefer to hand deliver them to expedite the work. Instead, I will have to request that a material handler deliver them. Which will require that work going into said worker's que (i.e. I wait), then they will load the small lightweight parts into a truck and drive them to their destination a short distance away. So, what I could do in 5 minutes will probably take a few days, and the odds are good they won't be delivered to the right person. But if I deliver them and get caught? The union will file a grievance.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

In reality there are only two classes - those with power and those without. To take this a step further, there are really only those with the means to assert their will/influence over others and those who cannot or will not. I'd argue that the entire premise of a "civilized society" is artificial when one gets right down to brass tacks. If the checks and safety mechanisms built into it to keep it in place (i.e. prosperity - or the illusion of it, encouraged/trained civility, ever-present government control, etc.) start to crack and fail, we will fall right into animalistic chaos with violence, looting, etc. It'll become a free-for-all and if that happens, you'll see how "civilized" human beings really are at their core.

For one, I hope and pray it doesn't come to that because if it does, it'll be carnage on an epic scale with very real and permanent damage (injury, death, etc.) The current economic situation is very, very worrisome because it begins to chip away at one of the cornerstones of civilized society - the notion that people can attain prosperity and wealth. If that goes away, it won't be long before there's a "no confidence" referendum in the government model running the show and if that happens... Let's just say the dominoes start falling.

[red-beard]

Middle class was defined in English society. Originally, there were 2 classes, Royal and common. Middle class were those in the common class who, usually were landed or owned a business. By definition, the American society, the "Upper Crust" were always middle class.

In the US, we have "poor", which is never really defined, and almost no one calls themselves that. We have middle class, again which is never defined. And then we have "Rich".

Census Bureau's Web site: A four-person family unit with two children, the 2007 poverty threshold is $21,027. For one- or two-person family units, the poverty thresholds differ by age; the 2007 threshold for one individual under age 65 is $10,787, whereas for an individual 65 or over it is $9,944.

So, basically, if you make more than $10K per year, you are middle class.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has recently redefined what it means to be “rich.”
Why? Because the SEC restricts hedge fund ownership and other “private money” investments to the wealthy, whom they assume can take care of themselves.
This requires the regulatory body to define - and redefine - what it means to be “rich.” This year the SEC made a new ruling.

According to The Wall Street Journal, “The SEC now says investors need to have investible assets of at least $2.5 million, excluding equity in any homes or business, to be eligible to sign on a hedge fund’s dotted line. That’s a huge jump from the current requirement, which says individuals have to have a net worth of at least $1 million, including the value of primary residences, or an annual income of $200,000 for the previous two years for individuals or $300,000 for couples.”

So, to be "Rich", you have to have $2.5 million in investable assets.

$2.5 million in investable assets > "Middle class" > 10K income

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

In reality there are only two classes - those with power and those without. To take this a step further, there are really only those with the means to assert their will/influence over others and those who cannot or will not. I'd argue that the entire premise of a "civilized society" is artificial when one gets right down to brass tacks. If the checks and safety mechanisms built into it to keep it in place (i.e. prosperity - or the illusion of it, encouraged/trained civility, ever-present government control, etc.) start to crack and fail, we will fall right into animalistic chaos with violence, looting, etc. It'll become a free-for-all and if that happens, you'll see how "civilized" human beings really are at their core.

For one, I hope and pray it doesn't come to that because if it does, it'll be carnage on an epic scale with very real and permanent damage (injury, death, etc.) The current economic situation is very, very worrisome because it begins to chip away at one of the cornerstones of civilized society - the notion that people can attain prosperity and wealth. If that goes away, it won't be long before there's a "no confidence" referendum in the government model running the show and if that happens... Let's just say the dominoes start falling.

You've been taking your happy pills, haven't you? Turn off the news and step outside, you'll realize that THINGS AREN'T THAT BAD.

[Superman]

So what I'm saying is "no." The middle class is not natural. At least.....it's not a product of a pure capitalism system. In a pure, unregulated capitalism system it would be rare indeed if not completely impossible for someone to move from the bottom eschelon to the top. And no, there would be no middle. Socialistic notions like unionism and employment law impact the balance of power and permit a game other than Winner Take All.

[911Rob]

Originally Posted by berettafan

What if the middle class is a lie? What if it only exists due to borrowed money and the note is now due?

It's not a lie; but other than the definition that REDBEARD gave, the modern day middle class ONLY exists because of the ability to borrow. Take a look at third world countries where the population cannot borrow. There is a lower and upper class only. Now introduce the ability to borrow money and alas, you create a middle class society.

So the middle class in our countries only exists because of their ability to borrow money; no ability, no middle class. imo.

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

So what do you call it when everyone is broke?

Keep in mind that "Broke" means you're at ZERO. Most people would give their left nut to be at "Broke"; I know that was a goal of mine for years.... just to own the stuff I'd already bought; ha. The majority of people are far worse off than broke, they're in debt.

[berettafan]

Supe i don't know how you can be from Wash. and make sense to me but damn if we don't need to have a beer sometime.