Is the concept of "class" relevant in the US?

Question

Given that:

(1) Measured in terms of income, the differences among most of us translate into factors that are temporary and/or within our control, like geography (which correlates to different costs of living), education (which correlates to delaying your income for 4-7 years), experience (which correlates again to time), occupation (which correlates to difficulty of and hours at your job)?

(2) Measured in terms of wealth, the trends are just as fluid as income but take longer to take form (people saving up over many years)?

(3) "Poor" in the US is "rich" or "middle class" in most countries and much nicer than "poor" in the US was a generation or two ago?

(4) So many of our "poor" are immigrants or 1st generation citizens which means their poverty is a function of the economic policies not of the US but of their countries of origin - indeed they came here for a better chance at escaping poverty which many seem to be realizing?

(5) The ranks of the "rich" keep growing?

http://www.nytimes.com/specials/downsize/21cox.html
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1988/05/art1full.pdf
http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-07.html#winners
http://www.dallasfed.org/fed/annual/1999p/ar95.html
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/28/news/economy/millionaire_survey/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/28/news/economy/millionaires/?cnn=yes
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1773.cfm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6214022/site/newsweek/

But rhino those "gaps" are among groups all of whose incomes are rising and whose memberships are temporary - - - - - the "gaps" are largely between experienced workers and entry-level workers, most of whom will one day be experienced workers.

If my real income increases by 20% over the next 10 years and my neighbor's real income, already higher than my own, increases by 50%, the gap grew, but we're both better off.

ideogenetic yes, I have lived in the South - incomes and the cost of living are much lower than up here in Mass.

People in Cambridge don't understand how people in Fayetteville, Ark. can live on half the income the Cambridge Libs make but it doesn't cost $1,500 / month to rent a studio apartment in Fayetteville, Ark., that's how!

Um, grumpyoldman, raising minimum wage does not help anyone make ends meet. Few people making minimum wage are making ends meet, their parents are.... And almost nobody making minimum wage still makes it a year later. It's an entry-level wage. Moreover, the federal minimum threshold is a PRICE FLOOR. That just means that if the market rate for your labor is materially less than the threshold, your only hope of employment is to work under the table. That is why countries that have materially higher minimum wage thresholds than we do (examples Germany and France) consistently have two to two and a half times our rate of unemployment...

My income is higher than the incomes of most of my high school classmates. But the differences between what most of us make now and what all of us made then are much greater than the differences among what most of us make now. Krugman compares 19 year olds and immigrants to experienced workers in their 40s and 50s and calles these "classes."

There are differences in people's and households' incomes but they aren't what the term "class" is usually interpreted to mean.

Yes there are the super-wealthy jet sets with their mansions in Newport and Greenwich.

Yes there are the inner city children in foster homes.

But for the 90-92% of us in between, it's entirely fluid and has been improving for a generation. We've had steadily rising incomes with only a few very temporary setbacks and we've had stable prices.

And even at both extremes, incomes are higher.

"Class" in terms of a permanent economic status just doesn't apply to the US economy in absolute terms.

It may be that the child growing up in Wellesley has more advantages than the child growing up in Woburn but if tax, regulatory and monetary policies now in place are maintained, both will be better off 20 years from now than either is today.

The Left often point out that 27% of Americans think they're in the top 1% by income - - - - but this is because people don't desire a ranking, they want to have this or that stuff or lifestyle that they associate with being successful or rich - - - - and a growing proportion of us are achieving that. 27% of us live the lifestyle that the top 1% did a generation ago.

And as for the "middle class going the way of the dodo bird" the numbers just don't show that. The "declining middle class" refers to the proportion of the country that is middle class, and that is declining but only because so many households are moving up out of it.

Now you can define middle class however you want but wherever you draw the line between middle class and affluent, the tide is going upward.

Economists usually define "middle class" as households earning between 2X and 5X the poverty level of income, and the split among households leaving this class has been 92% up to 8% down, fairly consistently for the last quarter century.

Most of the newly risen consider themselves "upper middle class" but again, the issue isn't where you draw the line, it's what the before and after is wherever you draw the line, and it's just not a gray area.

Answer 1

I dont really think so except for in the political circle where it is used to divide and conquer

Answer 2

Absolutely, unfortunately the middle class is going the way of the dodo bird.

1. Say you spent years studying and working in a profession only to be kicked out after 20 years when it is outsourced - then all your education and experience is deemed irrelevant.
2. It takes longer to save because people are making less money, taxes and necessities keep increasing.
3. Poverty has greatly increased since 1970 - when wages started falling. If you are comparing first world countries to third world countries the comparison is invalid.
4. Maybe - but it throws more of our native born into poverty when they lose their jobs to cheap foreign labor.
5. Quite a few of the rich are getting richer by exploiting the cheap third world labor instead of paying a working wage with benefits.

Answer 3

The concept of class is not relevant TO the United States, in that there is no inherent advantage afforded due to status legally or otherwise. Class may be relevant IN the United States in varying degrees, depending on location and circumstance.

While it is a definite advantage to be wealthier than poorer, neither position is etched in stone. Everyday, some wealthy people go broke and some poor become wealthy.

Capitalism is like a marathon race. There will always be someone who comes in first, someone who comes in last and the bulk of the competitors will be somewhere in the middle. Those who train harder and dedicate themselves will most likely improve their performance. Everyone benefits by participation.

.

Answer 4

I agree with you but the movements of socialism in the US (public education, for example) cause alarm to this capitalist soul, because of what I do for a living.

First, about me: My dad's parents were dirt farmers (2nd generation Germans who came here before WWI). They never had anything. But their pride from their self sufficiency. And it was enough for them. My dad did better.

Our generation (I'm 40) has lived well. We've enjoyed the fruits of our parents' and our own labors. We've had more stuff than at any time in US history.

I'm worried about our children's entitlement mentality. We've had it SOOOOO good.

ADDED: The majority of people in the "South" want the North to mind their own business. LOL

ADDED AGAIN: If "the middle class is going the way of the 'dodo bird,' this is because the middle class thinks it has some kind of entitlement! COMPETITION is capitalism. Sheesh!

"Necessity is the mother of invention!"

Answer 5

Sure it is. The conservatives know that some one has to do the lower paying jobs but complain when they are using government help to make ends meet, then complain about raising the minimum wage to help get them off of government aid. And then they say the liberals try to keep poor people down to get their votes. HUH?

Answer 6

Very much so. There is growing bifercation of the wealth distribution, as a DELIBERATE policy choice of the Dumbya Coup, which constantly advocates for its "base"... "the haves and the have mores".

Answer 7

Terribly sorry to point out, old boy, but it is commonly known that Americans have absolutely no class whatsoever.

*chuckle*

Answer 8

Haven't you ever driven through (if not lived in) the South?

Answer 9

Only when talking about libs, then you are talking about a lack thereof.