The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest

[Crabtownboy]

Thanks Republican economics. Reagan took office in 1981 and instituted trickle down economics ... which really was trickle up to the rich. Republican presidents were in office 19 years since then. The first decade of this century was a disaster for the poor and middle class of this country ... and yes some poor and middle class are so deluded they want more of the same.

The American middle class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.

While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.

The American middle class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.

While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...ass-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?_r=0

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

This from the "Cross National Data Center in Luxembourg," a group that, coincidentally to the Little Marxist Dictator's latest focus, is publishing supporting information to an International Labor Organization study on “Income Inequality, Redistribution and Poverty: Contrasting Rational Choice and Behavioural Perspectives.”

How's that for a "coincidence"? I call bull hockey. The New York Times is trying to spin the economy for the Marxists in the Democratic Party. How quaint(ly partisan and disgustingly manipulative)!

 

[Salty]

Thanks Republican economics. Reagan took office in 1981 and instituted trickle down economics ... which really was trickle up to the rich. ...

from the quote you provided: citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises

Lets say a man was making in one of those countries was making
$5/ hr and receives a $1 pay raise = 20% -An American $10 hr and receives a $1 pay raise = 10%

but lets also consider amount (%)of taxes, standard of living.

Sure when I was a kid, gas was 3 0 cents per gallon but the minimum wage was less than a dollar.

So are we comparing apples and oranges - we need th full story.

 

[just-want-peace]

from the quote you provided: citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises

Lets say a man was making in one of those countries was making
$5/ hr and receives a $1 pay raise = 20% -An American $10 hr and receives a $1 pay raise = 10%

but lets also consider amount (%)of taxes, standard of living.

Sure when I was a kid, gas was 3 0 cents per gallon but the minimum wage was less than a dollar.

So are we comparing apples and oranges - we need th full story.

Like I told Bro. Curtis earlier, if you are going to hold your breath waiting for a response (coherent & logical) from crabbie, well we'll miss you on this board, and we wish your survivors only the best!!!:tongue3::thumbs:

 

[InTheLight]

The data in the article is compelling, that is, until you reach this sentence:

Governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.

and this

...the United States does not redistribute as much income to the poor as other countries do. As a result, inequality in disposable income is sharply higher in the United States than elsewhere.

There is no mention as to how much of an effect this plays in the overall raising of middle class income. There is no elaboration on this statement in the article. It's possible that income redistribution is the main reason that "take home pay" (note: NOT wages) are increasing faster in Europe than in the U.S. Remember, the survey was done over 35 years.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.

and this

...the United States does not redistribute as much income to the poor as other countries do. As a result, inequality in disposable income is sharply higher in the United States than elsewhere.

Hence my comment earlier. First of all, that last sentence is an abject lie. This is nothing less than liberal/socialist media spin attempting to promote the Marxist Democrats' message over the next two years. Anything to distract us from the totally failed healthcare debacle. Won't work.

 

[carpro]

This "analysis" has been thoroughly discredited by numerous credible sources.

Just more anti-American pablum for marxists and liberals hungering for more redistribution of income schemes.

 

[Revmitchell]

Here is something that is compelling. The Reagan economics liberals love to hate is the very thing that has given this country so much prosperity. Enough said.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Here is something that is compelling. The Reagan economics liberals love to hate is the very thing that has given this country so much prosperity. Enough said.

So untrue. The real golden years were in the 50's and 60's. With Reagan's trickle down the apex was past.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

:laugh::laugh:

Reagan didn't come along until the '80s.

Any logical person would blame LBJ's war on poverty.

How's come every time our government declares "war" on something, there's more of it than before ?

Why don't we wage a war on free thinkers ?

 

[carpro]

The rest of the story:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/should-americas-middle-class-really-envy-canadas/

Should America’s middle class really envy Canada’s?
James Pethokoukis | April 23, 2014, 3:10 pm


In other words, this is another story about income inequality and redistribution. Well, not just that...most readers will see the piece as more disturbing evidence of the growing 1%-99% gap. The US and UK, for instance, grew at about the same pace in the 2000s. But UK median incomes are up by 20% vs. 0.3% for the US. Where did the money go? To the rich, Upshot suggests.

But there are some problems here. First of all, the way you want to calculate these numbers is from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak, not by decades. This is particularly true if you are doing cross-country comparisons. For instance, researcher Richard Bukhauser calculates US middle-income growth in the 2000-2007 business cycle at 5%. Now this also includes health benefits, which the Upshot figures do not include. This is an important omission since a big chunk of US worker compensation goes to employer-provided health benefits.

And, hey, what about the recession and housing bust? As Derek Thompson nicely summarizes: “The U.S. is emerging from a catastrophic collapse of the housing market that obliterated household wealth for millions of middle-class families. Canada, however, is in the midst of a delirious housing boom and a personal debt craze that reminds some economists of the U.S. market exactly a decade ago (before you-know-what happened).”

The left never gives you the whole story or the complete truth.

 

[righteousdude2]

oOu make me DIZZY!!!!

Thanks Republican economics. Reagan took office in 1981 and instituted trickle down economics ... which really was trickle up to the rich. Republican presidents were in office 19 years since then. The first decade of this century was a disaster for the poor and middle class of this country ... and yes some poor and middle class are so deluded they want more of the same.

That was such a great attempt to spin and deflect the blame for the economy on the GNP that you left me breathless and dizzy!

Thanks for the ride!!!!:laugh:

 

[Crabtownboy]

That was such a great attempt to spin and deflect the blame for the economy on the GNP that you left me breathless and dizzy!

Thanks for the ride!!!!:laugh:

I guess you have forgotten about the stock market crash in 1987.

 

[church mouse guy]

I thought that it was Obama who was trying to destroy the middle class. If Mexico sends another million or two people here this year because of their bad economy, that should lower wages even more.

 

[carpro]

I thought that it was Obama who was trying to destroy the middle class.

It is. His policies have made the poor poorer, the middle class suffer under massive tax increases, and the rich have gotten richer, as usual.

He's been in bed with wall street from day one.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It is. His policies have made the poor poorer, the middle class suffer under massive tax increases, and the rich have gotten richer, as usual.

He's been in bed with wall street from day one.

Which party favors:

1. Lowering taxes for the rich?
2. Taking away food stamps?
3. Lowering aid to poor women with children?
4. Wants to lower aid to Headstart?
5. Wants to lower aid subdising school lunches for the poor?
6. Reduct benefits to the elderly who are poor?
7. Against equal pay for equal work?
8. Against raising the minimum wage? If you do not have money you cannot spend money and help the economy.
   
   All are positions favored by Republicans. The GOP wants a world of Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor. Seems they are getting it and have been for some time now. Not good for you and me, the average folk.
   

 

[InTheLight]

Which party favors:

1. Lowering taxes for the rich?
2. Taking away food stamps?
3. Lowering aid to poor women with children?
4. Wants to lower aid to Headstart?
5. Wants to lower aid subdising school lunches for the poor?
6. Reduct benefits to the elderly who are poor?
7. Against equal pay for equal work?
8. Against raising the minimum wage? If you do not have money you cannot spend money and help the economy.
   
   All are positions favored by Republicans. The GOP wants a world of Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor. Seems they are getting it and have been for some time now. Not good for you and me, the average folk.
   

Republicans favor lower taxes for everyone. Otherwise the rest of the list can be summed up with:

Democrats want a world of socialism for all. They are for expanding almost every government programs except defense (which is specifically provided for in the Constitution). They expand these programs by wealth redistribution. The Democrats are class-enviests that want to take income from workers and give it to the poor or slackers.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Republicans favor lower taxes for everyone. Otherwise the rest of the list can be summed up with:

Real tax cuts for the rich, token tax cuts for the poor.

Democrats want a world of socialism for all. They are for expanding almost every government programs except defense (which is specifically provided for in the Constitution). They expand these programs by wealth redistribution. The Democrats are class-enviests that want to take income from workers and give it to the poor or slackers.[/QUOTE]

The chart below is a very interesting one. Also, the GOP wants Socialism for the rich, protect what they have while not protecting the poor and middle class. Without the Bush cuts and without his two wars we would be in very good shape ... then subtract the disastrous market and bank melt-down during his administration and we all would be in much better shape.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

LOL….again with Bush and his wars, which the Democrats funded. And demanded. But we've been through all that before, haven't we ?

 

[carpro]

Which party favors:

1. Reduct benefits to the elderly who are poor?
   
   
   
   

:laugh: Funny you should mention that one today.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=93136