Another Graph (oh no, not again!)

[dales]

[MajGenl.Meade]

Alternatively: Share of Adults Living in Upper Middle and Higher households is rising.

[Long Run]

Isn't this the shrinking middle class? If you take the middle three columns, it goes from 80% to 71%. The 4-5% that moved into the highest category aren't too unhappy about this shrinkage, but the other 4-5% who are in the lowest income level might have a different take (even if the lowest today are much better off on average than the lowest from 40+ years ago).

[rubato]

Without knowing how the groups are defined this does not tell me very much. I don't know how to map this onto data about income quintiles, and the top 5%, 1% and 0.1% which are the common categories used to describe income groups.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Stated another way, the share of adults living in households in the Lowest and Lower Middle brackets, has risen since 1971 only from 25%, to 29% ( an increase of less that 20%) while the the share of adults living in households in the Highest and Upper Middle brackets, has risen from 14% to 21% (an increase of 33%)

Overall, 4% of the middle moved down, 7% moved up...

So almost twice as many people as a percentage are doing better than are doing worse...

The clear and inescapable conclusion one must reach based on these numbers, is that over the past 45 years, the middle class has been "shrinking" more because more people are moving into higher income levels than because they are sinking into lower ones...

And this is a bad thing..............because?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Exactly. 4 people fell out of middle income into the lower brackets - and 7 people moved up from the middle income to the upper brackets.

Result!

("People" used symbolically)

[rubato]

Without telling you how these groups are defined this says exactly nothing.

If you look at Census data you can see that the bottom 80% of households have done worse since Bush took over, screwed the tax system and crashed the economy. The bottom most person in the top 5% has held steady.


I'm not going to bother to reformat this. You ignore data anyway:

http://www.census.gov/data/tables/time- ... holds.html
2014 DOLLARS
Year "Lowest
fifth" "Second
fifth" "Third
fifth" "Fourth
fifth" "Highest
fifth" "Top 5
percent"
2014 11,676 31,087 54,041 87,834 194,053 332,347
2013 (39) 11,784 31,317 54,620 87,888 196,516 339,938
2013 (38) 11,841 31,008 53,178 84,885 188,236 327,618
2012 11,848 30,620 52,772 84,654 187,568 327,953
2011 11,831 30,742 52,467 84,298 187,395 327,846
2010 (37) 11,938 30,982 53,389 85,649 183,935 311,859
2009 (36) 12,747 32,283 54,657 86,833 188,513 325,939
2008 12,817 32,456 55,124 87,703 188,092 324,059
2007 13,189 33,617 57,055 90,331 191,793 327,922
2006 13,329 33,791 56,623 89,626 197,466 349,215
2005 12,916 33,164 56,129 88,284 193,457 340,836
2004 (35) 12,839 32,852 55,661 87,766 189,802 330,750
2003 12,867 33,052 56,106 88,809 189,318 325,967
2002 13,146 33,424 56,324 88,597 189,156 330,311
2001 13,553 34,055 57,002 89,375 195,188 348,287
2000 (30) 13,963 34,863 58,058 90,254 195,578 346,975
1999 (29) 14,092 34,603 57,920 90,145 192,235 334,123
1998 13,388 33,805 56,564 87,481 185,120 322,663
1997 13,004 32,511 54,696 84,716 180,614 316,957
1996 12,919 31,709 53,336 82,549 173,620 302,439
1995 (25) 12,883 31,488 52,650 80,935 168,900 291,497
1994 (24) 12,195 30,391 51,198 79,670 167,489 289,376
1993 (23) 11,877 30,109 50,471 78,434 163,415 280,474
1992 (22) 12,000 30,068 50,658 77,765 150,680 239,157
1991 12,254 30,778 51,123 77,932 149,443 233,217
1990 12,594 31,687 52,338 78,912 153,138 243,856
1989 12,897 32,089 53,342 80,685 157,725 254,829
1988 12,436 31,389 52,499 79,360 151,507 238,949
1987 (21) 12,229 31,079 51,961 78,541 149,364 235,324
1986 11,905 30,621 51,241 77,194 146,111 228,892
1985 (20) 11,784 29,862 49,567 74,559 139,274 214,838
1984 11,802 29,395 48,713 73,347 134,866 203,587
1983 (19) 11,427 28,705 47,457 71,214 130,752 197,551
1982 11,286 28,562 47,278 70,315 128,962 194,864
1981 11,499 28,643 47,450 70,731 126,347 187,751
1980 11,794 29,354 48,438 71,362 127,235 190,139
1979 (18) 12,190 30,320 49,989 73,357 131,651 200,781
1978 12,277 30,150 49,782 72,923 130,195 198,171
1977 11,872 29,222 48,341 70,828 126,303 193,221
1976 (17) 11,931 29,207 48,031 69,751 123,447 188,093
1975 (16) 11,644 28,600 46,924 68,182 120,380 182,682
1974 (16)(15) 12,053 29,957 48,282 69,728 123,542 187,783
1973 12,097 30,416 49,889 71,768 128,413 197,796
1972 (14) 11,559 29,856 48,724 69,949 125,578 194,640
1971 (13) 10,909 28,832 46,744 66,457 117,755 180,616

[MajGenl.Meade]

Naaah. I ignore people who don't bother.

[Lord Jim]

this says exactly nothing.

Okay, looks like I'm going to have to amend this:

The clear and inescapable conclusion one must reach based on these numbers, is that over the past 45 years, the middle class has been "shrinking" more because more people are moving into higher income levels than because they are sinking into lower ones...

The clear and inescapable conclusion one must reach based on these numbers, unless one is an imbecile and a math illiterate....

I must remember to avoid categorical statements of the obvious that fail to account for our resident lowest common denominator...

ETA:

What we have here is a classic example of the way in which the cognitive functions of rube's brain simply shutdown whenever he is presented with information that challenges a pre-concieved narrative that he embraces. (BTW, the data in the OP was complied by a well known California based research organization with a politically liberal reputation.)

Since his brain is incapable of processing new information that conflicts with predetermined conclusions, it's developed a protective mechanism; it simply doesn't "see" it . Where a normal person will be seeing and processing this new information, for rube it's just a big blank spot, or a collection of indecipherable gibberish...

That way his brain doesn't have to try and perform a task it is neurologically incapable of doing...

I don't know what the cause of this condition is, but I've seen him display it here many times...

[dales]

[Burning Petard]

Did ol' Marx-Engels get it right?

Productivity in the USofA is great. One hour of work produces more stuff in America than anyplace else. Unhappily for most of those workers, for a long time, perhaps since the 1970's, even though their productivity has increased, their pay has not. Most of the increased financial yield for that increased productivity has gone to the top, not the middle.

Wait a minute and think about this. Where has the increase come from? The average work force has not become more skilled or better trained. The increase has come from better tools. The basic entry-level job for many is at McDonalds or something similar. During this time frame, the product produced at McD's has become more varied and complex. The actual 'work' has been simplified. The Cash register has pictures so the user does not need to read. The machine figures the change so the worker does not need to count backwards figure the money back to the customer. The actual food preparation is done in a production line fashion. It no longer trains the cook in the basics needed to advance to another employer at a diner as short-order cook or even dishwasher.

Similar changes in in most other occupations. My job as a writer of customer literature in a highly regulated global industry where mistakes could kill, was a very non-routine task that required constant expansion of my knowledge and creative challenges to integrate it all into simple eighth grade reading level. When I retired I was replaced by a computer user who needed to know fuck-all about the local regulations around the world or even what any of our products looked like--a computer program did it all, with specialists outside the company doing the keyboarding to enter the data about the local regs around the world and the details about the products.

Similar process with robot aided assembly and design. No place for a tool-and-die man. Even brain-surgery is so specialized that the general knowledge and ability to think about things demonstrated by the GOP candidate Dr. Carson left me scratching my head in bewilderment at his statements.

Damn-near all of this, all of this increased production, has come from capital investment, NOT the worker. So why should the pay of the worker go up?

snailgate.

[Bicycle Bill]

Because as time passes, the cost of everything increases.  Remember when McDonald's advertised "change back from your dollar"?  Remember when Ford came out with the Maverick for under two grand?  How about the Datsun small pickup that went for less than $6K brand new, or even the Dodge Neon that retailed for about $10K "nicely equipped" when it was first introduced in 2000?

If you expect to produce more hamburgers, or more cars, or more of whatever kind of widget it is that you are producing because of all these vast advances in the technology to produce them, you'd better make sure that people can afford to buy them.

-"BB"-

[Burning Petard]

The total dollars in the pay check for effectively all workers has gone up, as the cost of that cheapest Ford has gone up. That is generally called 'the cost-of-living" index. The purchase power of the pay check for the middle level and lower worker has been stable or going down. Our 'economic recovery' has been so weird because the consumer has not been able to purchase more even as the usual indicators say things should be better.

snailgate

[MajGenl.Meade]

[rubato]

"....
Damn-near all of this, all of this increased production, has come from capital investment, NOT the worker. So why should the pay of the worker go up?

snailgate.

Workers are paying with their lives. An irreduceably valuable asset. None of us will live to 150 yrs. Therefore 1 hour of work, or 2080 hours over the course of a year, represents an 'investment' inherently greater than that of a few dollars. And if the workers do not believe that they are being treated fairly they will (quite rightly) riot and tear society down. And when people's standard of living is going down and the insecurity of life is increasing, and when their children's prospects are being erased they are apt not to think they are being treated fairly. And when they are working harder and longer for less and less while the whole pie expands and someone else gets all of the benefit they are apt to think this is not fair.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The total dollars in the pay check for effectively all workers has gone up, as the cost of that cheapest Ford has gone up. That is generally called 'the cost-of-living" index. The purchase power of the pay check for the middle level and lower worker has been stable or going down. Our 'economic recovery' has been so weird because the consumer has not been able to purchase more even as the usual indicators say things should be better.

snailgate

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time ... holds.html

Income is the median for each quintile and the bottom most person of the top 5%. Income is inflation-adjusted. Tax effects are not included but Bush made huge cuts in taxes for the top 1%, 5% and a modest cut for the top 20%. All others got the equivalent of a day pass to Disneyland, or less.

2014 DOLLARS
.......... 1/5th ....... 2/5th ......... 3/5th ......... 4/5th ........ 5/5th ...... bottom person of top 5%
2014 ***** 11,676 ***** 31,087 ***** 54,041 ***** 87,834 ***** 194,053 ***** 332,347
2013 ***** 11,784 ***** 31,317 ***** 54,620 ***** 87,888 ***** 196,516 ***** 339,938
2013 ***** 11,841 ***** 31,008 ***** 53,178 ***** 84,885 ***** 188,236 ***** 327,618
2012 ***** 11,848 ***** 30,620 ***** 52,772 ***** 84,654 ***** 187,568 ***** 327,953
2011 ***** 11,831 ***** 30,742 ***** 52,467 ***** 84,298 ***** 187,395 ***** 327,846
2010 ***** 11,938 ***** 30,982 ***** 53,389 ***** 85,649 ***** 183,935 ***** 311,859
2009 ***** 12,747 ***** 32,283 ***** 54,657 ***** 86,833 ***** 188,513 ***** 325,939
2008 ***** 12,817 ***** 32,456 ***** 55,124 ***** 87,703 ***** 188,092 ***** 324,059 GOP economic collapse.
2007 ***** 13,189 ***** 33,617 ***** 57,055 ***** 90,331 ***** 191,793 ***** 327,922
2006 ***** 13,329 ***** 33,791 ***** 56,623 ***** 89,626 ***** 197,466 ***** 349,215
2005 ***** 12,916 ***** 33,164 ***** 56,129 ***** 88,284 ***** 193,457 ***** 340,836
2004 ***** 12,839 ***** 32,852 ***** 55,661 ***** 87,766 ***** 189,802 ***** 330,750
2003 ***** 12,867 ***** 33,052 ***** 56,106 ***** 88,809 ***** 189,318 ***** 325,967
2002 ***** 13,146 ***** 33,424 ***** 56,324 ***** 88,597 ***** 189,156 ***** 330,311
2001 ***** 13,553 ***** 34,055 ***** 57,002 ***** 89,375 ***** 195,188 ***** 348,287
2000 ***** 13,963 ***** 34,863 ***** 58,058 ***** 90,254 ***** 195,578 ***** 346,975 end of Clinton era.
1999 ***** 14,092 ***** 34,603 ***** 57,920 ***** 90,145 ***** 192,235 ***** 334,123
1998 ***** 13,388 ***** 33,805 ***** 56,564 ***** 87,481 ***** 185,120 ***** 322,663
1997 ***** 13,004 ***** 32,511 ***** 54,696 ***** 84,716 ***** 180,614 ***** 316,957
1996 ***** 12,919 ***** 31,709 ***** 53,336 ***** 82,549 ***** 173,620 ***** 302,439
1995 ***** 12,883 ***** 31,488 ***** 52,650 ***** 80,935 ***** 168,900 ***** 291,497
1994 ***** 12,195 ***** 30,391 ***** 51,198 ***** 79,670 ***** 167,489 ***** 289,376
1993 ***** 11,877 ***** 30,109 ***** 50,471 ***** 78,434 ***** 163,415 ***** 280,474
1992 ***** 12,000 ***** 30,068 ***** 50,658 ***** 77,765 ***** 150,680 ***** 239,157
1991 ***** 12,254 ***** 30,778 ***** 51,123 ***** 77,932 ***** 149,443 ***** 233,217
1990 ***** 12,594 ***** 31,687 ***** 52,338 ***** 78,912 ***** 153,138 ***** 243,856

Under Clinton all income groups improved by a lot.



yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

This article has some relevance to this discussion:

• ROBERT REICH: The “iEverything” and the Redistributional Imperative
  MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2015
  
  It’s now possible to sell a new product to hundreds of millions of people without needing many, if any, workers to produce or distribute it.
  
  At its prime in 1988, Kodak, the iconic American photography company, had 145,000 employees. In 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy.
  
  The same year Kodak went under, Instagram, the world’s newest photo company, had 13 employees serving 30 million customers.
  
  The ratio of producers to customers continues to plummet. When Facebook purchased “WhatsApp” (the messaging app) for $19 billion last year, WhatsApp had 55 employees serving 450 million customers.
  
  A friend, operating from his home in Tucson, recently invented a machine that can find particles of certain elements in the air.
  
  He’s already sold hundreds of these machines over the Internet to customers all over the world. He’s manufacturing them in his garage with a 3D printer.
  
  So far, his entire business depends on just one person – himself.
  
  New technologies aren’t just labor-replacing. They’re also knowledge-replacing.
  
  The combination of advanced sensors, voice recognition, artificial intelligence, big data, text-mining, and pattern-recognition algorithms, is generating smart robots capable of quickly learning human actions, and even learning from one another.
  
  If you think being a “professional” makes your job safe, think again.
  
  The two sectors of the economy harboring the most professionals – health care and education – are under increasing pressure to cut costs. And expert machines are poised to take over.
  
  We’re on the verge of a wave of mobile health apps for measuring everything from your cholesterol to your blood pressure, along with diagnostic software that tells you what it means and what to do about it.
  
  In coming years, software apps will be doing many of the things physicians, nurses, and technicians now do (think ultrasound, CT scans, and electrocardiograms).
  
  Meanwhile, the jobs of many teachers and university professors will disappear, replaced by online courses and interactive online textbooks.
  
  Where will this end?
  
  Imagine a small box – let’s call it an “iEverything” – capable of producing everything you could possibly desire, a modern day Aladdin’s lamp.
  
  You simply tell it what you want, and – presto – the object of your desire arrives at your feet.
  
  The iEverything also does whatever you want. It gives you a massage, fetches you your slippers, does your laundry and folds and irons it.
  
  The iEverything will be the best machine ever invented.
  
  The only problem is no one will be able to buy it. That’s because no one will have any means of earning money, since the iEverything will do it all.
  
  This is obviously fanciful, but when more and more can be done by fewer and fewer people, the profits go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and owner-investors.
  
  One of the young founders of WhatsApp, CEO Jan Koum, had a 45 percent equity stake in the company when Facebook purchased it, which yielded him $6.8 billion.
  
  Cofounder Brian Acton got $3 billion for his 20 percent stake.
  
  Each of the early employees reportedly had a 1 percent stake, which presumably netted them $160 million each.
  
  Meanwhile, the rest of us will be left providing the only things technology can’t provide – person-to-person attention, human touch, and care. But these sorts of person-to-person jobs pay very little.
  
  That means most of us will have less and less money to buy the dazzling array of products and services spawned by blockbuster technologies – because those same technologies will be supplanting our jobs and driving down our pay.
  
  We need a new economic model.
  
  The economic model that dominated most of the twentieth century was mass production by the many, for mass consumption by the many.
  
  Workers were consumers; consumers were workers. As paychecks rose, people had more money to buy all the things they and others produced – like Kodak cameras. That resulted in more jobs and even higher pay.
  
  That virtuous cycle is now falling apart. A future of almost unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by whoever can afford it, is a recipe for economic and social collapse.
  
  Our underlying problem won’t be the number of jobs. It will be – it already is – the allocation of income and wealth.
  
  What to do?
  
  “Redistribution” has become a bad word.
  
  But the economy toward which we’re hurtling – in which more and more is generated by fewer and fewer people who reap almost all the rewards, leaving the rest of us without enough purchasing power – can’t function.
  
  It may be that a redistribution of income and wealth from the rich owners of breakthrough technologies to the rest of us becomes the only means of making the future economy work.

[dales]

BEWARE OF A.I.!

[rubato]

This article has some relevance to this discussion:

Improving efficiency makes the pie larger for everyone.


https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timelin ... s_land.htm

in 1900 agriculture took up 38% of the labor force. in 1990 it was 2.6% The economic effect of that transition is not mass poverty and unemployment it is cheaper and more varied and reliable food supply for everyone.


It is up to us to have an economic system which distributes the rewards more fairly and which provides economic shock absorbers to help us weather periods of transition with as little suffering as possible. Bernie is right we need to emulate Denmark.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

....we need to emulate Denmark.

I knew a couple who immigrated to the US from Danmark.

Why?

It turns out that over 60% of their earnings went to taxes.

For those who wish to live in a Danish utopia................move.