The lower middle class, constituting the bulk of the middle class

[midwayer]

I'd like to see the Democratic agenda really target the seperation of wealth issue that is facing this country today.

It is very apparent to me that there is a huge blinded Republican & "fence sitter" vote out there who are not really understanding just how bad thier wallet is being looted.

I, personally, have slipped in the last few years from a short lived middle class into the lower middle class realm which is not a pretty sight when you are pushing the envelope.

Now, this is NOT to exclude the impoverished and folks need to understand as the middle class fall it rolls down hill.

For the lower middle class and the impoverished it means the difference between having a roof over your head, being forced out onto the streets and possible death. This leads to a much larger problem as well with drug abuse as many just give up. I'm out here in the trenchs, as a tradesman and I see it happening around me all the time.

What is amazing to me is the ones I talk to who don't follow any of the economic issues and don't realize that it really does effect thier well being. I just don't understand it

I'm not sure the elite really understand this, nor do a serious amount of middle class or lower class. They would rather just bury thier head in the sand and assume that our politicians will never do anything about this as this is the way it's always been and will never change.

Something has to be done to address these issues other than just rhetoric. I don't claim to have the answers but something has to be done or I feel revolution.

One last thing is the predatory, uncaring, decietful practices in this country are sickening.

[midwayer]

1. Lower Middle Class

http://countrystudies.us/colombia/40.htm

[shoelace414]

2. "Two Americas"

[midwayer]

4. I hope Kerry will really drive this point home on Thursday

I think it could have a HUGE effect

[Courtesy Flush]

26. I never liked the "Two Americas" theme

First, it's devisive, and second, it ignores the majority of Americans.

Unless I'm missing something, he's saying that everyone is either rich or poor. Well, which are you? I'm doing okay, and my bills are paid. I don't have debt, and I have some savings. Most of the people I know are in about the same shape I am. So most people I know (and probably most of you) don't fit into either of those two Americas.

It sounds good in a speech, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, since most people know very few Americans who fall into either of Edwards' two Americas. If you added the population of those two Americas, it wouldn't amount to a majority of the population, by a long shot.

So there are three Americas, and the biggest one is wondering where we fit into Edwards' plan.

Plus, pile on the fact that Edwards is now sharing the ticket with a multi-millionaire, and it looks like he'd better drop the two Americas bit like a bad habit. Let's face it. It could bite him on the ass. The republikans are salivating over this kind of thing. Don't throw them raw meat.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. You're missing something.

5% of the country controls 90% of it's wealth. This is the "Two Americas." There's really "Five Americas:"

The 5-percenters. $1,000,000-$1,000,000,000+. The Oligarchs. The real problem.

Those who earn $100,000-$1,000,000. The upper-middle class.

Those who earn $60,000-$100,000. The middle class.

Those who earn $20,000-$60,000. The lower-middle class.

And those who earn $0-$20,000. The backbone of America.

[Courtesy Flush]

32. That confirms what I said

That's a lot more than two Americas. Edwards speaks of the top income group, and the bottom, but leaves the majority out of the equation.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. I wasn't clear enough.

I posted my perception of the 5 basic economic brackets but the important point is that there are really only 2 important ones: The 5% who control 90% and the 95% who control 10%. This is the "Two Americas."

[Courtesy Flush]

37. And it's come to this

Clinton fell into the lower middle class. If I recall, he had never made more than $35K when he was running for Prez. Kerry is in the "real problem" category, by your definition. It's getting harder and harder to tell the two parties apart. I don't feel comfortable voting for a billionaire, but I have to.

I can't wait till Obama can run for prez. Maybe a Dean/Obama ticket.

[unfrigginreal]

3. Don't expect much support from this board...

many of those that are middle and upper middle class(50k+) feel that their needs are just as pressing as yours. Whenever you hear the party speaking about helping the middle class, it's those folks that they are addressing. It really is sad.

[midwayer]

5. We never hear the words Lower Middle Class like

they don't even exist and it's a hell of a lot more difficult on this side of 50,000 as the living conditions are not nearly as comfortable
When you stumble back down a step it can be devastating.

God bless the single mothers out there

[midwayer]

6. I'm not a single mother but

I know quite a few whom I really admire

[BiggJawn]

15. Two camps here.

The "Have-nots", like me and others in worse shape, and the "Limosine Liberals" who make 6 figures or more. My giving Kerry $75 is like somebody else giving the whole 2 kilobucks.

Ideologically, we're not that far apart, but yet the upper-classes can't understand why some of us hate luxury car owners and shop at WalMart.

And none of the "other" parties care about us less-than 40 kilobuckers either. Can't make big donations, so go STFU.

Like I've said before, when we start "Eating the Rich", we ain't gonna be checking voter registration cards.....

[midwayer]

18. LOL

If it get's too much worse I afraid that could happen, then sh*t will be rolling UPHILL

[Kanary]

7. Poverty is no longer a DEM concern

That's why some of us were watching LBJ's speeches on C-SPAN2 last night........ it shows clearly just how far the DEMs have moved to the right.

I've concluded that it's a hopeless cause, and most of that is illustrated here on DU... anything about poverty sinks like a stone. People will get incensed and write emails about Whoopi, but they can't be bothered about housing cuts.

The DEMs have turned their collective backs.

Kanary

[midwayer]

9. Listening to Robert Rubin on Tony Trupiano right now

he is addressing this issue now

"A vote for George Bush is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders"

[midwayer]

11. edit: Robert Reich...sorry

[midwayer]

14. Meet Robert Reich

http://www.robertreich.org/reich/biography.asp

He says Kerry is DEVOTED/committed to raising the minimum wage to $7

[TahitiNut]

8. It's a matter of the "working class" vs. the "ownership class"

The Republican ideology is virtually indistinguishable from banana republics or antebellum plantation economics - both akin to 19th Century Victorian England as described by Charles Dickens, with every abuse imaginable.

The increasingly inequitable distribution of wealth can be seen in the Gini index. (You can easily educate yourself regarding the Gini index using Google.) The equitable democratization of our economy ceased about 25 years ago. Since then, labor (which is the sole creator of wealth) has been getting a shorter and shorter end of the stick.




When you look at what's happened to the share of National Income, you can see that corporations have increased the size of their "slice of the national pie by half" -- all at the cost of employees, despite the inclusion of obscene executive salaries in the employees' share.




Then take a look at the taxation of corporate profits (stolen from workers) and see that they're now taxed at the lowest rates ever.




There's plenty of other empirical data to describe the rape of labor, but these should be a decent start.

[midwayer]

12. Thanks for the charts!

they really show the story

[bread_and_roses]

21. a link for the charts? (n/t)

[TahitiNut]

24. The charts themselves are mine.

The data I typically use are from the CPS (Current Population Survey), BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics), BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis), and CBO (Congressional Budget Office).

The first chart displayed has a link shown to the CPS from which the data were obtained, specifically "Table F-4. Gini Ratios for Families, by Race and Hispanic Origin of Householder: 1947 to 2001"

The second and third charts displayed are of data obtained from the BEA, specifically "Table 1.12. National Income by Type of Income " at http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Popular=Y

Nothing fancy - just simple graphs to show data available to anyone.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Gee, and which President rolled into town 25+ years ago?

:freak:

[TahitiNut]

25. Well, don't overlook the impact of Congress.

In particular, the "Contract on America" (so-called "Gingrich Revolution") had a disastrous impact on working people second only to the Reagan/Bush1/Bush2 years, imho.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. I'm not. Just looking at your charts.

Gingrich's pickpocketing of America only became acceptable after Reagan made it fashionable.

[formernaderite]

10. Someone tell me....What's middle class income wise?

I don't know anymore....what's considered upper middle, middle or lower middle in terms of wealth?
My wife and I consider ourselves lower middle class by choice...we totally pared down our existence a few years ago.

[midwayer]

13. I'm not sure the exact numbers but

here is what the census bureau says and I'm pretty sure I saw on thier site whereas thier statistics analysis puts the poverty level for a family of four at around $18,000 if I'm not mistaken

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/midclass/midclsan.html

Income Inequality (Middle Class) - Narrative

The Census Bureau does not have an official definition of the "middle class," but it does derive several measures related to the distribution of income and income inequality. Traditionally, the Census Bureau uses two of the more common measures of income inequality: the shares of aggregate income received by households (or other income recipient units such as families) and the Gini index (or index of income concentration). In the shares approach, we rank households from lowest to highest on the basis of income and then divide them into equal population groups, typically quintiles. We then divide the aggregate income of each group by the overall aggregate income to derive shares. The Gini index incorporates more detailed shares data into a single statistic which summarizes the dispersion of the income shares across the whole income distribution. The Gini index ranges from zero, indicating perfect equality (where everyone receives an equal share), to one, perfect inequality (where all the income is received by only one recipient). Generally, the long-term trend has been toward increasing income inequality. Since 1969, the share of aggregate household income controlled by the lowest income quintile has decreased from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent in 1997, while the share to the highest quintile increased from 43.0 percent to 49.4 percent. Most noticeably, the share of income controlled by the top 5 percent of households has increased from 16.6 percent to 21.7 percent. Over the same time period, the Gini index rose 17.4 percent to its 1997 level of .459. Researchers believe that changes in the labor market and, to a certain extent, household composition affected the long-run increase in income inequality. The wage distribution has become considerably more unequal with workers at the top experiencing real wage gains and those at the bottom real wage losses. These changes reflect relative shifts in demand for labor differentiated on the basis of education and skill. At the same time, long-run changes in society's living arrangements have taken place also tending to exacerbate household income differences. For example, divorces, marital separations, births out of wedlock, and the increasing age at first marriage have led to a shift away from married-couple households to single-parent families and nonfamily households. Since nonmarried-couple households tend to have lower income and income that are less equally distributed than other types of households (partly because of the likelihood of fewer earners in them), changes in household composition have been associated with growing income inequality. Comparing the shares of aggregate income received by quintile between 1993 and 1994 would suggest that the amount of inequality in the income distributions of households did not change. Between 1992 and 1993, however, the amount of inequality in the income distributions of households increased significantly, although part of the increase may have been due to a change in data collection methods. For more information on the 1992-93 change in inequality see the article by Paul Ryscavage, "A surge in Growing Income Inequality?", Monthly Labor Review, August 1995, pp. 52-62.

[formernaderite]

28. Okay, poverty at 18,000....so what are the ranges for middle class?

...I can't really argue or discuss an issue where no one has an idea of what the figures are. I don't know why the campaigns aren't mentioning figures, unless it's true that they're basing the numbers on figures that don't really reflect what people earn.

[TahitiNut]

29. It's intentionally vague. It describes the "belly" of the Lorenz Curve ..

... which charts the distribution of income. This may help ...





The Lorenz Curve merely show the cumulative amount of income (or wealth) vs. the cumulative population (or number of families or households). As we see the curve 'belly' or 'sag' more and more, we're seeing an increasing disparity in the equitable distribution of wealth/income within a society. The least disproportionate distribution is completely equal, as represented by the 45-degree line. The most disproportionate would be where all but a single person/family/household has nothing and that single person/family/household has everything. Somewhere in-between is "equitable."

What constitutes "equitable" is, of course, subject to argument. Elitists and autocrats would argue that a deeply-sagging curve is "equitable" due to their disdain for the hoi polloi and the amplification of small differences in productivity. Even a "pure" communist/socialist would probably not argue for the 45-degree line. Suffice it to say that the US curve sags one helluva lot more than Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Norway, Denmark or a host of other countries ... but not quite as much as Mexico.

[Solly Mack]

16. I'm not sure enough people care anymore

The language used against even lower middle class compares with the language spoken about the dirt poor. Lazy. Dirty. Uneducated. Trash. Redneck.

If you hold people in such contempt, there's no way you care enough about their plight.

That would be the general "you", btw. So no one take that personal...unless you oughta. :)

One of my dearest friends in life has never voted. She isn't political. She thinks there is nothing she can do to change the status-quo. That she is poor and people will judge her no matter what. Tha America only works for those with money. She lives on the outside of mainstream society and it would seem mainstream society likes it that way. When you're viewed as someone who can't contribute to society...society shuts you out. And then you start to believe just what society thinks of you...

I think fear drives those who would ignore poverty. That fear is exploited by politicians...and because it soothes the guilt or nurtures a prejudice, people accept the exploitation because it removes the obligation to do something about poverty...afterall.."they" are lazy and "they are dirty...and "they" are criminals...and "they" are different...and "they" brought it on themselves......and "they" lack education...and "they" are not YOU...

There was a time when building up America from the most needy up was a noble goal...now it's all trickle down in one form or another. Which amounts to nothing more than the bottom tier being shit on.

[midwayer]

17. This is exactly what I'm talking about

The grass roots effort has absolutely got to get through to these people and will represent capturing a substantial voting base.

My feeling though is, as divided as this country is (in more than one way) we will have an unprecedented voter turn out this year.

[Solly Mack]

19. kick

;)

[shraby]

20. You're forgetting that

many of the 50k are just a couple of paychecks away from losing most of what they have too. They buy things depending on 2 incomes, and if one or both incomes suddenly disappear, within 3 months or so, they will have lost their home, maybe their car, the credit card companies will be trying to call them to collect the debt and their parents will have some new room-mates along with any grand-children that come with the package.

Everyone is skating on thin ice now, but the truly poor who were poor before are in really bad trouble. Hopefully things can be turned around come November. For the first time I got a slip in my grocery sack asking for donations for school supplies for the needy. I'm not rich, but I'm going to go and buy some stuff and donate.

[dumpster_baby]

22. Have you seen the movie, "The Truman Show"?

Here is a paraphrased quote from that movie: "We accept the world as it is presented to us."

In Canada, healthcare is funded completely by taxation. And the average length for drawing unemployment benefits is almost 2 years.

And in most countries in NW Europe, the welfare state is even more plush. People are able to draw years of unenployment. And then when they are ready to go back to work, they do so. Much the same for Australia.

My friend who left Venezuela for America because he was an upper class, educated white who was afraid of the socialist land-reform movement in Venezuela, went for an extended visit of Australia. When he came back, he told me that he had decided to move there. "Randy," he said to me, "they don't work there in Australia! The corporations are ripping you off here in America." Well, it is not that they don't work in Australia, but the welfare state there is advanced enough that people do not worry about personal financial ruin or dying for lack of medical care if they get fired. Because they do not feel this ever-present worry and pressure, they are able to take it easier, and the employers cannot demand as much of them as they do of most Americans. Much the same situation exists in the other western nations as in Australia.

They pay for this welfare state through progressive taxation, where the wealthy pay a considerably higher percent in income tax.

Also, what has happened here in America, is that due to our history of slavery and our savage Indians wars, etc., and our civil war, is that we do not trust each other as much as the citizens of other Western nations trust their own fellow citizens.

Then throw in with that the fact that in America corporations and a few people have gotten so wealthy that they have been able to manipulate the mass media. Also, the mass media has been much more pervasive here for longer than in other countries. The mass media has been a vehicle here in America for propagating top down political memes that favor the rich and corporations.

So, here in America, most Americans see a world presented to them by the rich and corporate power. This faux world presented to them is one devoid of ideas about personal political empowerment. This world does not contain ideas about raising taxes on the rich, etc.

[TahitiNut]

27. Let's also try to dispel the myth of "working" = "employed"

"Employed" means, generally speaking, receiving compensation for the labor one invests in the economy. There're millions of people whose labors are not directly compensated, most notably so-called "housewives." Caring for the young, old, and/or disabled, participating in local government and civic activities, and offering support to an employed person are all forms of labor that don't show up on the "compensation" radar.

Once upon a time, the wealthy contended that their sole concern was the confiscation/loss of their wealth (purportedly accumulated through their own labors) when invested in productive activities. AFAIK, it has never been seriously argued in economic equity theory that ownership (merely an entitlement, remember) itself justified disproportionally increased enrichment. Yet that's precisely where we've gotten.

The ages-old cynical lament of "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is now embodied in the American system itself -- as though it's OK. It's not.

[JCMach1]

34. The problem is MOST people 'THINK' they are middle-class

When in fact they are working class...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Right, "middle class" has been redefined to mean

"has middle class values." Thus everyone who believes in hard work and staying out of trouble sees themselves as "middle class," even if they're working at WalMart.

It's a way of seeing themselves as "better" than the underclass, kind of a defense mechanism, because deep-down, they know that the water of overwhelming debt and no income is up to their chins.

[Solly Mack]

36. Yes. Believing in the "values" but without the economic reality

However holding the "values" (hard work/staying out of trouble)is not a bad thing...but those values don't translate into opportunity. Those "values" aren't enough. Which is why you get people who work all their life and get nowhere. The opportunity isn't there.

They can't break even, much less get ahead - because wages are low, costs (food,housing, utilities, clothing) are high, and they can just forget healthcare,higher education, and saving for retirement.

It doesn't help that America tells them.."work hard and you can do it"...when they've watched their parents work hard their entire lives and not doing it. Some people give up and they drop out of society. Living their life, raising their kids...but never feeling apart of the process. Just struggling day to day and never believing they can make a difference.


Some will be easy targets for exploitation by politicians, and others with something to gain, by appeals to racism, sexism ,and "those damn liberals." Those who embrace the feel good measure of "who am I better than today" will embrace the very policies that keep them down.

Others will see beyond the lies and look to the social and economic causes. But that's not enough.

Much like "middle class values" can be a state of mind and not always an economic reality...so, too, can being poor be a state of mind. Let me explain..

Being poor doesn't mean being dirty or lazy or trash. But live in a society that is constantly labeling the poor as such and the people( poor, middle class,and wealthy alike) will believe it. So we have to change how society plays the "who am I better than today" game. Right now they play it based on economics...anyone that earns less than you or has less than you must be less than you. And we live in a society that hammers that belief home. Even good intentioned folks buy into it. Which means we value a persons purse over the person themself. How wrong is that? Poor people don't lack dignity..America strips that dignity away. Poor people don't lack character and honor. America labels them as such because then it's the poors fault and not Americas. How people think of themselves and others matter...it makes a big difference to progress and change.

The poor need to know they are valued and not because "someones got to work the service industry"...but because they are human. It all starts with respecting each other. With seeing each other as having value.

We have to change our thinking of how we view the "have nots"...cause once we do...we will , as a country, begin to embrace actual economic change that does bring the bottom tier up...and even if people never earn big salaries, that they still have opportunity. They still have value. That they aren't looked down upon because of some very bigoted notions of poor people.

A living wage doesn't mean people become wealthy...it means they can meet their basic needs which allow them to grow, which allows to them dream of a better day...to achieve that better day..which gets them out from under the overwhelming burdens that come with struggling for even the most of basic of needs. Poverty is made all the more bitter because of societal attitudes.

It's dehumanising because of societal attitudes. There's no shame in being poor. The shame is that society has declared that being poor makes people somehow less. First, America must see the poor has human. And I honestly don't think America does. It's so easy to close you door and not think about the child going hungry. To blame it on their parents. To belittle and label them. When that happens, America turns her back on generations.

In America, they first chain young minds...telling them how bad they are for being poor...then we chain opportunity...which keeps people poor in spirit and poor in pocket. Oh, we cruelly dangle the carrot of opportunity and then blame them for not reaching for it...while we keep it just out of their grasp.

Some people need the "who am I better than today" ...their small minds won't ever embrace any other kind of thinking...and those are the people that make the struggle harder. Right now they are in the majority in this country...I dream of a day when those people are the minority...and we pity their thinking. Because America has moved on to true opportunity for her people. An America that has finally learned, and not just pays lip service to, that content of character is the only basis for judging...that the only shame in being poor is that we live a wealthy nation that actively perpetuates it, instead of meeting the needs of her people.



People like Bush pedal the America dream and then offer nightmares. They can get away with it because of the way people think. Change their thinking...and we'll change the world.

sorry for my rant..

[GreenPartyVoter]

38. The classes have changed.. warped.... something

I know far too many people with college and master's degrees who are working at Mall*Wart or Rite-Aid or in their own industry but at a much lower level job than they are trained for. And many of them are under-employed and therefore juggling two or three jobs.

So if it's that bad for the middle-class, what the heck is going on for the folks who are further on down the ladder? My FIL, a minister in a dying church, told me today that he thanks God his church has a parsonage or he would be homeless because he can't make money in his church job, and is too ill and too old to get another job. (This from a man who, when I met him, was still doing construction and quarry work. :^()

The neocons are breaking us...busting us back into a feudal state. They are working overtime to make sure that WE do not get paid for overtime. Making sure that we non-elites don't have the education we need to think for ourselves or hold down decent jobs.

I think if things get bad enough for enough people in this country, there will be a revival of the guillotine. (I hope not. I hope Kerry can get a Blue Hill and put some sweeping reforms into place a la FDR, but if that does not happen...... well, I may change my mind on gun control. :( My dad is already threatening to buy guns if * gets back in.)

--------------------------------------------------------
An open letter to John Kerry, John Edwards, and the DNC:
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/OpenLetter.htm