The Rise and Fall of Middle-class Wealth

[Ahlevah]

This is a reasonable post. But implicit here is a glimpse of the future: Millennials are going to raise taxes; they're going to embrace European socialism; they're going to reject the current system; because the system isn't working for them.

It depends on which Millennials we're talking about. The well-educated ones with good jobs probably won't be too keen on that plan. The ones who don't have salable skills will likely find it more to their liking.

 

[Ahlevah]

Still, the stats show that Europe's E-to-P Ratio is greater than that of the US, at 75%*.

Europe has more public-sector employment than private. There's a cost to that in that governments don't pay taxes to themselves. While the workers receive paychecks and spend and pay taxes with those, their employers pay nothing. In fact, someone has to pay for those government services. (Those same workers?) Nothing is free. So I see more slow growth for the Continent as debt weighs it down.

 

[Ahlevah]

That is what they want, a hunger game society!

Who's this mystical "they" you're talking about?

 

[Lafayette]

What the hell does this have to do with people improving, or wanting to improve their own station in life? Not all business owners are into it to because they are enraptured by wealth.

There are hundreds of other reason to own your own business, and many of them have nothing to do with being very wealthy.

You didn't get the point made, so I'll repeat it. "Different strokes for different folks".

America is in love with "Making it". Success becomes the ultimate goal and Money, Money, Money is the score-card.

Europe is not the least bit enthralled with millionaires, billionaires or zillionaires. Or, for that matter, "Making it" - just as long as there is enough to go around reasonably well.

Societal attitudes are different, iow. You are living a "game" in the US. Winners and losers are the only criteria. And who the hell cares about "losers"?

Simple enough, all that ... ?
_______________________

 

[Fruityfact]

It depends on which Millennials we're talking about. The well-educated ones with good jobs probably won't be too keen on that plan. The ones who don't have salable skills will likely find it more to their liking.

Would you happen to have any evidence to back this sentiment up? Genuinely curious

 

[Dittohead not!]

Yes, actually, I do think, solely in terms of economic mobility and wealth accumulation, that the "greatest generation" had it easier. Here's an interesting study on generation elasticity (the chances that you'll remain in your parents' economic bracket, essentially) that helps make that point, although it's not clear cut. But the gist is that economic mobility snapped back to depression-era levels around 1980. There's plenty to chew on in that data for both sides of our debate, but it makes a compelling case that American meritocracy has gone off the rails.

More importantly, that generation didn't require as much education to establish long-term employment, gainful employment was readily available after the war, and unionization, pensions, and social programs helped sustain that generation through the golden years.

I'm not a millennial (I'm turning 40 soon), but I certainly see that they're getting screwed, even more than my generation. Moral failing didn't cause this.



Which came first, the chicken or the nest egg? Check this out.

The problem isn't that people are having kids too soon -- it's that they can't get enough economic footing to sustain families. I would argue that economic pressure as well as changing social norms are behind that unwed birth stat.

Regardless, the answer isn't just "work harder and get more schooling." We need to lower economic barriers, cheaper education, and we're probably going to need more robust social programs as my generation and those below me age. It's time to raise taxes on the wealthy.

You do bring up some good points. It is difficult and time consuming to get the education that is needed today for a good career.

And college has gotten terribly expensive, much more expensive than it needs to be. Nevertheless, the poor have scholarships available if they want to pursue higher education. Unfortunately, a lot of students drop out before even completing high school.

Running the colleges more efficiently and lowering the tuition has to be a part of the answer, as does providing vocational education at the high school level. Not everyone has the talent or the inclination to go to college at all, and there are well paying jobs that don't require a BA.

I'm not exactly a millennial either, nor a baby boomer. Those callow youth started being born about nine months after the end of WWII. I was born back at the beginning of it. Our society has changed dramatically since the time I was growing up in the '50s.

As for marriage, that is more than simply waiting to have children. A marriage means that there is a commitment between two people to stay together and raise the children as a family. I really think that is the reason why child poverty is so much more prevalent among the children of unmarried adults - only one person is trying to do the whole job alone.

Which came first? Hard to say. It looks to me like a combination of things. Yes, it's harder to get a good job. On the other hand, fewer people are willing to do the hard, dirty jobs. I can remember working in the fields harvesting crops. My co workers were not illegal aliens, but American citizens who, for whatever reason, couldn't do better. Now, people would rather collect unemployment or other government "benefits."

Moreover, credit is much easier to get today. The last time credit was easy to get was in the late '20s. We know what followed that.

It seems to me that things like getting the training needed to move up the ladder, waiting until marriage to have sex, and waiting until you have the money to buy the things you want all have one thing in common: the willingness to defer gratification.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Who's this mystical "they" you're talking about?

Nothing mystical about it. Just the very small group who is running our world.

 

[Lafayette]

THE GUNS OR BUTTER ARGUMENT (REDUX)

In fact, someone has to pay for those government services. Nothing is free. So I see more slow growth for the Continent as debt weighs it down.

Whether Public Services are conducted by private (for profit) companies or by Public Administrations (non-profit) is somewhat irrelevant. Both get the job done, except where no such Public Services exist. It is both costs and results that are consequential and important.

The differentiating factor is that privatized public-services can be more expensive and less encompassing due their inherent cost. Health Care is just such a case. If the Public Administration assures that Public Services are available at lower cost, then it will find a way to provide them.

Which is why, quite simply, Europe has decided to provide universal Health Care and Free Tertiary Education, both at costs far less than the US.

There is a social cost involved in privatized mechanisms that assure what some of us call "The Public Good". Private mechanisms will always go for profit above quality-of-care, unless said quality has a higher-price. Meaning only a select minority of the population can afford it.

In most advanced countries, both Health Care and Tertiary Education are considered essential to the development of both the country and the individual citizen.

MY POINT

*ObamaCare has not been around long enough to see if any real difference will be made in terms of lifespan, which is a key outcome. And, with Trump and a Replicant Congress in power, they will get rid of both come a full triumph this November. The Replicants are dead set upon killing ObamaCare, because it causes lower Insurance Company profits.
*Free (or nearly Free) Tertiary Education exists today in most states. And yet, TE average costs much more per student in the US than in Europe (wherein some countries have zero-tuition costs . See here:


Moreover, regardless of student-scholarships presently in the US, the average American student graduates with a $30K debt to repay - which only serves to prevent more students from attending ...
______________

 

[RetiredUSN]

You didn't get the point made, so I'll repeat it. "Different strokes for different folks".

America is in love with "Making it". Success becomes the ultimate goal and Money, Money, Money is the score-card.

Europe is not the least bit enthralled with millionaires, billionaires or zillionaires. Or, for that matter, "Making it" - just as long as there is enough to go around reasonably well.

Societal attitudes are different, iow. You are living a "game" in the US. Winners and losers are the only criteria. And who the hell cares about "losers"?

Simple enough, all that ... ?
_______________________

Not sure what to say about all that......... it's hard to respond to such generalizations.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Malls are closing at very high rate:

Shopping Malls Are Going Extinct - Business Insider

A dying breed: The American shopping mall - CBS News

Macy's, Sears, J.C. Penney Stores Close, Changing Malls

Smaller retail stores and shops are on the comeback:

Perhaps Bigger is Not Better – Small Stores Make a Comeback | eft - Supply Chain & Logistics Business Intelligence

Filling in the Strip Mall: Small Stores Make a Comeback : Media Center

http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-human-cost-of-stuff/bright-spots-on-main-street


There is hope yet!

Are they being replaced by small mom n pop stores, or by Amazon and Ebay?

 

[Lafayette]

The well-educated ones with good jobs probably won't be too keen on that plan.

Wishful thinking.

If the well-educated could do it in Europe, the well-educated in the US should be able to bring Fundamental Change to America as well.

It's not Mission Impossible, neither is it mind-boggling. All we have to do is accept the notion that Reckless Ronnie's passage of flat-rate taxation (at levels of income beyond $100K) was a dangerous mistake that has led us to the economic impasse of Income Disparity amongst the population that plaguing America.

Where a Replicant Hold on Congress will move heaven-'n-hell NOT TO CHANGE A DAMN THING that might alter the situation. That's all it takes to trigger the flame.

Time is pressing. Unless, of course, we need a Watts Riots 2 to break out in half a dozen cities in the US.

In 6, 7 or 8 large American cities, for instance ... will that bring the message home? (Enough is enough!)

When you push a people too far, conflagration happens ...
__________________________

 

[bluesmoke]

You didn't get the point made, so I'll repeat it. "Different strokes for different folks".

America is in love with "Making it". Success becomes the ultimate goal and Money, Money, Money is the score-card.

Europe is not the least bit enthralled with millionaires, billionaires or zillionaires. Or, for that matter, "Making it" - just as long as there is enough to go around reasonably well.

Societal attitudes are different, iow. You are living a "game" in the US. Winners and losers are the only criteria. And who the hell cares about "losers"?

Simple enough, all that ... ?
_______________________

If you own your own home and will have something to pass on to your kids (besides debt), you're in the middle class. If not, you're a loser. If we had a fair economic system that offered full employment and living wages, or some form thereof, to pull people out of poverty, the middle class wouldn't have any class to look down on. Then the middle class would be the lower class. That's a better way then the way the middle class is becoming the lower class now.

 

[Lafayette]

WHY THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOING ENOUGH TO FUND POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

If the EU, for all its mistakes, gets something Dead Right, it is its approach to funding tertiary-schooling. Unlike the US, most EU-countries have vocational, 2- & 4-year education that is free, gratis and for nothing. It is a requirement to entry into the European Union.

Seems like a yet another "gummint giveaway"? Perhaps, but this one has a real return.

What is so evident about lo-cost education in the EU that seems not have struck imaginations in the US? It's the Guns or Butter argument. That is a choice has to be made. Either we buy "Guns" (DoD budget) or we buy "Butter" (Dept. of Education budget).

Where does that get us?

Here, from the DoE, excerpt:

The Federal Role in Education

Overview

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1.15 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2011-2012, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where about 87.7 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources.

That means the Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is about 10.8 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program.

Although ED's share of total education funding in the U.S. is relatively small, ED works hard ...

"Education is primarily a State and local responsibility ... ? Sez who? Since when?

And when the "fit hits the shan", as it has these past 8 years since the Great Recession, what happens to State Budgets? They shrink, like all budgets - at the very moment when education is the key to job obtainment.

Frankly, I think the EU has got this one right. Yes, local communities should attend to primary and secondary education. But tertiary education should be budgeted by the Dept. of Education that funds state post-secondary schooling. Perhaps based upon a "needs" basis, perhaps "come one, come all" - or a mix of the two.

Whatever - times awaistin' ...!
____________________

 

[Lafayette]

If we had a fair economic system that offered full employment and living wages, or some form thereof, to pull people out of poverty,

BIG little "if", that one.

But your right. If the economic system were more fair. But it isn't, because the poorer classes do not earn sufficient income, even if theirs is hardly taxed. And any real corporate profits are designed by management to be suitably reduced in order to provide generous Income Packages that are taxed at a ridiculously low 30% flat-tax rate.

Worse yet, the real Millionaire Builders are the stock-options. But why do those go to only a select few? Are they the ONLY ONES who made the company profitable? Anyone who has ever worked in a large corporation knows that is not the truth. All the staff contributes to a company's profitability - so why do they not get any of the profit share-out?

Not all equally, but all equitably.

My point is this: The "game" is rigged by Corporate Management, and you will never see a red-dime other than what's in your paycheck, until you break through the Upper-Management Ceiling. Which makes you 1 out of maybe 500,000 to do so ... ?
__________________________

 

[RetiredUSN]

Are they being replaced by small mom n pop stores, or by Amazon and Ebay?

A little bit of both from what I have been reading.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

The problem is people spend too much. The solution is to spend less and save more, work longer hours, or get a raise. :shrug:

That's not a solution: it's a recipe for families living on the streets.

You assume that people can't get raises or work longer hours because they're lazy. Which is a totally unsupported rightwing fantasy.

 

[Ahlevah]

Would you happen to have any evidence to back this sentiment up? Genuinely curious

Not really. It's just my opinion. That's why I said "probably." But normally people think socialism and high levels of taxation are a great idea until they have to foot the bill. I don't think Millennials are any different:

The expanded social welfare state Sanders thinks the United States should adopt requires everyday people to pay considerably more in taxes. Yet millennials become averse to social welfare spending if they foot the bill. As they reach the threshold of earning $40,000 to $60,000 a year, the majority of millennials come to oppose income redistribution, including raising taxes to increase financial assistance to the poor.

Similarly, a Reason-Rupe poll found that while millennials still on their parents’ health-insurance policies supported the idea of paying higher premiums to help cover the uninsured (57 percent), support flipped among millennials paying for their own health insurance with 59 percent opposed to higher premiums.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...llennials-like-socialism-until-they-get-jobs/

 

[Ahlevah]

Nothing mystical about it. Just the very small group who is running our world.

And who is that? If it's not mystical you should be able to supply specifics.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Not really. It's just my opinion. That's why I said "probably." But normally people think socialism and high levels of taxation are a great idea until they have to foot the bill. I don't think Millennials are any different:

Interesting. The poor like income redistribution, but the well off don't. Who would have thought it?

 

[Pin dÁr]

And who is that? If it's not mystical you should be able to supply specifics.

13 families. Rotschilds, Rockefeller, DuPont, etc.

 

[Lafayette]

A little bit of both from what I have been reading.

Amazon and Ebay will come against, sooner or later, a "natural limit".

People like to get out and shop, that is, mix 'n mingle. It is human nature.

This does not mean Internet-shopping is due a demise. Not at all.

And that it is helping to stop the anarchic disarray of "shopping malls" all over the country is what some call goodness.

Read a book instead - let's expand our mind instead of our belly ... ?
_____________________

 

[Ahlevah]

Interesting. The poor like income redistribution, but the well off don't. Who would have thought it?

I see that in my two sons. The older one is 31, makes a good living working for AT&T, and has saved a tidy sum for his age. He's the conservative. The younger one (27) is a Japanese studies major in college and barely has a cent to his name. He's a Bernie man, although he's never voted in an election. :doh I (thought) I raised them both the same. Where did I go wrong?

 

[Dittohead not!]

I see that in my two sons. The older one is 31, makes a good living working for AT&T, and has saved a tidy sum for his age. He's the conservative. The younger one (27) is a Japanese studies major in college and barely has a cent to his name. He's a Bernie man, although he's never voted in an election. :doh I (thought) I raised them both the same. Where did I go wrong?

Once kids reach the ripe old age of 16 or so, they will do what they will do regardless of their parents' wishes. Each baby is unique when it is born and will turn out differently from every other baby even if they are raised the same way.

Ask him this question: What's the difference between a Japanese studies major and a large pizza?



Answer: The large pizza can feed a family of four.

 

[Lafayette]

And who is that? If it's not mystical you should be able to supply specifics.

The World's Billionaires ...
_________________

 

[Ahlevah]

The World's Billionaires ...
_________________

Not the Trilateral Commission? The Council on Foreign Relations? Jewish bankers? Freemasons? The 13 Families? The Illuminati? The Fourth Reich? The Military-Industrial Complex? George Soros? Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada?