but they haven’t fallen into the lower class, they’ve risen into the upper class
-----------For a while there, I heard how bad things were. So this is really good news.
With the middle class moving up it should provide opportunity for the lower classes to fill the positions. I'm always impressed how this country recovers from everything and comes back again and again. This is in spite of, not because of, our politicians.
23 Skidoo!
That is an impressive piece of propaganda. Cherry picked facts, parameters specifically chosen to exclude data points that ruin the conclusion, and inconsistent criteria.
The narrative of "don't question or oppose the financial system because you too can become rich" is dangerous and false.
-----------
How old are you anyway?
Oh, yeah, good post.
Is 75,000$ really upper class?
-----------------------Well, I can't say I was there for "The Roaring Twenties" but I wish I could have been there. Before we got so serious and all.
I was heavily influenced by the film Thoroughly Modern Millie.
I showed up at the start of WW2.
I'm always impressed how this country recovers from everything and comes back again and again. This is in spite of, not because of, our politicians.
That is an impressive piece of propaganda. Cherry picked facts, parameters specifically chosen to exclude data points that ruin the conclusion, and inconsistent criteria.
The narrative of "don't question or oppose the financial system because you too can become rich" is dangerous and false.
Yup - like UPPER INCOME being $75K and over. How many country clubs do you know will even let you change the toilet paper roll with that kind of annual income?
Upper Income indeed! :doh:roll:
Um, you mean like the repeal of the Bush cuts on those making $250K?its funny, the left demonizes the uber wealthy yet their tax schemes see people making not much more than 75K as "the rich" when it comes to tax increases.
NYC? What? Pelosi is a rep from CA, SF specifically.75K is middle class for sure. However 75 K in some areas will lead to a better standard of living than someone just barely in the top 2% in NYC of Pelosiland
A prime and older wage earner from 1967....is dead now.
This ignores the fact that we have very limited class-migration in the US. The children of the top 10% in America have an over 70% likelihood of being in the top 10% themselves. So children of the bottom 90%, are getting less than 3 out of every 10 jobs that put them in the top 10%.
In other words, we're 70% of the way to a permanent class system.
So, in a perfect society none of the children born into the top 10% could retain that status?
Over all, about half of children in the US born into the lower sextile of wage earners retain the economic status of the parents, which means that over half of them moved to a higher sextile and were replaced by people who fell down from higher sextiles. That hardly sounds like a permanent class system.
Social conditions in the lowest sextile have been deteriorating. Most of them are born to single mothers now, and those children invariably are raised in poverty and face disadvantages greater than children raised in 2 parent households. Such people find it very difficult to lift themselves out of poverty and their relative numbers are increasing.
So, in a perfect society none of the children born into the top 10% could retain that status?
Over all, about half of children in the US born into the lower sextile of wage earners retain the economic status of the parents, which means that over half of them moved to a higher sextile and were replaced by people who fell down from higher sextiles. That hardly sounds like a permanent class system.
Social conditions in the lowest sextile have been deteriorating. Most of them are born to single mothers now, and those children invariably are raised in poverty and face disadvantages greater than children raised in 2 parent households. Such people find it very difficult to lift themselves out of poverty and their relative numbers are increasing.
This ignores the fact that we have very limited class-migration in the US. The children of the top 10% in America have an over 70% likelihood of being in the top 10% themselves. So children of the bottom 90%, are getting less than 3 out of every 10 jobs that put them in the top 10%.
In other words, we're 70% of the way to a permanent class system.
Also, in a country like Denmark, in which social mobility is higher, the advantage of being in a higher socioeconomic class is less. Most middle class Danes can't afford to buy a house, and their homes are missing many of the amenities familiar to middle class Americans. Not until one gets to the upper 20% of Danish earners does one find a life style similar to that of the American middle class. This is with government services included in the comparison.
Average individual consumption is 33% less in Denmark compared to America.
It can and does, since class is lower, middle and upper, and we're approaching a permanent upper class and a lower and middle class with a very low probability of moving to the upper class.
How is the fact that we have one of the most economic free, and economically prosperous economies in all of human history both false and dangerous? Outrageous. I must assume you believe that it's better to tell people they CANNOT reach for the stars and achieve them in the U.S. And that OMG if they actually DID achieve the economic success that THEY want, that you'd believe that was dangerous!?!The narrative of "don't question or oppose the financial system because you too can become rich" is dangerous and false.
It depends on how "upper class" is defined. If it refers to the top 10% of wage earners then by your own figures 30% of people born to it fall down to the middle class to be replaced by people who move up from lower classes. I'm puzzled by assertions that this represents low social class mobility because it seems pretty high to me. Also, as the economy picks up this mobility will rise.
If we are talking about an upper class defined by an Ivy League Education, careers in the upper levels of business, politics and academics, friends and connections with all the same interests in stuff like sailing, polo,etc., and a residence in the Hamptons and similar places, then we are probably talking about a group that is much more difficult to get into by design, almost exclusively hereditary I would guess. A household income of $111,000 will get you into the top 10% but no way will it get you into that upper class.
How is the fact that we have one of the most economic free, and economically prosperous economies in all of human history both false and dangerous? Outrageous. I must assume you believe that it's better to tell people they CANNOT reach for the stars and achieve them in the U.S. And that OMG if they actually DID achieve the economic success that THEY want, that you'd believe that was dangerous!?!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?