A New New Deal?

[Velociryx]

The leisure class doesn't have to do any work at all, and if they do, it is largely symbolic in its nature (from Veblen), but I'll not split hairs with you. I'll just simply say that the middle class as I know it certainly isn't synonymous with the leisure class, so we are simply talking past each other.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
The leisure class doesn't have to do any work at all, and if they do, it is largely symbolic in its nature (from Veblen), but I'll not split hairs with you. I'll just simply say that the middle class as I know it certainly isn't synonymous with the leisure class, so we are simply talking past each other.

-=Vel=-

Not very many people have never done any work. The general attitude among the leisure class is that the less work you do, and the easier the work is, the more important it is, which makes you superior, or at least equal to your peers. So we're talking about degrees here. But the middle class is generally not the working class. The working class is a different group.

[The Mad Monk]

Accrues liability, and an aggrieved person may obtain relief including recovery of back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to practices that occurred outside the time for filing a charge.

What is that saying?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Who forced the capitalists to lend them money?

The government strongly encouraged it though.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


According to what metric?

The Obama metric. It's been a Dem talking point for years.

[Jon Miller]

So the wealthies portion of the wealth has been increasing for the last ~30 years. We can assume that the poor have 0 wealth. This suggests that the middle class has been losing wealth to the wealthy.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

? So total wealth is a constant?

[Jon Miller]

No. Wealth is growing but population is growing as well.

I agree that there could be other resutls of those statistics, but assuming that wealth and population are growing at the same rate, the wealthy having a greater percent of the wealth would mean that the middle class shrunk (as a percentage of the population) or became less wealthy.

I know that I am making a few assumptions.

JM

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No. Wealth is growing but population is growing as well.

I agree that there could be other resutls of those statistics, but assuming that wealth and population are growing at the same rate, the wealthy having a greater percent of the wealth would mean that the middle class shrunk (as a percentage of the population) or became less wealthy.

It's generally accepted that in the Anglo societies the middle class (or at least what used to be the middle class) has stayed more or less the same and perhaps lost some ground, while the poor have it worse.

Having said that, people's lives have improved somewhat. When I was a kid, New Zealand only had two TV channels, and of course things like the internet did not exist.

But people on lower incomes have a lot less security. The one thing that was noticeable amongst all the people I grew up with (and I spent my youngest years in a solid working class community living in a state house) is that a lot of my friends have ended up worse off than their parents. Their parents could count on leaving school at 15 and getting a well paid and secure job and thus being financially secure enough to marry and have children. For their kids the likelihood of stable, well-paid employment is much much lower and so there have been innumerable bust up relationships, divorces and kids living with one parent or with a series of step-parents. The number one cause of all this is lack of job and financial security.

Meanwhile, sanctimonious right wing politicians lecture the populace on family values when their own economic and employment policies have done more to frustrate and prevent the formation of stable families than any other factor in society. Some of them actually believe their own bull****.

[Velociryx]

Aggie.

-=Vel=-

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The "middle class" is the most pampered group in the US.

Middle class :

The wages of the middle class [after adjusting for inflation] have not gone up since the 1970's.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No. Wealth is growing but population is growing as well.

I agree that there could be other resutls of those statistics, but assuming that wealth and population are growing at the same rate, the wealthy having a greater percent of the wealth would mean that the middle class shrunk (as a percentage of the population) or became less wealthy.

I know that I am making a few assumptions.

JM

Since the 80's, the wealth of America has doubled. The increase has all gone to the upper 5%.

[Velociryx]

Which would be the group I'd describe as the "Leisure Class."

Not various incarnations of working stiffs, but that's just my two cents.

-=Vel=-

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
No. Wealth is growing but population is growing as well.

So total wealth per capita is a constant?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Which would be the group I'd describe as the "Leisure Class."

Not various incarnations of working stiffs, but that's just my two cents.

-=Vel=-

Top 5% is leisure class?

IIRC to get into top 5% you need a family income of 150000$ or so.