The Shrinking Middle Class in America

[Kuciwalker]

Also, recent evidence suggests that the "happiness is relative" claim is genuinely false.

[Jon Miller]

Umm, the wiki article is terrible (and did not report the study properly). It seems to emphasize material determination of happiness, even as the only determinant. Which seems a narrow and short sighted (and certainly false) view of things. Also, this is a study that came out, it is now a source of contention but that doesn't mean that evidence now supports the opposite conclusion.

Better than the Wiki (but linked from it):
http://www2.eur.nl/fsw/research/veen...2003e-full.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/bu...ardt.html?_r=1

I will note:
"And a big reason it may not have risen in the United States is that the hourly pay of most workers has not grown much recently."

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

Just what we need after some Kidicious posts. A GePap post.

[Hauldren Collider]

Only someone with a brain the size of a pee would get that from my post.

My brain is the size of the ocean of piss you keep dumping on this forum.

In fact employment is production you idiot. Go stick your head in a hole or something.

No it is not. They are completely disjoint. I can hire people to smash windows. They'd be employed, are they producing anything?

BROKEN WINDOW FALLACY

[GePap]

Just what we need after some Kidicious posts. A GePap post.

Who are you again?

[Hauldren Collider]

[GePap]

Quality of life is a subjective value measured relative to those around us.

1) see re: Jaguar below. If you are going to define quality of life as subjective and relative to the rest of the population, then you should be honest and just say there's no point in technological progress at all.

2) Good thing I'm not using it!

1) Jaguar's already pointed out the logical incoherence of reifying the hedonic treadmill.

2) Good thing that's not the point I'm making!

God, you are dense. I am not making a statement about whether some subsistance farmer in Chad will be "happier" or have a higher "standard of living" than some secretary in Manhattan you nitwit. My point is that people compare their lives to those around themselves, and to the lives they know about.

As for cell phones and telecommunications: The growth of telecommunications and the mass decrease in prices for telecommunication services is fine and all, and everyone living today benefits from the improvements and the ability to speak to people cheaply. The point there is that EVERYONE has benefited, the poor, the rich, the ones in the middle. The question of whether a "middle class" of individuals between the rich or poor is doing well is not going to be determined by a general improvements that benefit all. When someone is thinking about whether they are middle class or not, the ability to get a cell phone or not isn't going to enter into their thinking.

The term middle class is heavily loaded in this country, with the vast majority defining themselves as such and quick to define others outside of it. Arguing that people in this country are doing great because look, cell phones are cheap and computing power is cheap, so everyone has it so much better today than 20 years ago! is not going to get you anywhere, because that is not how people define themselves or their goals.

I would argue that the big determination of what "middle class" is is based on the notion and ability to provide some basic income security. The ability to know that you can "provide for your family and retirement" without having to be fearful of the cronic problems of the poor; hunger, homelessness, being crippled by disease. During the age of income compression there was enough work so that most individuals felt they could "look ahead" five or six years and feel good about their ability to still have a home, work, sufficient income to feed their family because wages or salary would keep up with the costs of housing, food, energy, and education, which are the costs that matter most to people (not that of gadgets), and have the sense that if serious illness came, paying for health care would not lead to bankruptcy.

The current economic system has for a huge number of people done away with that sense of security, which is why, regardless of thier absolute material conditions, a lot of people feel the "middle class" is shrinking.

[Kuciwalker]

Umm, the wiki article is terrible (and did not report the study properly). It seems to emphasize material determination of happiness, even as the only determinant. Which seems a narrow and short sighted (and certainly false) view of things. Also, this is a study that came out, it is now a source of contention but that doesn't mean that evidence now supports the opposite conclusion.

Better than the Wiki (but linked from it):
http://www2.eur.nl/fsw/research/veen...2003e-full.pdf http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/bu...ardt.html?_r=1

I will note:
"And a big reason it may not have risen in the United States is that the hourly pay of most workers has not grown much recently."

JM

Fair - I don't actually care that much either way, because I don't think it's relevant, but I ran across it while reading about something else so felt like linking it.

[Hauldren Collider]

Wow. That post was incredibly boring and stupid in addition to not making the slightest bit of sense. Thanks, I guess.

xpost

So I'm actually going to address this point--if all we are discussing is something that is entirely in people's heads, why does the OP feel the need to cite a bunch of ****ty statistics? And what hard evidence can you dredge up that people are unhappy with their luxurious* American lifestyle, even if some others are living a slightly more luxurious American lifestyle.

*Compared to other countries.

I could probably come up with even better arguments that GePap is being dumb but I'd rather be playing video games so off I go. Later tools.

[Kuciwalker]

God, you are dense. I am not making a statement about whether some subsistance farmer in Chad will be "happier" or have a higher "standard of living" than some secretary in Manhattan you nitwit. My point is that people compare their lives to those around themselves, and to the lives they know about.

As for cell phones and telecommunications: The growth of telecommunications and the mass decrease in prices for telecommunication services is fine and all, and everyone living today benefits from the improvements and the ability to speak to people cheaply. The point there is that EVERYONE has benefited, the poor, the rich, the ones in the middle. The question of whether a "middle class" of *I stopped reading about here*

What the hell are you talking about? We're talking about the validity of CPI as a measure of the change in the real value of money.

[giblets]

I think he's talking about the thread title. In other words making an argument that the middle class is shrinking.

[Kuciwalker]

We resolved that 250 posts ago, the OP is complete bunk.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, though, it's a really good anthology of the most toolish talking points.

[notyoueither]

I would rather be below average in a society that has the internet and cellphones than at the average in a society that has none of those things. I would rather drive a 2001 Honda Civic today (about 3000 dollars) than a brand-new 1970 Cadillac in its time. You know why? The Honda is a much better car. It is safer, more efficient, more reliable, and stocked with features like power windows that used to only appear on Bentleys.

Today, I can communicate with my best friend, for free, at the library, on Skype. That's pretty amazing, because he is in Osaka, Japan this summer, and I'm in Connecticut.

Do you know what a long-distance call to San Francisco would have cost me in 1970? About 25 cents per minute, with a 70 cent minimum. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e601moNCA7Q

The hour-long conversation I had yesterday with my best friend, even if we assume he was only across the country, not across the Pacific, would have cost me fifteen dollars. That would have been an entire day's budget for me in 1970.

So yes, my answer is "hell yes, present day!"

People wrote letters. It cost ~$0.10 to communicate.

You are a freak.

[notyoueither]

It's ridiculous only because nobody in the US actually needs to do it, not because it's impossible, or even difficult. I can take a photo of the receipt, and the various groceries, on my webcam if you would like.

Obviously, my receipt contains other items I neglected to mention, like a blueberry pie, microwave pizzas, and other such awesomenesses, that aren't nearly as cost-effective. I do not advocate living on 2 dollars a day for food. I'm just saying I could do it reasonably healthily.