Half the World Is Now Middle Class Or Wealthier, Says Brookings Institution (brookings.edu) 279
schwit1 shares a report from the Brookings Institution: Something of enormous global significance is happening almost without notice. For the first time since agriculture-based civilization began 10,000 years ago, the majority of humankind is no longer poor or vulnerable to falling into poverty. By our calculations, as of this month, just over 50 percent of the world's population, or some 3.8 billion people, live in households with enough discretionary expenditure to be considered "middle class" or "rich." About the same number of people are living in households that are poor or vulnerable to poverty. So September 2018 marks a global tipping point. After this, for the first time ever, the poor and vulnerable will no longer be a majority in the world. Barring some unfortunate global economic setback, this marks the start of a new era of a middle-class majority.
In most countries, there is a clear relationship between the fate of the middle class and the happiness of the population. According to the Gallup World Poll, new entrants into the middle class are noticeably happier than those stuck in poverty or in vulnerable households. Conversely, individuals in countries where the middle class is shrinking report greater degrees of personal stress. The middle class also puts pressure on governments to perform better. They look to their governments to provide affordable housing, education, and universal health care. They rely on public safety nets to help them in sickness, unemployment or old age. But they resist efforts of governments to impose taxes to pay the bills. This complicates the politics of middle-class societies, so they range from autocratic to liberal democracies. Many advanced and middle-income countries today are struggling to find a set of politics that can satisfy a broad middle-class majority. The tipping point in the world today offers opportunities for business but complications for policymakers.
In most countries, there is a clear relationship between the fate of the middle class and the happiness of the population. According to the Gallup World Poll, new entrants into the middle class are noticeably happier than those stuck in poverty or in vulnerable households. Conversely, individuals in countries where the middle class is shrinking report greater degrees of personal stress. The middle class also puts pressure on governments to perform better. They look to their governments to provide affordable housing, education, and universal health care. They rely on public safety nets to help them in sickness, unemployment or old age. But they resist efforts of governments to impose taxes to pay the bills. This complicates the politics of middle-class societies, so they range from autocratic to liberal democracies. Many advanced and middle-income countries today are struggling to find a set of politics that can satisfy a broad middle-class majority. The tipping point in the world today offers opportunities for business but complications for policymakers.
B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:B.S. (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, it's looking down for Americans, but Indians, Chinese, Russians and a lot of others are doing so much better! Celebrate!
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's looking down for Americans, but Indians, Chinese, Russians and a lot of others are doing so much better! Celebrate!
These two things are related, you know. US policies have made both things happen (less prosperity for American middle class and more prosperity for the third world).
Re:B.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, I guess you might want to explain this one, because so far I cannot identify much beneficial the US did for the "third world" lately.
The AC below answered your question partially - offshoring of manufacturing and service industries. Other policies include almost total non-enforcement of hiring of cheap illegal immigrant labor especially by construction and household labor employers, and importing cheaper labor using H1-B and H3-B visas.
Additionally, the spending to maintain the ever-growing costs to maintain the American Empire overseas, which greatly benefits the elites in the US, while shifting the costs (both blood and treasure) to the lower classes.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article carefully. It said that half the world is now middle-class. And considering that for the same resources you can make 10 Indians "Indian-middle-class" that it would take to make an American "American-middle-class"... well... welcome to global market and price optimization.
Capitalism Made it Possible (Score:2)
Nothing more needs to be said.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you would like to live like the Chinese, Russians or Indians do? Have you considered migration? Surely those countries are wide open to accept poor foreigners into their fold.
Re: (Score:3)
They are talking about the complete world population, it's possible the US is worse of, but the rest of the world seems to be doing better.
Interesting bit is this;
"The middle class also puts pressure on governments to perform better. They look to their governments to provide affordable housing, education, and universal health care. They rely on public safety nets to help them in sickness, unemployment or old age."
Sounds just like the things that are lacking in the US?
Re: (Score:3)
That sounds more like working class. Middle class is a step up, property owning, savings in the bank with a decent retirement to look forward to, lots of disposable income.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, endangered species usually get some sympathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Banksy is a British graffiti artist.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Eh, I've traveled Europe fairly extensively and I've never actually met a European who has any problems with Americans in person. As far as I can tell, they only exist on the Internet. As such, I have to assume they just never leave their homes. Maybe if the internet trolls who constantly bash Americans actually went outside and saw the world they'd be a bit less insufferable.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it a common belief in Euro-wherever that US middle-class equates to McMansions?
Typically only amongst those who do poorly, economically. What they fail to realize is that about 42% of Europe lives in apartments [statista.com], and in the US almost 80% live in free-standing homes [quora.com]. To a large segment (nearly half) of Europeans, owning your own freestanding home just isn't realistic, it's what "the rich" have, and thus ANY freestanding home must be a "McMansion". Of course, when we have over twice the land area, and only 60% of the population, so it should be no surprise that we have much lower dens
Re:B.S. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the percentage is higher, but it also includes a shockingly high percentage of people in the upper-middle class. Most people are inept at handling their own finances, and that's partially to blame on our education system. We don't teach our young how to live on their own...it should be a requirement for HS graduation.
https://www.investopedia.com/a... [investopedia.com]
I used the 60% figure (Score:2)
We do teach kids how to live on their own. If you're an at risk kid you go through what's called "Consumer Math".
One of the things folks have a hard time with is the concept of "You can't budget what isn't there". As the saying goes nobody in America is poor, we're a nation of temporarily inconvenienced millionaires. Wages have been dropping at the low end for ages. Higher pay at the top end and with professionals has masked that. But you
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, you're all over the map with topics.
No, we don't teach our kids to live on their own. Most schools don't teach much of any of the basic skills it takes to do your own finances. "Consumer Math"? Maybe in your school district, but it's not common.
Most people don't want a "McMansion". I grew up poor and desired one until I was able to get it. Once I did, I realized what a pain in the ass it is to own, and that I didn't really need all that space. I'll be downsizing by about half when I retire next
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is a realistic market model to expect that some universities wish to realize the high student payments that can be extracted by the richest families, and thus many universities are competing to be "highly selective"
I teach at a public university that is not selective (or cannot be selective, not sure). In any event, here are their recruiting priorities (and they are open about this): international graduate students, out of state graduate students, other international and out of state students, and (finally) in state students.
I will let you guess why those are the recruiting priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah! You must not be living in the United States, then. Around here, even people with medical insurance routinely go into debt and bankruptcy over medical issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
what you may not understand, is that actually someone is paying your interest, uncovered expenses and (for some hospitals) profit for you when they show up to the hospital with either a) money or b) insurance. You are benefiting from a form of socialized health care wherein any sucker who can afford to pay has to pay on your behalf assuming they live in your hospital's general area.
It's not awful, it keeps people from terrible situations. Obviously it won't cover cancer, but it's letting certain people who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you paid what you could. The hospital expects people like me to pay the rest, my insurance covered most of the "cost". They either can't, or won't, stay in business with offers like yours. The best reason for you to believe me, is that they could have made more money with your loan by just putting it in a checking account than they made from your transaction. Hospitals all over the US run on this model, and it's fine but could be much better.
There are also people who pay nothing and walk out the door. O
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't need to go into bankruptcy for medical bills. When my first child was born, my wife and I had no insurance and almost no money. We set up a payment plan where we paid $50 a month. I just finished paying off her birth last month when she turned 8 years old...
Funny, when my first child was born we had no insurance and almost no money. The pregnancy wasn't great and ended with an emergency c-section at 32 weeks then a stay in neonatal intensive care for a couple months and I never had to pay a penny and walked out without even a consideration of money. We even got free formula for a year. My wife has also had two pulmonary embolisms and has treatments for endometriosis. Grand total cost. 0.00. Socialised medicine is great (when its funded properly).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but it is for me a far easier burden to bear than getting seriously ill in the US seems to be for most people who get, say cancer. To say nothing of end of life health care needs as we all age. I'm completely okay with social contracts. American individualism is admirable, but we're all in this together.
And as for the tax rate, actually it's probably less than you might think. I'm assuming you live in the US from your comments. When I lived in the US, I was actually quite surprised how large th
Re: (Score:3)
£117 seems too low. Columbia University says 4.5% of income goes to UK Government healthcare. That's 2600 pounds per month and 31,200 per year. That's really all you earn?
- My income is 140,000 dollars, so I'd be paying $6300 per year for UK Government healthcare. In contrast my PRIVATE insurance is much less.(about half)
I'll stick with private
Thanks :-)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
...If it's medical: I live in a first world country. I will not go into debt over medical issues....
Good for you. I live in America. My family is bankrupt due to efforts at keeping a child alive and healthy. Whenever I meet somebody new that learns of my situation, more often than not they start ranting this or that about Trump. They miss the fact that 8 years ago Obama made a few changes that caused the cost of my insurance to nearly double each year. It might have been a wonderful system for lots of people, but I was in some loophole or other and when healthcare costs grew past 50% of household ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I had "Boys Home Economics" around 8th grade in junior high...some 45 years ago. It was an elective, that taught cooking, laundry and sewing. Nothing about balancing a checkbook, or understanding credit. My daughter didn't get anything like it when she graduated in '09, and that was from what is known to be the best public school system in VA, so she learned from us. But from what I'm reading, the rate of functional illiteracy in the US is ~20%. While that's bad, it doesn't explain why ~80% of peo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. That's not middle class and it's certainly not "no longer at risk of poverty".
Living paycheck-to-paycheck because you just HAVE TO HAVE all the latest video games while paying for high-speed streaming on your cable TV and your four cell phones and having two cars while paying for a 3,000 sq ft house isn't the fault of the system.
It's the fault of the idiot.
Re:B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hint: that is all discretionary spending. If you're living paycheck to paycheck because you chose to spend all your money, that doesn't make you poor.
Re: (Score:3)
When a few people here and there are living paycheck to paycheck - sure, you can claim that's a "personal responsibility" problem.
When 60% of the population of a once-prosperous nation are living paycheck to paycheck - that's public policy. Trying to pull your "personal responsibility" blame game just makes you look like a self-righteous bootlicker.
Re: (Score:2)
It might also be a personal responsibility problem, that's definitely real, I've seen it with my own eyes in my own family. It's not about education, one doctor and one army colonel can't seem to figure out what they can really afford. They know math, they understand banks and financing. But they seem to lack self control. I'm not sure that can be taught.
The other side of the coin is that things are very expensive in the US due to investment and general security of those investments. I blame most of it on h
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they are living paycheck to paycheck, but perhaps that's because they are paying the credit card bill for the 65" flat screen TV they spend all their time watching, or the loan payments & gas for the SUV or pickup truck they drive around that gets only 12 MPG? Hint: that is all discretionary spending. If you're living paycheck to paycheck because you chose to spend all your money, that doesn't make you poor.
So what you're saying is EVERY job pays an excess of what someone needs and the ONLY reason they might not be able to get by is because they can't control spending? Are you seriously that fucking detached from reality? I bet you think all unemployed people are just lazy too don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Or, perhaps it's because their money is impregnated with acid. I'm sorry, I am in the fact free zone, right?
I can buy a 65" TV for $400 (Score:3)
If that's all the discretionary spending you can come up with you're not trying hard enough. I mean, if you're gonna shame the poor why not go all out and mention steak, lobster and Cadillacs. Oh, and don't go looking into studie
Re: (Score:2)
I can buy a 65" TV for $400 that's affordable without debt even on $12 bucks an hour. That SUV is used and built on a truck platform. It may guzzle gas but it's cheaper design makes it much more reliable. When you buy a vehicle even poor folks consider total ROI (though most wouldn't know it's called ROI).
Your cognitive dissonance is just astounding. In one breath you shriek about paycheck to paycheck, with dubious figures to accompany it, you have in other discussions cited things like Medical debt as a reason for people living paycheck to paycheck and then in the next breath argue that things like luxury electronics and luxury vehicles (yes, SUVs are luxury vehicles when you consider that the median transaction price for a passenger car is in the $25,000 range, while the median transaction price for an SU
Re: (Score:2)
That SUV is used and built on a truck platform. It may guzzle gas but it's cheaper design makes it much more reliable. When you buy a vehicle even poor folks consider total ROI (though most wouldn't know it's called ROI).
Still doesn't mean you have to lease a new one every 3 years for $400 a month. We just bought a used 2011 BMW x3 with 70k miles for less than we paid for my 2014 Focus new. And that BMW will still last longer than my Focus will. It's replacing my wife's 2001 330i.
Re: (Score:2)
At least 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. That's not middle class and it's certainly not "no longer at risk of poverty".
Entire US is about 4.4% of the global population.
Sooo... don't be so US-centric and egoistic and learn to accept the math? Maybe?
Particularly when you're calling "bullshit" on a what, by your own numbers is 0.44% of the ENTIRE WORLD population.
You know... that 10% of US population you don't believe are doing better than you believe.
I do not believe that your beliefs are believable.
fake news (Score:2)
Yup. Obvious fake news from well-known shills for the financial oligarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
No. All Americans are either making minimum wage at minimum or getting welfare which is even more money. This makes them fall into the lower bracket of the 1% super wealthy, or just barely miss it depending on the state.
Everyone lives paycheck to paycheck. What determines if you are middle class or not is the size of that paycheck.
Re:B.S. (Score:5, Informative)
At least 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. That's not middle class and it's certainly not "no longer at risk of poverty".
You trot out this sort of statistic every time. A quick look at some actual facts will show you that the issue is more complex than that. Also, it would help if you stuck to a consistent set of figures. Here is you a few days ago claiming the number is 78% percent. [slashdot.org]
Yes, I know that "at least 60%" can be considered to cover 78% as well, but the fact that you chose the stronger number the fist time a few days ago and then softened your statement this time makes me think you don't actually believe the number or they are bogus.
Then, here is me using top of the line smart phone sales numbers to show that a good portion of those supposedly living pay check to pay check are still possessed of a considerable amount of disposable income. [slashdot.org] Of course, I was modded "troll" for my trouble.
The bottom line, is we can't both be in an era where most people are in danger of falling into poverty at any moment and at the same time be in an era where most people have more discretionary income than at any time in history. Given the people I know and the choices I see them make, I am going to stick with: people (at least in the US) who live pay check to pay check mostly live that way because they fully embrace consumerism as a way of life.
Re: B.S. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
U.S. population accounts for about 4% of the world population, so that's probably not where this prosperity is coming from, by and large.
Re:Only because of inflation (Score:4, Informative)
Also that average is strongly skewed upward due to a very small minority of people in the US being obscenely rich. If you'd perform some statistical cleanup of those outliers, you'd probably get closer to an average US income of ordinary citizens of around 44k.
Re:Only because of inflation (Score:4, Informative)
This is the graph you are looking for:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/... [wikimedia.org]
https://www.census.gov/library... [census.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Average US income is $57617. If the USA wasn't so overinflated (print money, tax cuts to rich people, load up debt, debt repaid by poor people due to tax cut)....
And the top 1% earn at least 300x times compared to the next tier down, so average/mean is a really bad indicator here. They should have used "mode" instead.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The top 1% earn [taxfoundation.org] about $1.5 million on average; the top 25% average about $139,000. And that is several tiers down...
The median and mean household income [wikipedia.org] is also quite close, being around $75,000 and $72,000 respectively.
I know it's popular to push a "hate the rich" meme on many places, but the data does not support the huge income disparity so often claimed. Median and mean incomes are close together, income disparity from the top 1% down to the bottom 50% is about 80 (which is significantly less than yo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It said in "the world" not in "America".
Most Americans can't distinguish between the two.
That's right you ungrateful SOBs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's right you ungrateful SOBs (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently, human society has a tendency to concentrate resources and influence following a power law distribution, and there's not much that can be done about that.
What matters is how steep is the curve. There will always be some with way more resources than they can use; but there should be mechanisms to bring part of those concentrated resources back to those who created them.
If people in the long tail don't have enough resources to have at least an acceptable standard of living, unrest appears, and they will revolt and coordinate long enough to remove those at the peak; a position which then will be occupied by a new batch of privileged.
Re: (Score:3)
If people in the long tail don't have enough resources to have at least an acceptable standard of living, unrest appears, and they will revolt and coordinate long enough to remove those at the peak; a position which then will be occupied by a new batch of privileged.
Robotics, weak AI, and automation (including millitary hardware) are falling under control of the 0.01% and are on track to completely eliminate this pesky problem within 100 years or so. Then for the first time ever there will be no need for plebs and no problem putting down uprisings the vast majority participate in.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is. Raise the top marginal tax rates, and introduce Thomas Piketty's idea of a (net) wealth tax.
Sure, that reduces the inequality, and it's what I was referring to by " bring part of those concentrated resources back to those who created them". But it doesn't eliminate the existence of a ruling class with access to more resources. The human kind is simply not wired for that - as a society, we long for leaders and put anyone in that position when there's a vacuum of power.
I'm afraid the more we ca
Re: (Score:3)
The mathematical law that shows why wealth flows to the 1% [theguardian.com]
I don't know if it's inevitable, but it's an observed phenomenon that wealth distribution follows a poder law, and it makes sense that it might be so from how money flows towards those who already have it.
A power law distribution is a common mathematical outcome in dynamic systems where the one with a small initial advantage is in a better position to outperform the rest in next competitions, so the advantage is cumulative. This has entered common kn
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because the average household income just hit a record high, and the economy is doing so poorly that people can't afford cars, refrigerators, cell phones, 60" TVs, computers,....oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, they cannot. They can buy them and go deeper into debt, but affording them, they can not.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then yes they can. There's nothing wrong with being in debt, as long as you can afford to pay it back, but I'm guessing that you don't think that's the case.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/a... [cnsnews.com]
Household income, even adjusted for inflation, has been rising ever since 2011 (median since 2010, with a dip in 2016), to a record $62,175.
https://seekingalpha.com/artic... [seekingalpha.com]
Obviously, I'm not claiming everything is all rosy. We clearly need to do something about college costs as well as the exorbitant cost of hea
Re: (Score:2)
But people can't pay it back, that's the whole point. Yes, not everyone, but increasing numbers of people are in WAY over their head. With zero chance to ever recover.
Re: (Score:2)
U.S. median is $57,617 per Census.gov (Median income in 2016 inflation-adjusted dollars).
Re: (Score:2)
Shanked that equation -- denominator should be 1,000,001. But the answer's still 2.
Re: (Score:2)
A million people earning a dollar a and one person earning a milliard still gets you an average income of 1001 dollar per person, but it's clearly bunk.
Damn, no wonder you're poverty-stricken. (1,000,000 * 1 + 1 * 1,000,000)/2 = 2, not 1001.
Too bad for your argument that the GP said a milliard, not a million (that's the same thing Americans call a billion, i.e. 1,000,000,000). And there are 1.000.001 people to take the average, not 2.
Yeah, I screwed up on the denominator, but the answer is still 2, if you'll pardon my ignorance of obscure British notation.
Re: (Score:2)
Be happy with the breadcrumbs the multinational corporations and the 1% throws at you. Now get back to work.
From Brookings? That's a lefty outfit, last I knew.
Re: (Score:3)
leftist = rightist = centrist = authoritarian financialist
Re: (Score:2)
So the difference to a Republican government is essentially only that under a Democrat government you actually do get government handouts and get to survive?
Huh... (Score:3)
so that boils down to "50% of people earns more than average"?
Re:Huh... (Score:5, Informative)
so that boils down to "50% of people earns more than average"?
No, they just lowered the definition of ‘middle class’.
Re: (Score:2)
so that boils down to "50% of people earns more than average"?
No, they just lowered the definition of ‘middle class’.
They who? There are a variety of definitions. One of the more common is that it's the middle fifth percentile, so people in the 40-60th. Pew Research claims it's those earning 2/3 to 2x the national average household income for their family size. Others include assets because many families who don't have much income have a lot of assets...think retirees. Where you live also makes a huge difference. Average household income in my county is in the six digits...it's hard for people to live on $100k/yr he
Re: (Score:2)
Earning more or even twice the average household income is fairly easy if you're not unemployed or working a "want fries with this" job, because the wages are SO low that these people have to work two or three jobs just to get by. If you actually have one job that lets you live at a level that doesn't require you to ponder how to scrape together the money for some food when the 20th rolls around this month, congrats, you're middle class.
Re: (Score:2)
There you have it...another opinion. Everyone has one on what it means to be middle class.
Re: (Score:2)
I literally took the same metric Pew Research used. How's that "another opinion"?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same shit that you get with literacy rates. Sure, the US claims a 99% literacy rate, but what does that even mean? The OECD found that a solid 50% of Americans can't read at an 8th grade level yet, somehow, 99% of the people are literate..
Definitions just keep on getting revised to make people feel better a
Re: (Score:2)
What "apologetics"? I think it was pretty damn obvious by my post that the term needs clarification if you want to swing it around. All that said, the vast majority of American households are doing relatively well compared to just a few years ago. We still need to make some big fixes though...tuition & healthcare costs would be near the top of my list, along with infrastructure improvements. Now that we've got median household income to record highs and extremely low unemployment with still very low
Re: (Score:2)
You will always have a TV. It's a propaganda and population control instrument of such fundamental value that if it didn't exist already, someone would invent it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually possible. Mean does not mean half. Consider this:
Find the average for the following numbers:
0, 100, 100, 100, 100
Four of those 5 numbers are "above the mean".
That's how math works.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. At Lake Wobegon EVERY kid is above average. That doesn't work. You can have *almost* every kid above average, so long as there is at least one really, really dumb kid to pull down the mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I'm pretty sure that the percent of a population earning less than the average wage can never be greater than 50%.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe real inflation has been low, I'm got a great deal - just for you! - on some delightful oceanfront property in Phoenix, Arizona. Contact me with your credit card number today!
Laffernomics in the water supply (Score:3)
Not only infinitely differentiable—and smooth, smooth, smooth like a baby's bottom—but also infinitely and indefinitely monotonic in instantaneous prospect.
And to think that another perspective is that the whole fragile edifice hangs by the thread of one stupid trade war.
Or a pandemic.
Or a rising tide.
Resist increase in taxes (Score:2)
"The middle class also puts pressure on governments to perform better. They look to their governments to provide affordable housing, education, and universal health care. They rely on public safety nets to help them in sickness, unemployment or old age. But they resist efforts of governments to impose taxes to pay the bills."
I would say - rightly so.
Most governments probably waste a great deal of money on whatever (inefficiency, corruption, wrong policies/investments, ...).
Instead of asking the people to gi
How do you define "Middle Class" (Score:3)
That's not a snarky question. That's the whole crux of the debate.
Do you define "middle class" as: ... having X amount of assets? ... being able to buy X luxuries? ... having a salary of at least X? ... being X sigma from the mean?
How you answer that question changes your perception of the growth of the middle class?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you define "middle class" as: ...
I think they are using the word incorrectly. Class is not the same as wealth.
Plenty of working class occupations pay more than many middle-class ones.
Electricians and plumbers are making more than teachers and nurses around here.
Re: How do you define "Middle Class" (Score:2)
Right. That's another way people tend to define "middle class". By occupation.
There are many more ways, and how you choose to define the term changes your perception of how the world is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. That's another way people tend to define "middle class". By occupation.
For statistical purposes, it works. Class is about your social group, who you identify with. Occupation and education correlate far more than income.
If you are a tradesman, you are more likely to live in social circles that enjoy beer or spirits more than wine. Football or motor sport more than opera and ballet.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, that works really well and is very useful information if you are in wine or beer sales. How you are defining "middle class" says more about the person doing the defining.
"Middle class" = 11$/day/person (n/t) (Score:5, Informative)
Definition of "middle class" used by researchers is ability to spend at least 11$ per day per person.
Re: (Score:2)
Definition of "middle class" used by researchers is ability to spend at least 11$ per day per person.
You forgot that the research is about the whole world and not only for the 1st world countries (or not only for the U.S.)? That amount of money is quite plenty to spend for a day if you live in a 3rd world country. Anyway, I still think that the research/analysis isn't done correctly.
The rich will not be happy about this (Score:2)
They've spent decades trying to destroy the middle class in the US, and are on the verge of success. They have little control, however, outside of their primary sphere of influence, and the rest of the world is catching up.
Why is the middle class a threat? Because disposable income can be converted into eventual wealth, with more people "joining the party". The assault on education, health, and income for people was predicated on preventing "the poors" from getting too uppity and threatening the 0.1%ers eco
Surprising Facts About America's Poor (Score:2, Insightful)
The word "poverty" to me conjures images of Depression-era, dust-bowl families with 8 kids living in a one-room tar-paper shack, no electricity, no running water, no crops, no food, no way out. Or hungry people living in tents under the overpass because they lost their jobs. It doesn't normally invoke people who spend all the money they have (or can steal) on meth, nor people who've had their $70K SUV repossessed because they couldn't actually afford the payments.
Maybe that's just me. This 2011 Heritage rep
Re: (Score:3)
The typical âoepoorâ American lives in an air-conditioned house or apartment and has cable TV, a car, multiple color TVs, a DVD player, and a VCR among other conveniences.
Ooh, a VCR! It's the wealth of the 80s! You know VCRs are now toys for hipster millenials, right? They find the format amusing. I gave my VHS collection (including player) to one specifically because of this.
Fact is, you can get a color TV for fifty bucks from a thrift store or off craigslist, but cooking a decent meal for two people will cost at least five dollars in ingredients and you expect to do that three times a day. Anything more complex than oatmeal or beans and rice has skyrocketed in price over t
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that's why I said that the 2011 report was a bit dated...
perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Such a narrow perspective in so many answers. Turn on your brain, people !
Living in the 1st and living in the 2nd or 3rd world makes for a dramatic difference these days. Real wages in the west have stagnated or gone down for two decades now. But for the poor of the world - China alone is lifting 10 million people out of poverty every year. People in Africa who 20 years ago didn't know where their next bowl of food will come from now have smartphones.
If you are among the very poor of the world, the last decades were a good time, in general.
Our personal perspective in the USA and in Europe is quite different. We are witnessing the ongoing largest theft in human history, called the financial crisis, and we watch the rich getting richer and us getting poorer.
But on a global scale, we are just 1.5 billion, give or take a few. Everyone else becoming less poor statistically overcompensates for our misery.
Re: (Score:3)
"Real wages in the west have stagnated or gone down for two decades now."
Real total compensation per hour [stlouisfed.org] in the US is up 20% over the last 20 years.
It should also be noted that 13.7% (44.5 million people) in the US are foreign born, meaning they chose to come to the US for a better life. They are likely doing much better than if they remained where they were, even if they bring down average US compensation data.
Sure, but the average is still higher yet. (Score:2)
The fact that that the 50th percentile has finally gotten bumped up far enough that it happens to be above the recognized poverty line is good, and it is a reflection of how well less developed nations are improving their standards, but the Pareto principle continues to apply to wealth distribution, and you are still going to see huge income disparities.
And of course, that still leaves aside the fact that middle class is a pretty broad classification that includes people who still don't make enough money
Median income = middle class (Score:3)
The median income of a population is a robust way to define the middle class. So by definition 50% of people earn more, 50% earn less at all time, in all countries. Money devaluation does not change the median. Adding a few billionaires to the population doesn't change much the result.
In contrast the arithmetic average is strongly sensitive to income inequalities, since a few additional billionaires can shift the average a lot.
Insurance, rent & groceries: the new middle cl (Score:3)
In the U.S. by definition you entered ' middle class' when you had a job, bought a car, a home and sent your kids to public school.
Not a chance! A kid works 5 years at GOOG, lives in a $2400/mo apt in SF and still can't afford a car payment, mortgage and child care. A kid can even choose to work three jobs, 7 days a week for a start-up. And it will barely cover car insurance, rent and groceries but there is no pathway to a car payment, mortgage and child care for a middle class lifestyle in the United States.
Bullshit...millennials are screwed by The Brookings Institution's white washed ivory proclamations to the contrary that insurance, rent and groceries is the new middle class.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't live in SF where government artificially restricts the housing market. Move to Memphis, TN, where the median home price is $82,700.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that you can only solve one of those two problems. If you vote left to avoid squandering money to the corporations, you get to pay for the immigrants. If you vote right to stop funneling money to the traffickers the immigrants pay off, the money will instead be thrown at the corporations.
Either way, no money for you. One should assume that with all those parties available, at least one would be decent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but you singled out one of the best implementations that we have for a society that is effective and relatively efficient in keeping it's population happy
Well since the Netherlands are one of the biggest consumers of anti-depressant pharmaceuticals, I assume you're referring to the government support for keeping the population chemically docile.