Bfgrn
New member
The answer is not in the middle. You describe a human foible that has ALWAYS existed. THAT does not factor into what has happened to the middle class if it ALWAYS existed, does it???
64% can't cover $1,000 emergency
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
The answer is not in the middle. You describe a human foible that has ALWAYS existed. THAT does not factor into what has happened to the middle class if it ALWAYS existed, does it???
Bfgrn
New member
Translation:
Someone has given me an excuse to continue to ACT like I care about others.
What has always existed? Living beyond means? Never on this scale - not even close.
Bfgrn
New member
That's not what I'm claiming at all. It's just a simple fact that this aspect of our "nature" has run amok lately. It doesn't have to, and public policy should not be adjusted solely to accommodate that extremism.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I know this is just a small detail in this discussion, but it is a pet peeve of sorts....
If you have $1,000,000 and I have 100,000.... what happens to the "gap" between us if we both earn 10%?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) It is completely absurd to suggest this mentality has always existed. It hasn't. It escalated in the 1960's and continued on.
2) The middle class is not worse off than it was in the late 70's
3) Take a look around the world.... compare OUR 'poor' to the 'middle income' standard of living elsewhere. Square footage of homes, consumer electronics, vehicles etc.... Our poor tend to be better off. There are certainly extreme cases, but they are few and far between relative to other nations.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
You would still have 10% of what I have, but the dollar amounts of the gap would grow hugely.
At first the gap would be $900,000. But in 10 years the gap would be over $2 million.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
I've always said that people who complain about how our poor live should visit some other nations and see how their poor live. I have a good friend who maintains the cable system for some housing projects in Birmingham. These are the poor in a relatively poor city, but the majority have cabletv and many have some pay channels. Go to any nation south of us and check where the poor live.
I think it really starting picking up steam post-WWII and wasn't really an issue prior to that because the bulk of the population had little money and little available credit. If has increased since the 1980s with substantial increases in household debt and decreases in personal savings.
Depends on how you define "middle class" and "worse off."
Relative to other developed countries I don't know what our poor are all that well off. Americans have larger homes than Europeans and the Japanese in general because we have lots more land and more rural populations. Consumer electronics are a pretty bad measure of how well off a person is. Used consumer electronics are dirt cheap. This is just a bad argument.
It grows. That's part of the issue; it takes money to make money. The trend is troublesome, because you can extrapolate it out to ridiculous extremes, and not in the very far future; it becomes almost feudalistic at a point.
I'm not a big fan of the "look at the poor in other countries" either. We're America; we SHOULD have higher standards. For the record, I don't know what the answer is, because I really don't believe in flat-out redistributing wealth.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) So the wealthy should forgo earning the SAME return on their investments?
2) I would not compare our poor to other nations poor either.... which is why I said compare our poor to their MIDDLE class. I agree, we should have higher standards and we do... by a long shot.
I'm not saying that the wealthy should do anything. I'm saying it's an issue, and will continue to grow as an issue. As I said, all you have to do is extrapolate the trend out into the years ahead.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Actually, it picked up steam in the mid 1960's as I stated.... though the reasons are those that you stated. The population did not have as much money and little credit available. Those that began accumulating money in the 1940's and 1950's remembered to well what had occurred in the 1930's. As the boomer generation got older, the problem got worse. The 'greatest generation' lived through the depression. To this day, those still alive that were old enough in the 30's to remember the Depression are STILL very tight with their money and save far more than their kids/grand-kids etc...
Inflation adjusted wages/benefits. Square footage of homes, number of vehicles per household, consumer electronics, overall lifestyle....
The cost of goods is irrelevant. If they are cheap here, they are cheap there. But if that bothers you, by all means, suggest another way to compare them. I would be happy to take a look at what you wish to compare. That said, our poor are better off than many middle class families around the world and are better off than the poorest in most other industrialized nations.
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
There are only about 10-14 million illegals, most of whom are people who overstayed their visas.Let's not forget about the 50+ million illegels.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I say we give them all amnesty if they agree to live in Detroit. Plenty of available housing there.
Children under 17 don't have $1000 emergencies. Their parents do and 64% of them can't cover it.
No that complex really.
1. Whatever. Don't even bother trying to prove this absurdity.
2. Lie, plain and simple. The cost of food alone has more than trippled in relative terms since then, SuperShill. Never mind health insurance.
3. Far from few and far between Shill man. Just look at the percentage of U.S. children on food stamps, then shut your lying fucking mouth, neo-con shill.
Last edited: