Middle Class was 61% in 1971

[Mr Nice]

eljifino,

You're 50% correct, the other reason is that many civilians look at military vets as losers who couldn't get a 'real job' so they had no other choice than join the military.

Just saying what lots of people won't say. Last person we hired was a Blackhawk crew chief in the Army.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
eljifino,

You're 50% correct, the other reason is that many civilians look at military vets as losers who couldn't get a 'real job' so they had no other choice than join the military.

Just saying what lots of people won't say. Last person we hired was a Blackhawk crew chief in the Army.


Gawd, not me... I'm 39 and I, myself if not my generation at least knows it's harder to "get in" than it was 40 years ago. At my dump of a work we get lots of "overqualified" people who get trained then move on to a real version of my company within the industry. If my boss/ hiring committee were to perceive a Veteran as "worldly" then our perception of our own operation as "lame" would lead us to believe they're looking for a resume booster to allow them to move on.

OTOH I'd hire a Vet in a New York Minute because the economy's tight and a civilian who's unemployed and looking for work would lead me to wonder why they separated from their former job. With a Vet it's entirely plausible their six years (or whatever) were up and, boom, we won the lottery when their resume showed up.

 

[fdcg27]

Federal accounting as a whole is smoke and mirrors.
Virtually all expenditures are treated as current or cash.
We have no idea what a national balance sheet would look like and we also have no idea what actual current expenditures are versus capital investments.
The current situation might be either better or worse than what we or anyone in either the executive branch or Congress can understand based upon the simple metric of the current budget deficit or the level of the national debt.
We therefore have totally uninformed debates and decisions about the federal budget.
OTOH, this may be the way the political class likes it.
How else to explain the continued use of cash based accounting?

 

[Andrew1972]

Few folks realize that upper class has risen too and focus on middle.

I do feel for the lower class though. My guess upper rose due to women in workplace now.

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
I've never quite understood why people choose to sit around and play the class warfare game. If you want to improve your economic standing, there is ample opportunity to do so. But I can guarantee you that the 7% upper class growth wasn't from people sitting around on a discussion forum complaining about everything.


Couldn't agree more.

These class labels are just those: labels. You have the middle class, the upper middle class, the lower middle class, the upper lower class, the lower upper class, etc. Politicians and the media measure it to try to make news.

Work hard, spend modestly, save aggressively, don't worry about what class you're in, and you'll be fine.



While I agree with you and Pop on this, it's not as easy as it sounds. I've been working on upgrading myself from the retail environment that I am in now back to the more work professional environment that I used to be in. I do all the above things, and have yet to be rewarded for doing just that. Could be I live in a depressed state, might be even more.

What I am finding no matter what the position, there seems to be cuts around here. Even with some of the hotter positions (IT, for example) seem to have a bunch more "Temp" or "project" jobs than they used to. Seems to be even more true in other fields. At my job currently (retail), major cuts have been started, with more on the way. we now have "high end" part time managers now...and a few hourly ones. Where we used to pay 38-50k with no issues...coming from an upperscale retailer. (Gotta pay more for good customer service)


I am a simple guy, don't need much to make me happy. Could care less about class. But a need a solid job that we feed my family, and let me go back for my master's degree. And 10 dollars and hour is no going to let me do that.....but no one wants to pay more than that now....

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
eljifino,

You're 50% correct, the other reason is that many civilians look at military vets as losers who couldn't get a 'real job' so they had no other choice than join the military.

Just saying what lots of people won't say. Last person we hired was a Blackhawk crew chief in the Army.


Given incredible gi benefits of military the next logics progression of finish military is getting a mostly paid for bachelors. What is the uptake on this?

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Originally Posted By: dhise
middle class and unions disappeared at the same time, get over that [censored]...


Some unions are good, some are terrible. Unions are not always the answer to problems in the workplace.


True, but it gives them a choice and a voice. Many do not even get that...

 

[Mr Nice]

madRiver,

Hopefully all vets take advantage of their educational benefits. Lets be honest here.... Not all military vets are college material, some barely passed and got a high school diploma. Quite a few have trouble doing college algebra cause they have been out of school for so long they will need remedial classes just to get they up to the minimum college requirements. At that point some will give up and squander their G.I. benefits.

Again, just like anything worthwhile in life... you have to put time and effort in getting a degree, next is the difficult part of finding a job with an unemployment rate of 15%.

Being 100% truthful what I've seen over the years.

 

[hattaresguy]

Hang on here a second lets look at that nifty chart.

In 1961 the middle and upper class represented 75% of the respondents here.

Today its slightly slower at 71%.


BUT the upper has expanded significantly, the middle class lost 11%, BUT 7% of them moved up! What's wrong with doing better?

The middle class isn't shrinking they are moving up! Negative headlines get clicks, "middle class slightly shrinks but more people are considered upper class." does not produce the needed advertising clicks.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: CourierDriver
When I lived in Chattanooga in the 70s through the 80s, the want ads on Sunday were about 6 pages long. Now, maybe 2 pages and most of them are really junk jobs. By 1985 , factories there were getting somewhat shaky and in 10 years several foundries were gone and now Chattanooga is a tourist meca. Oh, yeah, they do have a VW plant. Now I live in Cookeville tn and the want ads here,I may start laughing. Population with the college, maybe 35,000.If it wasn't for the college , I think the town would die ...

PS, it is nice in Cookeville. We don't have shootings like other cities, no riots and that sort of thing and folks in the country still wave and smile..........don't tell the Yankees, they might move here and muck it up.


That's because no one reads the paper anymore. A job add in a paper probably costs a few hundred bucks and unless your targeting an over 50 tech illiterate demographic your not going to get good responses.

Maybe that's why they are low paying jobs, they are targeting an older low skill demographic.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Problem is, the big boss doesn't think more employees = More revenue and profits. Every boss has metrics to meet, they only look at a financial spreadsheet. We approve OT to the point why so much gets worked to give them a hint.

BTW, what are these extra employees needed doing for the company ?


Yes and no. I know several veterans who are now leading very successful careers or companies. Their military experience absolutely transferred to the civilian world.

But their is a massive difference between those who graduated from the service academies; IE West Point, Annapolis, Coast Guard; and someone who is barely literate with a GED driving a fork lift on a base.

The military is more or less like the rest of the world in this case. You drove a forklift no one really cares if it was at Costco or in Iraq. But if you graduated from West Point, went on to work your way up to Colonial, with postings at the Pentagon, Nato, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Than used the GI bill to get a law degree at a very competitive school, than yes people care and the job opportunities are vast.

 

[Mr Nice]

My retired boss was a Marine officer and graduated from the Naval Academy.
GE has a junior officer leadership program (JLOP) that recruits commissioned officers into corporate positions cause of their leadership abilities in the military.

Enlisted forklift driver or bomb loader will not get this opportunity, obviously they lack the education.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
My retired boss was a Marine officer and graduated from the Naval Academy.
GE has a junior officer leadership program (JLOP) that recruits commissioned officers into corporate positions cause of their leadership abilities in the military.



That's awesome. I'm happy big, organzied companies have HR departments that recruit seriously. Hopefully while middle managers can pass criteria on to HR as to what they need in newly-hired employees, it decentralizes things enough that these same middle managers don't have the overreaching ability to hire on all their inlaws, cousins, and other dregs.

 

[GiveMeAVowel]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Hang on here a second lets look at that nifty chart.

In 1961 the middle and upper class represented 75% of the respondents here.

Today its slightly slower at 71%.


BUT the upper has expanded significantly, the middle class lost 11%, BUT 7% of them moved up! What's wrong with doing better?

The middle class isn't shrinking they are moving up! Negative headlines get clicks, "middle class slightly shrinks but more people are considered upper class." does not produce the needed advertising clicks.




The thing that matters is the actual income levels, not just that these individuals "consider" themselves middle class.

The economically defined "middle class" are vanishing before our very eyes, and MOST are moving down the income ladder, not up it.

 

[FastGame]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
What I remember about the 70s,families could maintain a good lifestyle on one income. Companies took care of their employees. No one I knew growing up had both parents working. Several of my friends' fathers worked factory jobs where they were provided with company cars,country club memberships,excellent insurance and benefits,etc.

I remember as it went into the 80s,the moms had to enter the workforce,company cars were ended,the country club memberships were cancelled,families were no longer able to spend time together,and ALL of my friends parents ended up divorced and families broken up.


Bingo ! Best post in the whole thread....

 

[daves87rs]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
What I remember about the 70s,families could maintain a good lifestyle on one income. Companies took care of their employees. No one I knew growing up had both parents working. Several of my friends' fathers worked factory jobs where they were provided with company cars,country club memberships,excellent insurance and benefits,etc.

I remember as it went into the 80s,the moms had to enter the workforce,company cars were ended,the country club memberships were cancelled,families were no longer able to spend time together,and ALL of my friends parents ended up divorced and families broken up.



Pretty much spot on here....

 

[KD0AXS]

Originally Posted By: GiveMeAVowel
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Hang on here a second lets look at that nifty chart.

In 1961 the middle and upper class represented 75% of the respondents here.

Today its slightly slower at 71%.


BUT the upper has expanded significantly, the middle class lost 11%, BUT 7% of them moved up! What's wrong with doing better?

The middle class isn't shrinking they are moving up! Negative headlines get clicks, "middle class slightly shrinks but more people are considered upper class." does not produce the needed advertising clicks.




The thing that matters is the actual income levels, not just that these individuals "consider" themselves middle class.

The economically defined "middle class" are vanishing before our very eyes, and MOST are moving down the income ladder, not up it.


That chart is based on actual income levels.


Quote:
For Pew, middle class Americans live in households earning between two-thirds to two times the nation's median income. In 2014, that ranged from $41,900 to $125,600 for a three-person household.


7% of the population moved from middle to upper class, while only 4% moved from middle to lower class. So, more people are in fact moving up the ladder than down.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: GiveMeAVowel
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Hang on here a second lets look at that nifty chart.

In 1961 the middle and upper class represented 75% of the respondents here.

Today its slightly slower at 71%.


BUT the upper has expanded significantly, the middle class lost 11%, BUT 7% of them moved up! What's wrong with doing better?

The middle class isn't shrinking they are moving up! Negative headlines get clicks, "middle class slightly shrinks but more people are considered upper class." does not produce the needed advertising clicks.




The thing that matters is the actual income levels, not just that these individuals "consider" themselves middle class.

The economically defined "middle class" are vanishing before our very eyes, and MOST are moving down the income ladder, not up it.


The chart defines the income levels used for it, $49k-$125k which I don't disagree with. So the expansion I talked about would be over the $125k level. So going back to what I said more people are moving up into the $125K+ year area of the chart than into the $49k and below area.

What is your definition of middle class? Do you disagree with the income levels they used to put together that chart? I think they used a nice spread of income levels to get to their numbers which take into account different COL areas.

If someone defines themselves as middle class based on something other than income that is a whole other discussion that has nothing to do with what the article and chart is referring to. Interestingly a number of very high income people define themselves as middle class.

For example if you go by the definition in the wonderful book the Millionaire Mind, he considers anyone who earns income or is income sheet affluent to be middle class. He discerns more on the type of income vs the quantity. IMHO that's a very old definition but has merit based on what he is discussing.

Going back to Europe even 100 years ago that was a very good way to define the class structure. You had those who worked, and some made a good living doing it. Than you had those who lived off there assets like the nobility.

The US is unique in that we really don't have a fixed class structure, we also have a significant amount of mobility up and down in our society. I'd argue that's what makes us competitive. China right now is trying very hard to get rid of their "princelings" and go to a more mobile society. Partly to relieve social pressures on the ruling party, but also because its simply the best way to have a healthy society. The Chinese for all their faults are very good at utilizing their people to the fullest.

 

[SeaJay]

Simple math. There are more safety nets for the lower classes these days than there were in the 1950's. It costs more tax dollars to pay for those nets, ensuring that a percentage of folks at the bottom of the middle class will slip down into the lower class.

 

[GiveMeAVowel]

Originally Posted By: SeaJay
Simple math. There are more safety nets for the lower classes these days than there were in the 1950's. It costs more tax dollars to pay for those nets, ensuring that a percentage of folks at the bottom of the middle class will slip down into the lower class.


Exactly.

If you adjust for inflation those in the middle class are much more likely to be falling behind, than moving up.

Even more troubling is that the vast majority of the wealth in the USA is increasingly in a smaller number of hands compared to the 70s.