Where did the middle class go?

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting information.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48754974

 

 

The study shows that as the number of middle-class Americans fell (from 61 percent of the population to 51 percent of the population), the percentage of Americans who are upper income surged from 14 percent of the population to 20 percent of the population.

 

[carlfense]

If I'm reading that correctly . . . the percentage of Americans in the middle class declined by 10 points. 6% of those joined the upper class and 4% fell to lower class?

[JJ Husker]

If I'm reading that correctly . . . the percentage of Americans in the middle class declined by 10 points. 6% of those joined the upper class and 4% fell to lower class?

That's how I'm reading it. Not good news except if you happened to be in the 6% increase from middle to upper class. I guess it is better than if only the upper 14% got richer but, a shrinking and stagnant middle class cannot be a good thing. If that trend continues we will definitely be a nation of only haves and have nots. I would like to know what the income brackets used to delineate were or, if they used net worth numbers and what those were.

[BigRedBuster]

So, it's bad that 6 out of 10 people who are no longer middle class actually improved their financial situation?

 

Them improving their financial situation does not affect anyone that stayed in the middle class. It doesn't even affect the 4 out of ten that got worse.

 

The ones that we need to concentrate on are the 4 out of ten that got worse.

 

I would also like to know what financial measures they are using to decide this.

 

Yes, we need to know what happened to them but 4% of the middle class isn't a very big part of the population. The media makes you think that the middle class is being destroyed and all of them are going to be living in card board houses.

[carlfense]

So, it's bad that 6 out of 10 people who are no longer middle class actually improved their financial situation?

Could you link to the reply that said that? You didn't make that up, right?

 

Yes, we need to know what happened to them but 4% of the middle class isn't a very big part of the population. The media makes you think that the middle class is being destroyed and all of them are going to be living in card board houses.

The percentage of middle class Americans is declining. The numbers hint at the same narrative that's been discussed at length: we're increasingly becoming a nation of "haves" and "have nots." Do you think that this is concerning?

[ZRod]

So, it's bad that 6 out of 10 people who are no longer middle class actually improved their financial situation?

 

Them improving their financial situation does not affect anyone that stayed in the middle class. It doesn't even affect the 4 out of ten that got worse.

 

The ones that we need to concentrate on are the 4 out of ten that got worse.

 

I would also like to know what financial measures they are using to decide this.

 

Yes, we need to know what happened to them but 4% of the middle class isn't a very big part of the population. The media makes you think that the middle class is being destroyed and all of them are going to be living in card board houses.

But you have to think of it relatively compared to the size of the population. 4% isn't a huge percentage but when you take 4% of a population that is in the hundreds of millions you are talking about millions of people. At the very, very least we're talking about over half a million people here and that doesn't necessarily include dependents.

[BigRedBuster]

I think it is fantastic that 6% of the population went from middle class to upper class.

 

Like I said, I would like to know what happened to the 4%. It is likely that there isn't anything the government can do to change most of those. It is possible that government policies caused this like the mortgage crisis that was pretty much 80% the government's fault. Were most of these people tied into mortgages that they never should have had and so it caused their financial situation to go down? Were many of these people employed by construction jobs that were devastated by the depression in the housing market which was caused by government policies and people's stupidity?

 

As far as the shrinking middle class. Well, obviously if all 10% went DOWN, that would be horrible. But, if all 10% went UP, that is fantastic.

 

Just to say the middle class is shrinking and that's horrible doesn't mean anything without more information.

[carlfense]

I think it is fantastic that 6% of the population went from middle class to upper class.

Agreed!

 

Like I said, I would like to know what happened to the 4%. It is likely that there isn't anything the government can do to change most of those. It is possible that government policies caused this like the mortgage crisis that was pretty much 80% the government's fault. Were most of these people tied into mortgages that they never should have had and so it caused their financial situation to go down? Were many of these people employed by construction jobs that were devastated by the depression in the housing market which was caused by government policies and people's stupidity?

Do you believe this? If so, why?

 

But, if all 10% went UP, that is fantastic.

. . . but 10% didn't go up. Slightly more than half moved up. Slightly less than half moved down. Haves and have nots, eh?

[BigRedBuster]

Well, the mortgage crisis I would think would be for another thread. I used it as an example of how government policies may contribute to this.

 

Basically, during both the Clinton and Bush era, they both campaigned on the notion that everyone should be able to own a home in the US. While that is a nice and noble thing to say, it isn't reality. You have to be able to afford that home. And, when I say that, I'm talking both about the low income person buying a home that can't afford even a small payment all the way up to the wealthy buying a home way out of even their ability to pay. All of it was bad.

 

So, when the government drastically deregulated the banking industry then made a big push for banks to make loans that should have never been made, the banking industry went absolutely bonkers. Creating loans with no documentation about income to selling those loans with little or no trace of where the loans came from and if they are good or not and the originator of those loans has absolutely no liability if they go bad.

 

It was a huge bubble that was bound to burst and the fast increase in fuel prices over that time was the pin that poked the bubble.

 

So, when looking at what happened to that 4%, I have to believe that many of them are tied up in this huge mess. If you were sitting fairly comfortable, went out and purchased a house you shouldn't have and lost it all, this will cause your financial situation to get worse. Then, you have to tie in all the people who lost their jobs because of it.

 

I guess there is a large part of me that is surprised that only 4% dropped out of the middle class.

[carlfense]

So, when the government drastically deregulated the banking industry then made a big push for banks to make loans that should have never been made, the banking industry went absolutely bonkers.

Interesting. Do you support increased regulation of the banking industry?

 

I do . . . but I honestly didn't expect that you'd agree.

 

 

 

 

Also, you said that the government is 80% to blame for the mortgage crisis. You explained that the government deregulated the banks and the banks went crazy. It seems strange to blame the government for not preventing certain actions. Isn't it a lot more logical to blame the banks for their own actions? Do you blame the government for not keeping guns out of the hands of the Aurora shooter?

[BigRedBuster]

So, when the government drastically deregulated the banking industry then made a big push for banks to make loans that should have never been made, the banking industry went absolutely bonkers.

Interesting. Do you support increased regulation of the banking industry?

 

I do . . . but I honestly didn't expect that you'd agree.

 

 

 

 

Also, you said that the government is 80% to blame for the mortgage crisis. You explained that the government deregulated the banks and the banks went crazy. It seems strange to blame the government for not preventing certain actions. Isn't it a lot more logical to blame the banks for their own actions? Do you blame the government for not keeping guns out of the hands of the Aurora shooter?

 

 

Wow...that is so apples and oranges that I don't even know how to respond to that. So, pardon me if I don't.

 

Banking is one industry that I believe needs a certain level of regulation. It can be over regulated and it is a very fine line the government needs to balance on. The government pushing for higher home ownership trickled down all the way from the President (both Clinton and Bush) to the people on the ground actually enforcing regulations. It was an environment that was bound to blow up. Nobody cared if people really could afford the mortgages they were getting because the liability could always be passed on to someone else.

 

The government was only looking at one little part of the equation (home ownership) and claiming everything was great in the US. Home ownership was increasing so everything is great. Meanwhile the vehicle America was taking to home ownership was flawed.

 

I would love a world where every American can afford their own home. But, the way the US was making it happen was looking at the wrong step in the process. Easing mortgage requirements is stupid. Increasing people's income to a point where they qualify under sound mortgage requirements is the right way to do it.

 

So, I say government 80% because they were the ones that set the entire thing in motion with deregulation and politically pushing for banks to make loans. The remaining 20% is made up of the banks that went wild and a portion for people being stupid enough to buy homes on zero down and maxed out on what they could pay. The people getting the loans take part of the blame.

[Comish]

So, when the government drastically deregulated the banking industry then made a big push for banks to make loans that should have never been made, the banking industry went absolutely bonkers.

Interesting. Do you support increased regulation of the banking industry?

 

I do . . . but I honestly didn't expect that you'd agree.

 

 

 

 

Also, you said that the government is 80% to blame for the mortgage crisis. You explained that the government deregulated the banks and the banks went crazy. It seems strange to blame the government for not preventing certain actions. Isn't it a lot more logical to blame the banks for their own actions? Do you blame the government for not keeping guns out of the hands of the Aurora shooter?

 

 

Wow...that is so apples and oranges that I don't even know how to respond to that. So, pardon me if I don't.

 

Banking is one industry that I believe needs a certain level of regulation. It can be over regulated and it is a very fine line the government needs to balance on. The government pushing for higher home ownership trickled down all the way from the President (both Clinton and Bush) to the people on the ground actually enforcing regulations. It was an environment that was bound to blow up. Nobody cared if people really could afford the mortgages they were getting because the liability could always be passed on to someone else.

 

The government was only looking at one little part of the equation (home ownership) and claiming everything was great in the US. Home ownership was increasing so everything is great. Meanwhile the vehicle America was taking to home ownership was flawed.

 

I would love a world where every American can afford their own home. But, the way the US was making it happen was looking at the wrong step in the process. Easing mortgage requirements is stupid. Increasing people's income to a point where they qualify under sound mortgage requirements is the right way to do it.

 

So, I say government 80% because they were the ones that set the entire thing in motion with deregulation and politically pushing for banks to make loans. The remaining 20% is made up of the banks that went wild and a portion for people being stupid enough to buy homes on zero down and maxed out on what they could pay. The people getting the loans take part of the blame.

Finally, somebody articulates it correctly. This push for unaffordable housing has tentacles back to the Clinton regime and Janet Reno.

[carlfense]

Wow...that is so apples and oranges that I don't even know how to respond to that. So, pardon me if I don't.

You don't need my pardon to dodge any inconvenient analogies. I always find inconsistencies in the governmental blame game fascinating.

 

 

So, I say government 80% because they were the ones that set the entire thing in motion with deregulation and politically pushing for banks to make loans. The remaining 20% is made up of the banks that went wild and a portion for people being stupid enough to buy homes on zero down and maxed out on what they could pay. The people getting the loans take part of the blame.

Interesting. I would have thought that you'd favor personal accountability over blaming the government. It's a bit off base to say that banks were pushed to make loans. Rather, loan originators made incredible profits on very risky loans and immediately bundled and sold them to avoid any sort of liability. Greed is a more powerful motivator than political pressure.

[carlfense]

Finally, somebody articulates it correctly. This push for unaffordable housing has tentacles back to the Clinton regime and Janet Reno.

You too must want increased government regulation! The things that we're learning today...

[Comish]

Wow...that is so apples and oranges that I don't even know how to respond to that. So, pardon me if I don't.

You don't need my pardon to dodge any inconvenient analogies. I always find inconsistencies in the governmental blame game fascinating.

 

 

So, I say government 80% because they were the ones that set the entire thing in motion with deregulation and politically pushing for banks to make loans. The remaining 20% is made up of the banks that went wild and a portion for people being stupid enough to buy homes on zero down and maxed out on what they could pay. The people getting the loans take part of the blame.

Interesting. I would have thought that you'd favor personal accountability over blaming the government. It's a bit off base to say that banks were pushed to make loans. Rather, loan originators made incredible profits on very risky loans and immediately bundled and sold them to avoid any sort of liability. Greed is a more powerful motivator than political pressure.

You must have missed the point where the banks were "strongly encouraged" to make these risky loans or else find themselves under increasing scrutiny........