Hacker News Reader

Comment by tps5 | Hacker News Reader

> The percentage of Americans who say they are in the middle or upper-middle class has fallen 10 percentage points, from a 61% average between 2000 and 2008 to 51% today.

This statistic is psychological. Americans want to be middle class and tend to identify as such even if their income does not fall into what is considered a "middle class income" (lower or higher).

So, while it is significant that fewer people identify as middle class, it is not clear what that actually means. And we certainly shouldn't take it for granted that everyone who no longer identifies as middle class has seen a salary drop from 65k to 28k.

View on HN

It's still pretty interesting. Historically Americans have always considered themselves middle class, regardless of whether they were on food stamps, received EITC, or drove a Bugatti. The fact that now many more people are identifying themselves as poor or working class is a shift toward the international norm, which might presage a change in America's political "exceptionality."

> The fact that now many more people are identifying themselves as poor or working class is a shift toward the international norm, which might presage a change in America's political "exceptionality."

I really fear that it may. Once folks realise that they can make their lives better (in the short term at least) by using State violence to rob those who are better off (rather than through hard work), the long-term results are going to be ugly.

You seem to be doing that extreme-libertarian thing where you call taxes "robbery" while ignoring the negative economic effects of the general lack of safety nets in the US.

You may want to read up on the concept of the "tragedy of the commons" first.

> You seem to be doing that extreme-libertarian thing where you call taxes "robbery" while ignoring the negative economic effects of the general lack of safety nets in the US.

I don't know what else you would call threatening people with deadly force unless they give the threatener money, other than 'robbery.'

You'll note that I didn't say that taxes aren't necessary: they are. They are, in fact, almost the textbook definition of a necessary evil: we must have them, and they are evil. We don't live in a perfect world.

What concerns me is that we have already raised the economic footprint of the State far beyond what is necessary, and that it is in fact deadweight holding us all back — to include the poor, whose ultimate interests are served not by dragging down the rich, but by being lifted up.

You walk into a store, take an apple and walk out of the door without paying. The police stop you and threaten you to forcefully deprive you of your freedom, unless you give money to the shop owner.

Would you call this robbery too? It seems to fit your definition.

No. He would say that the stealing is the initiation of force so use of force in retaliation is justified.

Yes, but no violence, or even force, is used by the thief in this example.

Self-reported sentiment is still a useful metric, but I agree that we should only make so much of it, and that we shouldn't conflate it with harder metrics.

Yes, contrary to popular belief, the middle class has grown over the past few decades in real terms (http://www.urban.org/research/publication/growing-size-and-i...). However, its share of overall wealth has declined, due to growing income inequality. It's that perception of falling behind those above them on the ladder that fuels the sense that they are no longer doing well.

And as for the long-term unemployed referred to in the article, the reality is that most of the people who have left the job market are retirees or students (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/10/21/what-we-know-about...).

With regard to the startup decline referenced in the article, that trend reversed itself several years ago, and startups have been trending up to nearly pre-recession levels since 2013 (http://www.kauffman.org/microsites/kauffman-index/rankings/n...).

The bottom line: we've had seven straight years of real, meaningful economic and employment growth. It's not a facade or an illusion. However, growing income inequality means that a disproportionate share of the growth has gone to the upper class, and this has left many people feeling like they are falling out of the middle class.

Are there clear definitions? And are these definitions updated to reflect current times?

For example, some younger folks today might have high incomes, but could never buy a home due to asset prices and have most of that go towards rent and student debt.

Compare against our parents generation and even low income families have a decent chance of owning a home and I'd guess lower levels of student debt.

So that said... What does it mean to be middle class in this day and age when income alone may not paint a clear picture?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com