Middle Class wealth, income... best definition?

[oscar111]

I see that experts disagree on the brackets for MC income.

Please tell this ignorant peasant what academics generally agree to be the brackets and AVERAGE ..of MC family


income .. and .. family


wealth?


Dont want links to ten page articles.. pls, just the barest numbers and perhaps a link to a source.


My ten year old AARP number on wealth was 60,000.. with forty in a house's equity, and twenty in bank savings cash. My current "family income" stat is fifty thousand dollars.. from two incomes.

Please get this peasant up to date!

thanks a lot,
oscar

[Gormy Cuss]

1. "Middle class" is an easy number to define to suit your own bias

That's one of the reasons there is so much disagreement. Where there is less room for disagreement (although still plenty of it) is in the calculation of median income, the point at which half of all households earned less than that amount, and half earned more. Since various government programs calculate aid based on a comparison of the person or family's income to the median, the federal government has standard tools to calculate this number and update it every year.

This link is ONE page of census estimates of median income
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html

I'm sorry, I don't recognize the wealth calculation from AARP or I would find you an updated reference.

[GrumpyGreg]

2. This is something we've discussed in my family.

One family member is living the good life in the South for about $75,000.per year (he's single).

The rest of my kids (in the NYC and Boston area) are earning about $150,000-$175,000.00 per year (they all have children) and it's a struggle,especially the housing.

[Warpy]

3. Greg's right, you can't fix a dollar amount to it

because what will support you in style in Okalhoma won't support you under a bridge in any major city.

Basically, a middle class income affords one home ownership, the ability to save for retirement, investing as part of it, the ability to provide full medical care, and the possibility of hiring household help, as well as the ability to support oneself and one's children through college.

What the Feds are calling middle class is really working class. Working class people can own their homes and some may be able to save a little, but it won't be enough to retire on. Forget the college educations and the household help. Health care is chancy and depends on what bennies one has at work, if any.

Poverty has been defined downward, too, and now what they're calling poor is really destitute. The destitute aren't making enough to live on, period. They're barely scraping by and there is no social safety net left for them.

This is why we say the middle class is shrinking. I know fewer and fewer people who are living a middle class lifestyle, and most of them are doing it on creative house refinancing and credit card debt.

We can't go on like this. Eventually, we'll have to retake all the money the super wealthy stole from us.

[oscar111]

4. Superb reply, warpy. Anyone want to add more?

Warpy, keep posting. Great quality in your posts.

Still, i demurr on the stat issue. However inadequate, and bimodal, there must be academics in sociology and econ that have come up with some way to describe the income and wealth stats for the late lamented MC.

anyone?

[Warpy]

5. A congressman cited a floor of $200,000 a year to be middle class

That was ten years ago and I can't recall his name. I do recall he was a Repug, though.

I wonder what he'd tell us today.

[happyslug]

6. Traditional Definition excludes the Working Class from the Middle Class.

From the Days of the Late Roman Republic (becomes the Roman Empire with the adoption of a Mercenary Army in 90 BC) to the Middle of the Middle ages (About 1300 AD), about 97% of the Population were peasants and 3% of the population were the "Upper Class" (Slavery was high during the Late Roman Republic but then started a slow but steady decline and excellent after the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West, about 476 AD, after about 500 you did have Slaves, but most people were serfs, who were free to everyone but the owner of the land they were on, and then had rights to the land, through not want we would call full ownership right).

When the term "Middle class" is first (about 1300) its is used to mean someone who is earning more than the peasants of the about time period, but less than the Nobility and Royalty of the Early Middle Ages. As time went on (i.e. from the 1300 onward) more and more people became Middle Class and given more and more wealth in tied in with the Middle class as opposed to the Peasants AND the Upper Classes. While more and more people became "Middle Class" by the 1800s the Middle Class was about 10% of the population. The Middle Class had more money then the Upper Class (but became more and more one "Class" after the English Civil War of the 1640s and the French Revolution of the late 1700s and early 1800s). One of the first aspects of this Change was the Spread of Protestantism during the 1500s and 1600s, than the "Enlightenment" of the 1700s. These movements had less to do with Religion than the expansion of the Power of the Middle Class from 1400 to the 1800s.

Now, the English Civil War demonstrate how these things worked out. Under the early years of King Henry VIII, England was Catholic fighting the spread of Lutheranism. Henry VIII then Broke With Rome to Marry his Second Wife, Anne. He destroyed the Catholic Church in England replacing it with what would become the Anglican Church under his Daughter Elizabeth I. Both Monarchs took the land of the Church and Gave it to their Nobility, make the Nobility loyal to them and the Church of England. The Middle Class of England (Headed in London) embraced Presbyterian/Congregation/Reform Churches. This spread to other middle class strongholds. The Peasants stayed Catholic but with no organization were controlled by the Church of England but were still loyal to the Pope as late as the late 1600s.

Thus by the time of the English Civil War (1640-1648) England was divided three ways, but only two had any organization, the Upper Class with the Church Of England and the Middle Class with the Reform Church. The Peasants were Catholic and except for one or two exceptions, the Peasants stayed out of the Civil War, for the English Civil war ended up being a fight between the Upper Class who backed the King and the Middle Class who backed Parliament. Now even the Puritans wanted to retain the King, and did so AFTER the King's forces had been defeated (The Puritans only decided to Kill the King only after the King opened negotiations with the Pope for troops, and support from the rural peasants, against the Puritans).

The French Revolution was similar, but the King and Nobility were about to defeat the Middle Class when the Working Class of Paris came out and destroyed the Bastille, showing that the working class of Paris were backing the Middle Class in the Middle Class fight against the Nobility. Now the Middle Class, once in power, were unable to rule effectively and you ended up with Napoleon (Like England had to restore the King after the Rule by Cromwell for no one else could control the Peasants who still were the most numerous and thus most powerful force in these Countries, through NOT organized).

After Napoleon's final defeat France Restored the French King (You had the Revolution of 1848 which Gave Power to Napoleon's nephew who became Known as "Napoleon III") but in this whole period The Middle Class became the main power in Europe and the Upper Class merged with it. The Working Class LOST power do to its lack of Organization.

My Point about this is to show how the Term "Middle Class" was used prior to around 1900. The Upper Class has always been about 3-5%, the Middle Class has been about 10% prior to 1900.

After 1900, the US (and the rest of the World ) had a severe problem with how to deal with the growing organization of the Working class population (The True Poor is about 10% of the Population and do to their lack of money and marginally organizational Skills and survivor skills tend to be NON-players in Politics). With the New invention of Pulp Paper and High Speed Presses (about 1850) religion tended NOT to be a way to control these population. People tend to forget you need to have news and information. Prior to about 1850 most people received their news from their church, for that is how news were spread. The Bishops would till his priests to tell their parishioners what is happening nationwide (and even WorldWide). Thus prior to 1850 if you wanted to do a coup you grabbed the Head of the Church to control the spread of information (Or had the Church on your side). After 1850 you grabbed the Newspapers, for the same reason, to control the spread of information. This changed in 1920 when you had to grabbed the Radios stations, and after 1950 the Television Stations, TO CONTROL THE SPREAD OF INFORMATION (And this is why Freedom of Religion really was NOT possible till about 1850, prior to that date any nation that had to spread news to its citizens had to do it through the State Church, thus to spread news one had to have a State Church, even the US did NOT abolished State Churches till After the Revolution and even then continued to spread news through the Churches till the US Civil War when the Newspapers took over that Function).

With the Decline of State Religion (do to the State having other means of Spreading Information after 1850) you get religious toleration (for Religion is no longer important to the state), but with it the Working Class started to get its information independent of the State (For the Newspapers can be spread INDEPENDENT of the controls of the State, unlike the previous State-Church Distribution which to work had to be controlled by one distributing systems, ie. the State Church). These new independent Newspapers provided news to the people both the Middle Class and the Working class and divide the people into two groups, the Middle Class and the Working Class (Which were the only two groups with enough members to buy enough papers to keep the newspapers in Business). After 1900 price of papers dropped as economy of scales kicks in, but this also means you have less and less newspapers (as the only way to support a newspaper at the price people were willing to pay, and to increase profits, you had to sell more and more newspaper, forcing massive merging of newspapers that continue to this day). We almost at the same level as the State and Church were in the 1700s, one state, one newspaper.

Anyway after 1900 you had more and more division in the US along the Class line of Middle Class and Working Class. This reversed after 1920 with the boom in the US and then the Great Depression (Which hit the Middle Class as much as the Working Class). Now with WWII the country under FDR worked together to defeat Hitler. Once Hitler was defeated (and the Democrats were in power in the US) you had a Government that while not hostile to the Middle Class, was supportive of the Working Class. Th Various NEw Deal programs and then the GI bill of the 1944, permitting many working class people to buy things that they could NOT have done so previously. Thus the old division between Middle Class who owned their Homes and Working Class who rented, tended to die out and with it most people started to say that the ability to own your home indicated you were Middle Class. Thus the Working Class started to call itself "Middle Class" which started spread the Term "Middle Class" to cover almost everyone in the US (and I have had some clients who are on Welfare but consider themselves "Middle Class" showing how spread the term has become since WWII).

Anyway, the reason I am mentioning the above, is to show you that since about 1850 you have had four groups in society, At the upper end the ruling elites of about 3% of the population (about the same as in the days of the Roman Empire) but below them are three groups, the Middle Class (as that term has been used since the 1300s, better to refer to this group as the "Upper Middle Class"), the Working Class (often also called "Middle Class" especially in the US after WWII and the expansion of the consumer society, and the "poor". The Poor take in about 10% of the population. Thus between the Poor and the Upper Class you have 13-15% of the population of the US. The Middle Class and Working Class split the remaining 85-87% of the population. Thus about 42% of the Population is "Middle Class" and about the same is "Working Class". Given that there is a huge overlap between these two groups, you have to see how their differ.

First the Upper Class provides most of the leadership in this Country, while they tend to be Republicans you have a number of Democrats in this group (In politics most politicians are NOT Upper Class, but Middle Class). The Upper Middle Class tend to be Republicans, professionals, income tend NOT to be wages and own not only their home but other properties (Second Homes, investment, businesses etc). The Working Class tend to be Democrats, income tend to be wages and while most own their homes, it is rare for them to own any real property other then their homes (Through these workers may own vacation homes, time shares and their own cars).

The main difference is more of altitude then the economic differences. Both Groups tend to be organized along Social and Community Groups (Including Churches). If you are a union member you tend to be Democratic, while members of Chambers of Commerce tend to be Republicans. The main difference is the Working Class tend to support Government programs that help them (Social Security, EPA, OSHA etc), while the Upper Middle Class tend to complain of many of those same regulations for theses regs cost them money (The Difference also tracks along Income line but the income divide is NOT absolute).

Just some thoughts about Class, and the Middle Class.

[happyslug]

7. I should not write things 2:00 in the Morning, typos, typos.

As you can see the term "Middle Class" has varied over time (i.e since it was first used in the 1300s). The real question is "What is the Middle Class"? Technically it is NOT peasants/workers but also is not royalty/Nobility. The problem is no one wants to say he is "Royalty" or "Nobility" in the US. Thus the ruling class (i.e. the top 3% of the population with most of the power) want to be called "Middle Class" even if they is no class above them to be middle to. Part of this is self-image part of this is historical (i.e. the triumph of the Middle Class over the Nobility starting with the Reformation, and continuing through the English Civil Wat, the enlightenment and the French Revolution).

The problem has been the real power is NOT in the Middle Class but the Working Class (Even Adam Smith Recognized this in his "Wealth of Nations" published in 1775, and is the "Bible" of the Right Wing Economists, where Adam Smith says nothing that helps the working man harms the Country). The biggest problem is the Working class is the the second least organized of the four historical classes of people (The Ruling Elites, the Middle Class, the Working Class and the true poor). While the working class is the least organized, it is better organized than the true poor who are so worried about survivor that they have NO organization to help them (With the exceptions of the Churches and the Working Class who often identifier with the true poor for the working class is often not that much above the true poor).

As I said in my previous posts, the whole world had a problem with the division of power between the Working Class and the Middle Class starting with the end of the French Revolution. The Middle Class came out on top in French Revolution but only because the Working Class supported the Middle Class in the Middle Class's fight with the old Nobility. With that Victory, the Middle Class ruled almost every country in the western World. They only real fear was themselves and the working class. This conflict continued throughout the 1800s and became critical after 1890. By 1914 the world was set to blow as the internal conflicts of each country were resolved by trying to united the Countries against other countries. In effect move the problem from a class struggle to a Struggle against other countries. This was the cause of WWI, to many internal Conflicts being resolved by external conflicts that finally caused all out war to break out. In that war the Communists tried to take over more countries than we like to believe today (Not only did Russia have a Communist revolution so did Germany, but Germany suppressed her revolution while Russia was not able to do so). The French Army was in open Mutiny in 1917 (and good for Defense in 1918 and support of American lead attacks in 1918, but incapable of attacks themselves in 1918, this was one of the reasons Pershing gave all the Black US Units to the French, he kept them away from the racists in the US Army AND supported the only Army that HAD to be kept in the Trenches for the Allies to win WWI, i.e. the French Army). Britain had strikes over the shortages caused by WWI in 1918 and this was the same pattern as happened in Russia and Germany between 1917 and 1920 (Strikes over shortages, then Mutiny of Navy, then Support for the Strikers by Army enlisted personnel and then Revolution do more to lack of support for the Government than any real support for the Communists).

In 1918 this was going on in France and England in addition to Russia and Germany. This was one of the Reasons for the infamous Palmer raids of 1919 (Fear by the US of similar situation in the US, but the US had NOT fought for over four years and in fact the Working class had BOOMED during WWI do to increase in wages do to lack of immigrants that had previously kept wages down). The Strike Suppression of 1919 and the Recession of 1921 were severe in the US, but wages, while reduced form what they had been in 1914-1919, still stayed high compared to the 1890-1910 period given the passage of the Immigration Act of 1920 that reduced immigration severely.

In many ways the decision NOT to permit in immigrants from countries under economic strain (and thus Communistic tendencies) was the first start of the post-WWII movement of the Working Class to start to claim to be "Middle Class". The boom of the 1920, while marginal to the working class, did relieve many of the pressure of the 1890-1910 period. The Great Depression brought much of this back home, but FDR's New Deal showed that the Government wanted to help the working class and with the invention of Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Farmer's Home Administration (FaHA) mortgage programs and then in 1944 with the GI Bill, most people in the US could for the first time buy their home (And for those the could not the Government started the Public Housing Administration to improve housing for people who could not buy a home under the above programs). This was further the movement of the Working Class to Middle Class Standards. This peaked in the 1960s with LBJ's Great Society Programs.

With the Election of Nixon the advancement of the Working class Continued (Even through Nixon opposed the programs, he was to good a politicians to fight them and lose an election) thus you had OSHA and the EPA come into being under Nixon (Nixon vetoed the OHSA legislature but it was overruled by Congress). Nixon tried to undermined these programs (and the earlies New Deal and Great Society Programs, for example when OSHA was passed over his Veto he maned it with radicals with orders to be obnoxious in "protecting" workers hoping that people will grow to hate OSHA, this continued under Ford and it took Carter almost four years to straighten out OSHA to be a top notch organization).

With Reagan the attack on the rights of the Working class intensified. His termination of the Air Traffic Controller Union was a point to show the Government will NO LONGER support Unionization rights. From the destruction of that Union, you had the steady decline in unionization that continues to this day. Part of this was that the professional had NOT kept up with inflation during the 1970s as while as the Unionized workers (and to a degree the wage difference between Labor and Professional had to be restrained, but Reagan decided the way to do it was to reduce Union wages NOT to increase the income of Professionals). Deregulation was called a way to improve business efficiency (But the regulations were part of the Government Policy to encourage Unionization efforts, a competitor could NOT get an advantage by dropping its union as long as the Regulations were in place, but once removed the race to the bottom continues to this day.

Thus since Reagan you have seen a change where the Working Class lost income as has the Middle class. The group that has had the only increase in real income has been the top 3% of the population (The Ruling Elite). As long as the Middle Class accepts this situation it will get worse and worse. The Middle Class has to realized that if the Working Class loses economy so do they. So fare the GOP has convinced the Middle Class that is NOT true, but it is slowly dawning on the Middle Class that it is true. It took the Great Depression for the Middle Class to realized its wealth is tied in more with the working class than the Ruling Elite, I fear a similar economic disaster will have to occur to convince today's middle class that that is still true and see a restoration of the Regulations and Rules imposed during the Great Depression (and maybe this time include restrictions on the power of Corporations which FDR did not seek, but had been advocated by the Democrats since the 1890s till the Great Depression along with the rest of what became the New Deal).

[trekbiker]

9. Happyslug... thank you for the excellent posts..

the grammar and spelling are a little messed up but the information and your perspective on history and class struggle are enlightening. I enjoyed these two posts very much. I suppose the 3% elite you refer to would include the corporate CEO/corporate board class. The control of information to the middle/working classes thru media consolidation is truly disturbing. Fox news would have been laughed out of business in the 1970's. Now look at it. Thank god for the internet and forums like DU..

[Sammy Pepys]

8. To me, it's like porn...

I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it.

I'm not an academic, but I tend to think of it more in terms of possessions than income. Income comes into the equation, but I don't think you can get an accurate read on what "middle class" is by only looking at that....people treat money in different ways, and cash flow is different.

In my own mind, I think owning a home or condo is the biggest determinating factor of middle class status (though it's not a requirement). Owning a home tends to indicate a good deal of other things (a certain level of income and establishment in a community, for instance) that kind of go along with middle class status. Obviously not a hard-fast rule by any stretch, but generally a good indicator for me.

[oscar111]

10. Slug, great two posts, digesting the second now

so much to absorb, and a great store of information must be in your mind. I wager that you are a second or third generation progressive, who imbibed the info during dinnertable conversation.. the best possible way. I had to learn from the local library, which was all to brief a way to get at the information. Having parents who can teach it is far better. Some are lucky enough to even have grandparents who know the reality of the economy.

[happyslug]

11. My Paternal Grandfather liked saying he voted for Al Smith in 1928

And was one of only two people to do so in Jeanette (Westmoreland County) Pennsylvania. He voted for Al Smith even through he disliked Catholics but that was the 1920s and 1930s when such beliefs were common. While he disliked Catholics, he HATED and distrusted Republicans.

On my Mother's side, Her father said the best thing that ever happened to the Steel Industry was Unionization (and he was a Plant Foreman and thus a member of Management). Both sides hated Mellon and blamed him for Causing the Great Depression. Republicans are NOT to be trusted, moderates ones you can deal with, but the ruling elite of the GOP believes in Social Darwinism, Screw the working class, and "I am rich because I am better than you'. Things Democrats have rejected since at least 1896 (and can be traced back to Jefferson, through Corporations, Social Darwinism and the Republican Party itself are all post-Jefferson Ideas).

My father disliked Republicans (Through he supported Nixon in 1972 for he was a dog faced infantrymen in WWII and had to support our soldiers in Vietnam). While he supported Nixon, he dislike Reagan (Using the Pittsburgh saying "If I was a Millionaire, I would be kissing Reagan's ass under Kaufman's Clock during Rush Hour", since he was NOT a millionaire he OPPOSED almost everything Reagan did as to the Economy). He called for George Meany (The head of the AFL-CIO at the time Period) to call for a National Strike over the Firing of the Air Traffic Controllers, he saw it for what it was, the first blow against the Unions (While he supported Nixon in 1972 over Vietnam, he was one of the chief agitators during the Postal Strike of 1970 where Nixon tried, and failed, to used Troops to replace the Letter Carriers who went on Strike).

Policy was always important to him. In his later years he read the Wall Street Journal (By that time he was a Downtown Letter Carrier, whose nixed his mail and then sat down for about two hours as people came by his little office in the building he was to drop off mail to picked up their mail in the morning, he would read it while the person who paid for it had not yet picked it up). In the late 1970s and into the 1980s the Wall Street Journal was a Good Paper (Except for its Editorial Page which no one read except right wing nuts). Since the mid-1980s the Wall Street Journal has gone more and more Right Wing, you will not see in its front page something from the head of the AFL-CIO that a contract was "bad" (as the Wall Street Journal did quoting George Meany in the mid-1970s about the Postal Contract AFTER the contract entered after the postal strike of 1970), that is how far Right wing the Journal has come since the 1980s.

My Father liked the Journal of the 1970-1980s for it gave very good reports on Business and where the economy was heading on a national level. IT went into Policy and if you avoided the Editorial page you received a very good background on where the economy was going (That is NO longer true, the Journal is just to far right wing anymore to be relied on for information, what a sad drop in journalistic standards).

While I thank my family for being progressive, I also have to give a lot of credit to myself, I always was a read extensively but mostly fact based books (I never really liked Novels, not enough facts in them). I almost failed my sixth grade for I just could not bring myself to read the books the teacher wanted her students to read (all fiction), thus I could NOT do any reports on them for I did not read them, I thus almost failed that my Sixth Grade (I was so happy to get to Junior High School and away from that Teacher).

Thus between my reading and input from people I trust, I have always gone to the beat of different Drummer. When most people switched to oppose Vietnam, I, Like my Father, supported our troops (The lack of information getting to the working class was serve at that time, which the GOP exploited to their benefit). Now while I supported the war in Vietnam (I did not know any better, remember you go by the best available facts) I supported the efforts of Congress to continue the Great Society Program (as did my Father). As the Country turned against the Liberal Changes of the 1960s, I and my Father continued to support them to the day he died (and I continue to this day). At the same time you have to pick your battles. In the early 1950s a petition was going around the Pittsburgh Post Office to Support McCarthy, My father refused to sign the Petition no matter the pressure brought on him to do so. What McCarthy was doing was wrong and he refused to sign when it was un-popular to NOT support McCarthy. During WWII My Father (he was a Sargent during WWII) had a problem with his Sargent Major when some blacks soldiers, having no place in the area to eat, ate with the White Soldiers of my Father's Regiment. My father position was they had to be feed, you could NOT refuse to feed them, while his Sargent Major was upset that Blacks was eating in his NCO area (The Sargent Major would have preferred the blacks to eat someplace else, but when it came to eating with his troops and the black Soldiers NOT eating, the Sargent Major would preferred them not to eat). He also remember that prejudice and how deep it was in the Sargent Major. Just plan stupid prejudice, of the type that gave segregation its bad name. My Father always commented that when he worked on the Farms in the Maryland, the blacks would be on one end of the Table and the Whites would be on the other end BUT BOTH ENDS HAD EQUAL RIGHT TO THE FOOD. The stupid Prejudice of his Sargent Major he strongly Opposed and rejected (My Father was also the product of the Rural Mid-South, when blacks started to object to the term "Boy", he just could not believe why, when he was growing up everyone was called Someone's "boy" it was a common saying in the mid-South, and the deep South, but he never sued the term how it was used by the segregationist, i.e. to belittle someone, he used it as part of the name of the person.

Being a Progressive means someone who believes he or she is put on this earth to help his fellow man, not just for his own pleasure. That is what differentiates a Progressive from the right wing of the GOP. A person can have some non-progressive ideas over his life-time, but are that the product of his background or from deep inside the person. In the case of my father deep inside him was a progressive who preferred to see the good in people whenever possible, and to help his fellow man whenever possible. That is often difficult for being a right wing demigod is so much easier...

[oscar111]

12. Slug, you are so lucky to have such a family. They also, have

made you a highly valuable resource person for all of us here at DU.

I am still in the middle of reading this last post, so i may reply to it later on.

again, Thanks!!

[anoraksia53]

13. Could one use Quality of Life indicators

rather than purely financial? This might be more accurate.

It also depends what you're comparing to. USA middle class? Middle class in relation to the whole world?