Doesn’t it? I think you’ll find that applies to most societies in history that had a middle class at all.
The contradiction is that economic progressivism wants to help you regardless of who you are.
The debate in my mind is why anyone would pay attention to articles in Salon suggesting that a party should turn to the left; or conversely, why anyone would listen to the Heritage Foundation on why a party should turn to the right. It’s such obvious echo-chamber nonsense.
The reason in this case is that the author (Michael Lind) happens to be a very good thinker, and Salon is just a venue where he publishes.
Perhaps my wording here wasn’t precise, but I never said repealing the Bush tax cuts alone would have filled this gap. I said that, one, raising taxes on people who are quite wealthy is not “political suicide,” it’s something Republicans oppose, and two, I think you could fund additional programs without raising taxes on the middle class.
You can’t stick 90% of the public into one economic class.
We don’t, really - we have lower middle class, middle class, and upper middle class. But no poor and no upper class in this society, where we still pay some lip service to egalitarianism.
That is exactly how it was in most post-Neolithic human societies; the 90% were the peasants, and all one economic class.
Which is sort of what I’m saying- if working class white voters self-identify as middle class, without actually being economically middle class, they’re going to adhere to the notion that they’re going to have to pay for all the ambitious ideas, and are going to be against it tooth and nail, despite those ideas probably benefiting them overall.
It’s a matter of perception, I believe, not a matter of policy. And if working class white voters perceive themselves to be middle class, you kind of have to propose policies and things that they will perceive as benefiting them, and not “the poor” or “the working class”, because that stuff is seen as playing Robin Hood with their hard-earned cash.
And as for the middle/upper cutoff, I think it makes more sense lumping the people making 250,000 in with the middle class because that’s where they are in terms of income, even if they’re not there in terms of population percentage. It’s that 1% business all over again- they’re the upper class, and the rest of us are generally middle, working class or just flat-broke poor.
How is this relevant to a modern economy?
With books like Up From Conservatism: Why the Right is Wrong for America, and Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics; and articles like The 1 percent wins again: The system’s so fixed that a global class war is only a dream; Tea Party’s austerity virus: How Washington lost its fiscal mind; Progressives have a “wimp” problem: Punch a bully in the nose!; Here’s how GOP Obamacare hypocrisy backfires; The South is holding America hostage; How right-wingers use semantic tricks to kill government; The right doesn’t trust the average American; the claim that he’s a good thinker does not disqualify my echo chamber comment.
Also add in the fact that the tax would only be on the portion of that income which is above the $200,000 threshold, so someone who earns $201,000 will hardly be affected at all. In order to feel the pinch you really need to be earning closer to $300,000, more if you can find tax shelters.
The problem is that people don’t vote based on what is true, they vote based on what they think is true. Messaging will get you far more votes than policy.
Maybe so, but sooner or later you gotta give 'em some steak to go with the sizzle.
Well, what does the life of a family earning $200K annually look like? What sort of house, what sort of neighborhood do they live in? Do their kids go to public or private schools? What sorts of vacations do they take?
I’ve been at a number of different income levels in my life, and I’d say $200,000 (which my wife and I are close to, and would be slightly over if she went back from part-time to full-time) doesn’t look that much different than $100,000, which was where we were not that long ago. Biggest difference is that now we have a cleaning lady that comes in twice a month. But maybe that’s just us.
I think that in the short run, at least, the Dems’ best hope would be that an aggressively progressive approach would get more of their base voters to show up in the off years.
I think it would take awhile to win the white working class back. And between the fact that they’re not the low-hanging fruit, and the fact that they’re a shrinking fraction of the population anyway, it makes more sense for Dems to not worry so much about this group, but hope that if they’re consistent over time with trying to make the lives of working-class folk better, it will eventually sink in with the white part of that group that the Dems are better for them than the GOP.
If there’s any group outside the Dem base that the Dems should be playing for, it’s seniors. And you do that by:
a) Stop proposing stupid compromises on Medicare and Social Security.
b) Fight to expand Social Security - fight to gradually increase the benefits (relative to cost of living), and lower the retirement age back down from 67 to 65. This should be a party-wide effort, not just something a handful of progressive Congresscritters are proposing.
c) Make explicit that you’re not going to cut Medicare benefits - that if costs need to be controlled, the savings are going to come from hospital holding corporations, and doctors who (as we’ve recently found out) make millions each year from Medicare.
ETA: (d) Make hay out of proposed GOP budgets that would voucherize Medicare and the like.
Well one might take the arguments given and debate them without regard for the source. If they’re weaksauce echo-chamber nonsense, they will surely be revealed as such in short order.
When was the last time you have to debate how to make the rent/mortgage, whether to cut back on medical needs or food to do so? Do you go on vacations? Do you save money? Do you find that gasoline eats up a large part of your budget? I bet you DO have a budget, and it may be hard to fulfill it, but I strongly suspect that it’s because you are making choices that middle class folks don’t get to make.
Oh, yes. From the OP article:
It means only that you cannot reject classification of a given group as a social class just because it’s too big relative to the whole society. A class can be 90% of the whole and still be a class, and can still be usefully discussed as such. That is as true now as in the Middle Ages.
There are too many variables for me to meaningfully generalize about what a family’s life looks like based on their income alone. But would you really argue that a family with income of $200,000 a year or more doesn’t have far more options than a family with a quarter the income? It seems to me that a family earning $200,000 a year might be able to afford a nice vacation and private school while living in a nice neighborhood in an area with a high cost of living and the benefits that go with that. Are those things available to a family of four with income of $53,000 a year?
Unless your money is going straight into a bonfire, it seems to me you’re either spending more or saving more than you used to. That’s not nothing. (I know you have a child; I’ll point out that $53,000 is the median income for a family of four.) Your daily life may not look that much different and I realize that $200,000 a year doesn’t necessarily mean you have tons and tons of money after all your bills are paid. But it does put you far above the median in terms of household income and I think it offers you choices that are less likely to be there for someone with an income that’s closer to the norm.
Not if the class is the middle class. Who ever described peasants as “the middle class” at all, nevermind in the way we use “middle class” today?
We’re not talking about straight-up middle class - that’s your $50K. We’re talking about upper middle class.
I think that if you’re going to draw the line between upper middle class and upper class somewhere, it’s got to be at a level that reflects a genuine change in lifestyle between most people who are, say, $20K below the line and most people $20K above the line.
I don’t really see that between $100K and $200K. At the latter income, you still probably aren’t in a gated community or anywhere else that’s particularly exclusive. At either income, you live somewhere where your kids can go to a ‘good’ public school. If you want to send them to private school, you can afford it more easily at $200K, but you can still do it at $100K. You’re somewhat more likely to at $200K than at $100K, but at either income, you’re more likely to keep your kids in public school, which is a good school anyway.
The difference between $100K and $200K is a lot of little differences, but they don’t yet add up to a big, visible difference.
There’s going to be some level of income where you tend to get the gated community or exclusive neighborhood, the golf club membership, and the default being that the kids all go to private schools. That’s where I’d draw the line between upper middle class and upper class, wherever that is. All I know is, it’s a very different world from the one I live in; I don’t even know anyone on that planet.