# Shrinking Middle Class in the US(?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 9, 2015, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992 "2015-12-09T23:38:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/81 "2015-12-14T00:07:09Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > You may benefit from reflecting on the meaning that the word “articially” [sic] denotes. > > How many Joe Blows are there? We need to quantify the problem if we want to solve it. I had a more than minimally decent standard making seven-something an hour. Recall that most MW earners are not living in poverty. And most people living in poverty don’t work full time, if they even work at all (most don’t.) Artificial- made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural. My use of the word was in line with the use of it in the comment I was responding to, but I agree that it’s not a very good use of it. Current statistics but the Joe Blow count at about 10 million if you define Joe Blow as “working poor.” About 4% of the full time employees fall below the poverty line and 15% of part time employees. Top reason for those folks being in poverty, low wages. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/12/heres-why-10-4-million-american-workers-are-still-in-poverty/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/12/heres-why-10-4-million-american-workers-are-still-in-poverty/) It’s a hard problem to quantify since so many minimum wage earners aren’t in poverty, but they aren’t impoverish because of their income. They usually have help else where. Idk, I guess for me, that’s besides the point. This country has been very prosperous, especially for the upper class. I get that being a cashier or a stocker is low skill, but at the end of the day, those low skill jobs are pretty important to companies like Wal-Mart. While places like Wal-Mart will not pay their employees a living wage, purposely avoid employing full time and will not offer benefits, they readily refer their employees to social services to supplement their employees so they can work there and sell their wares so cheap that they undercut and close down other small businesses and reap the benefits of their employees spending the money they are paid (or the government pays them)in the place they work. The stats seem pretty clear and when buying power and income are considered, the upper class have made out and the lower and middle classes have been either stagnant or declining. Raising the minimum wage will not answer all the issues of those that are poor, but it seems like a fair starting point. ---
**Author:** ![aag3981](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/53a042/32.png) [@aag3981](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aag3981)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/82 "2015-12-14T00:24:58Z")
Although, in effort to accurately report and debate, Wal-Mart has actually stepped up and is already moving to raise its wage nation wide to $10/hr and look to provide more accommodating scheduling for its employees. > **[Walmart ups pay well above minimum wage](https://money.cnn.com/2015/02/19/news/companies/walmart-wages/)** > > Walmart, the nation's largest private sector employer, says it will pay at least $10 an hour to current workers within next year. ---
**Author:** ![erocked](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f08c70/32.png) [@erocked](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erocked)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/83 "2015-12-14T00:32:47Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Because it’s not Walmart that is setting the lower bar (a.k.a. minimum wage), and it’s not Walmart who defines what the bar is, where it’s set or why it’s set. It’s society that does that. So, your attempt to portray Walmart or other US companies who FOLLOW THE FUCKING LAW as being subsidized by the government is wrong and your attempt to couple this to communism is, as noted, horseshit. If you don’t like where the bar is set then lobby your local leaders for change. Understand that many will lobby against you, and they won’t all be the heirs of Sam Walton. > > Do you have a cite for this? Moving on, however and IOW, they lobby for welfare programs that help many people other than their own employees. Hell, I’d think you’d be thrilled, along with many liberal 'dopers since I thought the goal was to GET more welfare programs in the US to help poor workers. Again, I don’t see this, assuming it’s true, as a bug but a feature. We, The People have set the baseline bar…Walmart et al are simply complying with the laws and regulations we’ve decided on collectively. > > Do they? Do you have a cite for this? You’ve asserted it many times, and while I concede that their use of Chinese companies to make their goods and services is distasteful (to me…that’s one of the reasons I don’t shop there, voting with my pocketbook and all), it still brings a lot of jobs to the US that we wouldn’t otherwise have, as well as cheap goods and services that people obviously find a use for, since they are so successful in their niche. > > I’d think that the recipients of the programs would be the biggest beneficiary. Not only do they get jobs but they also get assistance as well. Is your problem with Walmart or with social programs in general?? Have you considered why we HAVE social programs? If you are claiming it’s all because of Walmart, well…that sounds like Walmart is doing a lot. Did the mom and pop shops you bemoaned earlier losing out ever advocate for welfare benefits for their employees?? They didn’t pay anymore, or give any more benefits than Walmart does (probably less)…where were their advocates for this? > > 😛 Marx was full of shit. You are equally full of shit for continuing to try and make this torturous claim. Again, I ask…is your problem with Walmart or with social democracy and social programs to help the poor? Seems like in actuality it’s with social programs themselves, since it’s US who sets the bar (or even if there is a bar at all), and US who decide what we will do or won’t do. > > I disagree. I think that US labor is over priced and doesn’t have a large value add, which is why ‘middle class’ salaries outside of the tech industry have stagnated, and that we need social programs to address the gaps and bring people up to a standard of living we can set as a minimum. I think we should do more in fact, and I’d like to see more done through direct taxation to help the poor, to retrain those who really want to work in high tech fields or in ways that makes our labor have a value add so that it CAN charge more and get it. Here’s a cite i think answers all of the sites you requested. > **[How Walmart and Home Depot Are Buying Huge Political Influence](https://prospect.org/justice/walmart-home-depot-buying-huge-political-influence/)** > > Walmart and Home Depot are ranked among the top 100 political donors overall for the period since 1989, putting their fingerprints on tax and labor law. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/84 "2015-12-14T00:37:33Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > This is one reason that inflation (at least at smallish levels) is good for the economy. Lowering wages, even for low-performance workers, is difficult, legally and psychologically. But inflation lets employers cut real wages by default; small nominal hikes can be given to satisfactory workers just to keep up. Good workers can still be rewarded with wage hikes above the inflation rate. Eh. A bit. Lower wage earners are not the capital reservoirs you seem to think. Inflation makes hoarding money unfeasible, it incentivizes people who have wealth to invest rather than draw modest interest bond returns. It also incentivizes loans from the middle and lower classes to start new industry. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/85 "2015-12-14T00:55:40Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > Eh. A bit. Lower wage earners are not the capital reservoirs you seem to think. > > Inflation makes hoarding money unfeasible, it incentivizes people who have wealth to invest rather than draw modest interest bond returns. It also incentivizes loans from the middle and lower classes to start new industry. My argument applied to any wage level; it wasn’t specific to lower wages. And, as already mentioned, [interest rates generally rise to match inflation](http://www.whatamimissinghere.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Inflation-the-Biggest-Driver-of-Interest-Rates.jpg). Keeping cash under a mattress is contraindicated in times of inflation, _less so cash in a money-market instrument_. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/86 "2015-12-14T01:14:34Z")
Blaming the morality of WalMart for income inequality, or saying employers have some “obligation,” totally misses the point. Indeed if WalMart management gave unneccessary raises to its employees, it might be sued by its stockholders for abandoning their fiduciary duty! And please don’t say WalMart itself would be more profitable if it were kinder! _WalMart stock split 2:1 eight times_ during the 1980’s and 1990’s. For those who really want to understand income inequality in America, I again recommend Stiglitz’s book. He doesn’t mention WalMart at all, except to indicate the extent of inequality by noting that the children of Sam Walton own more wealth than the bottom 30% of American households combined. Instead, one of his focusses is on “_rent-seeking_”, often assisted by the power of lobbyists. For example, in the operations of many retail stores more profit is gained by banks (whose cards are swiped at the check-out counter) than is gained by the store itself. (Yet I’ve heard Dopers complain vehemently when a store doesn’t accept a card, or tries to add on a surcharge.) I can’t begin to summarize Stiglitz’ book, but I’d suggest a mind-set change. Don’t blame inequality on greed: it’s human nature for the financier getting a $10 million bonus to prefer a $15 million bonus just as much as the WalMart employee would prefer a $15 wage to a $10 wage. Instead look for structural flaws in our political and economic systems. And the political and regulatory flaws are the deliberate results of the influence of lobbyists and campaign donors. Don’t kid yourself; this is the major root of most of America’s economics problems. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/87 "2015-12-14T03:35:55Z")
Let’s do a thread on Stiglitz’s book. I gotta read it though. I nominate myself for playing the roll of possibly unhinged thread curmudgeon. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/88 "2015-12-14T03:49:13Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Let’s do a thread on Stiglitz’s book. I gotta read it though. > > I nominate myself for playing the roll of possibly unhinged thread curmudgeon. It sounds like fun. I’ll play the role of down trodden blue collar worker. Now, if we can only find a high minded liberal arts major from an prestigious university . . . ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/89 "2015-12-14T04:17:21Z")
> [@XT](#): > > That’s all in the OP, btw. The link I put in there actually shows an 8% move from middle to upper class, but regardless it’s clear more people have moved up than down… The word “move” is potentially misleading here. An increasing proportion of upper-class people in the population doesn’t necessarily imply actual economic mobility of _existing individuals_ from middle-class to upper-class. Some part of that change could be due just to upper-class people reproducing at a higher rate, so that when middle-class people die, some of them are replaced in the population by upper-class people. And [at least some evidence supports this hypothesis](http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/25/women-wealth-childcare-family-babies-study): > [@](#): > > They argue that the growing divide between rich and poor in American society has created two groups of women: those who can afford to buy help to raise their children and run their homes and those who are willing to supply such services at affordable prices. The earning gap between the two groups has been accelerating. > > The study finds that labour costs in the childcare industry relative to the wages of American women with college and advanced degrees decreased by 10% and 16% respectively in the past 30 years. […] > > […] highly educated women were more likely to be able to afford help that allowed them to raise larger-than-average families. “You have a nanny, people to pick up your laundry and suits, buy you food from the local store for you to cook for dinner, and you can leave all the mess to the housekeeper in the morning,” [study co-author Moshe Hazan] said. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/90 "2015-12-14T04:23:29Z")
Upper class people have higher reproduction rates than middle or lower class people? That’s pretty counter intuitive…I thought the trend is that the richer a society, and the richer a class I guess, the lower it’s reproduction. Also, I thought that there was data showing that people move from the upper class to the middle or even lower at fairly frequent rates, similar to the rates that middle and lower move into the (arbitrary) upper? I’ll see if I can dig up some cites on that…maybe I’m mis-remembering or have it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/91 "2015-12-14T04:35:17Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > The word “move” is potentially misleading here. An increasing proportion of upper-class people in the population doesn’t necessarily imply actual economic mobility of _existing individuals_ from middle-class to upper-class. > > Some part of that change could be due just to upper-class people reproducing at a higher rate, so that when middle-class people die, some of them are replaced in the population by upper-class people. And [at least some evidence supports this hypothesis](http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/25/women-wealth-childcare-family-babies-study): That cite refers to women with advanced degrees, not necessarily “upper class” women. But more importantly, their fertility rates are still lower than average, so I don’t know how the math would work out that they are having more women than less educated women. The article claims that women with advanced degrees have fertility rates that have increased recently, but that increase still leaves their fertility rate lower than average. It does not claim that upper class women are reproducing at a higher rate than women in other classes. > [@](#): > > The pair analysed data and found that American women without any form of high-school diploma have a fertility rate of 2.24 children. Among women with a high-school diploma the fertility rate falls to 2.09 and for women with some form of college education it drops to 1.78. > > However, among women with college degrees, the economists found the fertility rate rises to 1.88 and among women with advanced degrees to 1.96. In 1980 women who had studied for 16 years or more had a fertility rate of just 1.2. And, of course, there is an implicit assumption that you stay in the class you are born into. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/92 "2015-12-14T13:10:50Z")
> [@aag3981](#): > > But the problem isn’t that Joe Blow earns enough for a minimally decent life. Joe Blow works 40 hours a week and has to rely on subsidies and food stamps to have a minimally decent standard. I don’t think someone who earns $50K gets a lot of food stamps. IIUC the idea is to give Joe Blow more subsidies, so he is making $75K instead of $50K. Or whatever is defined as a “minimally decent standard”. > [@](#): > > That being said, a firmly middle class salary of 100k shouldn’t be the group of people that are charged with supplementing Joe Blow’s pay. It should be upper class that have benefited from Joe Blow’s cheap labor by way more increased proportional income and bonuses paid out. If these employers are not going to pay a living wage, then their high salaries and large bonuses should be taxed so Joe Blow can be supplemented and affordable life. Which runs into the same problem as always - the rich don’t make enough money to redistribute. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/93 "2015-12-14T13:44:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t think someone who earns $50K gets a lot of food stamps. > > IIUC the idea is to give Joe Blow more subsidies, so he is making $75K instead of $50K. Or whatever is defined as a “minimally decent standard”. > Which runs into the same problem as always - the rich don’t make enough money to redistribute. If you want to redistribute ALL of it, mean household gets your close, ~$72k. Not that I’m recommending such a scheme. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2015, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/94 "2015-12-14T14:10:37Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > If you want to redistribute ALL of it, mean household gets your close, ~$72k. > > Not that I’m recommending such a scheme. Sure, you could do it once. Then people would wise up that nothing they do will ever get them above average in terms of income, and adjust. They shift their income to non-taxable benefits, hire lawyers to exploit the inevitable loopholes, and generally game the system to avoid the taxes. Or figure out how to recruit doctors who graduate with $250K in medical school debt while offering them $72K a year. Of course we could get the taxpayer to pay for medical school tuition, but then that is $250K per doctor that we can’t redistribute. Etc. If your small business is successful, there is no incentive to expand after a certain point - you don’t make any more money off it. I understand that you are not recommending it. I doubt anyone who has given it any thought would. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Hocus\_Pocus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/41988e/32.png) [@Hocus\_Pocus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hocus_Pocus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2015, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/95 "2015-12-21T02:56:21Z")
[QUOTE=Omar Little] You are correct in one sense, but in a world where inequality is a relative measure in which society is evaluated, you now have $100k less whereas before you only had $50k less. To correct this imbalance a system should be designed where I am taxed an additional $25k and it is redistributed to you, so that your adjusted income is now $75k and mine is now $125k. This restores the original income inequality of $50k. And society is whole once again. Everyone should be happy. [/quote] > [@John\_Mace](#): > > That would be an excellent way to discourage innovation and hard work. Are you seriously proposing that, or just throwing something theoretical out there? So you’re saying that being given a $25,000 net raise is discouraging innovation & hard work? Reminds me of when pro athletes complain about offers of multi-million dollar contracts being disrespectful or not enough to make ends meet. Part of the problem with society today in regards to the upper class is that they feel that they have an entitlement to greed. I will also note the old quote from George Santayana in 1905: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” A lot of people don’t remember France 1789… ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2015, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/96 "2015-12-21T06:24:03Z")
Back to WalMart. Years ago retail DID pay well. Working at Sears or Montgomery Wards one could make a good living because they paid a good wage plus commissions. But after WalMart came on the scene that changed. ---
**Author:** ![WhyWhyWhy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whywhywhy/32/7539_2.png) [@WhyWhyWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyWhyWhy)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2015, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/97 "2015-12-21T06:39:46Z")
Globalization. At the end of WW2, most global superpowers were bombed the hell out and the US was pretty much unscathed. We had it good but a head start only lasts for so long. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2015, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/98 "2015-12-21T07:30:28Z")
> [@Hocus\_Pocus](#): > > So you’re saying that being given a $25,000 net raise is discouraging innovation & hard work? Yes, giving someone a big raise for doing nothing is a good way to discourage innovation. But more to the point, taking a big raise away from someone who actually innovated is an even better way to discourage it. Did you have any other questions? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2015, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/99 "2015-12-21T08:22:41Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > He doesn’t mention WalMart at all, except to indicate the extent of inequality by noting that the children of Sam Walton own more wealth than the bottom 30% of American households combined. Anyone with a positive net worth has more wealth than perhaps the bottom 25% of American households combined. That’s a problem, but the Waltons are a total red herring. It’s not income inequality that’s the problem; it’s the fact that a big segment of the American public has negative net worth. ---
**Author:** ![Hocus\_Pocus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/41988e/32.png) [@Hocus\_Pocus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hocus_Pocus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2015, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992/100 "2015-12-21T08:49:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, giving someone a big raise for doing nothing is a good way to discourage innovation. But more to the point, taking a big raise away from someone who actually innovated is an even better way to discourage it. > > Did you have any other questions? Yes. Is 25% not a big raise? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shrinking-middle-class-in-the-us/739992.md?page=6)