Anything on stem cells yet, Kevin?

No amount of chaff can hide the failure of our remarkable productivity surge (and the accompanying robust growth of the overall economy) to meaningfully boost average wages, which have barely grown with inflation.

As usual your liberal sources are WRONG Kevin. Wages are RISING while unemployment is staying low.

Link

"figures showed that hourly wages increased sharply, hitting $16.70 an hour, a 0.5% rise"
"Meanwhile, the US unemployment rate remained unchanged at the 4.6% figure from the previous month"

Even adjusted for inflation, wages ARE rising.

After all, liberals have been trying to get the country interested in increasing income inequality for a couple of decades now, but with no luck.

Er, you may want to re-read that sentence.

Look Kevin, I warned you a few days ago, but you just ignored me. Since you wouldn't remove the radio animated gif, you forced me to adblock it. If you continue this behavior, I will be removing the rest of your ads next.

Derb is an anomaly at the Corner, perhaps because of his mathematical background. Uncharacteristically for the self-proclaimed ubermensches at the Corner, he is, for the most part, quite rational, and, therefore, liberal, by definition.

Freudian slip -- of course liberals are only interested in class warfare and taking as much money as possible from working people -- until Reagan, they were having lots of luck.

Adjusted for inflation, wages are NOT rising. Try harder, folks. Even the NRO gang didn't try to pretend otherwise.

Over the past 30 years, median wages for men have dropped. Median wages for women, starting from a very low base, have increased modestly. Meanwhile, the income of the rich has skyrocketed while their tax rates have been decreased. Pretty sweet deal, eh?

As usual your liberal sources are WRONG Kevin. Wages are RISING while unemployment is staying low.

A clear sign of desperation when Al is quoting the BBC.

So is class war OK now?

I've been saying for years, the question Democrats ought to be asking is, "Where's your raise?"

I guess Al missed class the day they discussed inflation and the meaning of "wages ... after adjustment for inflation."

As a polite suggestion, you may want to work harder on changing your language. I think liberals fall back unthinkingly on their usual phraseology - 'income inequality' is what I'm specifically referring to here - and that doesn't play well to centrists (like me) at all. I tune it out immediately. If you want to grab my attention, don't pitch the "widening gap" angle. You'll have better luck if you can find pithy phrases and statistics that prove/emphasize that the middle class is doing worse in absolute terms. Derb is alluding to that in his post.

Sure, we're bourgeouis, selfish a-holes, and you can harp on that if you wanna keep losing, but this is the path if you want to win. Not class warfare, but class survival.

I just heard in on the news last night (maybe Brian Williams was talking about the AVERAGE wage adjusted for inflation?).

the income of the rich has skyrocketed while their tax rates have been decreased. Pretty sweet deal, eh?

To the extent that the top income earners are doing well from their stock market gains, so too are the retirement funds and other institutional investment vehicles which are funded by the savings of working people.

This is a point that is apart from how much we should tax the gain for the different income brackets.

As I have posted many times, overall productivity in the U.S. is up, because the denominator (total hours worked) is down. This is not a good thing.

Of course the middle class is hurting, Bush's policies have done nothing but harm them. We already know that Mr. Bush is a man of very low moral character. That issue has been settled - Dems need to focus on how bad his policies are and how badly most Americans have suffered under them.

Also, I would advice the Dems be cautious about any economic figures involving averages. Remember that when Bill Gates walks into a room containing 39 homeless men, the average net worth of every man in the room is now $1 billion. Averages can be skewed by the massive outliers. Median is a much better measure of central tendency.

Peace.

Why doesn't it surprise me that wingnuts like Al and Thomas argue that "wages are rising" on the basis of average wages, while anyone with two lectures in statistics under their belts would rather look at median wages?

Maybe Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or some other Democratic worthy will start barnstorming the country asking middle class workers why their wages have barely budged during a period when the economy has nearly doubled.

Maybe "some other Democratic worthy" (John Edwards?), and even remotely possibly Barack Obama, but Hillary Clinton? That's just crazy talk.

Not only are wages stagnant, but the cost of living is way up, and as a result, the average income earner is in debt up to their ears!

See anything Elizabeth Warren has written on the subject.

Expect this to become an issue that National Democrats start hammering home in August or September. There is so much crap going on that a focus on it now would be forgotten come November.

Of course, if you are following the congressional campaigns at all, you'd realize this is a prominent issue on Democratic campaigns. They are keeping that in people's heads so that toward the end of the summer, it will become part of a national campaign--which will be coming. Contract with America didn't come out until around September, so national Dems don't need to be focused on these issues too early. Locally, however, Dems are already bringing it up.

John Edwards has explicitly been talking about this for about three years now (Two Americas). He's a bit obscure, granted, but he was the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate in 2004.

Not only are wages stagnant, but the cost of living is way up, and as a result, the average income earner is in debt up to their ears!

lewislewis, wages are going up. "Real wages" are stagnant, that is, wages are rising at about the same rate as the cost of living.

John Derbyshire: Last of the Sane Conservatives.

Shag, is it true "income inequality" doesn't mean anything to you? I mean, if, in a time of great productivity growth, CEO's are getting 50% real raises, the guys making more than 100k a year are getting 5% real raises, and everybody else is getting either no raise at all or is actually making less, how would you describe that? The middle class isn't exactly being snuffed out as you suggest, it just isn't getting its fair share of our joint economic enterprise, and the poor are really taking it in the ear.

So how would you describe what's going on? I'd be really interested to hear.

You'll have better luck if you can find pithy phrases...

Lack of ecomomic parity? Socio-economic dissonance?

Or does that just make me sound like an overeducated, liberal asshole instead of a greedy, heartless asshole?

"Wages are rising."

From Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States: 2004 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005), the median household income figures, adjusted for inflation, from 2000 to 2004:

2000: 46,058
2001: 45,062
2002: 44,546
2003: 44,482
2004: 44,389

2005 numbers are due out August 29, btw.

Kevin wrote: "Maybe Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or some other Democratic worthy will start barnstorming the country asking middle class workers why their wages have barely budged during a period when the economy has nearly doubled."

Well, I think the reason this may not happen is that Democratic political luminaries have also benefited from the elite-friendly economic policies of the Bush administration. It's pretty difficult to "feel the pain" of the middle class when you're not in the middle class and you personally aren't feeling any pain.

As far as I can see, the spokesperson on this issue among the elite of the Democratic party doesn't exist. The upper echelon of the Democrats may indeed like to see current economic trends continue, even at the cost of a missed opportunity to regain majority control of Congress and/or the White House. Life's easier when you don't take on the burden of leadership.

"Real wages" are stagnant, that is, wages are rising at about the same rate as the cost of living.

No, it means that they are rising at about the same rate as the CPI; which may or may not be an accurate reflection of the "cost of living". The argument that the CPI systematically understates increases in the cost of living is hardly new.

John Derbyshire: Last of the Sane Conservatives.

Come on people. We need to stop praising conservatives whenever they say something sensible. They are still wrong the vast majority of the time and don't deserve credibility--until they start being right a majority of the time. Liberals love to do heap praise on conservatives who agree with the sentiment of the moment and that's just plain silly.

Of course, the other part of the picture is the decline of government and public services, most of which are more important to the middle class and the poor than to the rich. For example, the underfunding and overcrowding of public schools; less generous student loans, underfunded public health facilities, increased public university tuition, etc. All of these things reduce further the overall standard-of-living of the middle class/poor vis-a-vis the wealthy. And with the deficits we've got, things will bet worse before they get better.

Over the past 30 years, median wages for men have dropped. Median wages for women, starting from a very low base, have increased modestly. Meanwhile, the income of the rich has skyrocketed while their tax rates have been decreased. Pretty sweet deal, eh?

This is true. Part of the low median wage is the 11 million illegal immigrants who are ripped off by the system. That is, they're ripped off compared to legal workers, although being ripped off in the US is a lot better than they could do back home.

Another part of the increasing wage gap is the loss of value of non-knowledge workers. Machines have made muscle less valuable.

RT,

Those numbers are stunning. Why can't Democrats just put a chart of that on TV and take over Congress?

My guess is this: because they really are one of the two parties of the corporate state, and they depend on corporate money to stay in office. And to raise this question would question the legitimacy of corporate rule.

Any other suggestions why no politician mentions this? (I think Edwards focuses on the poor.) Or is it just that the issue just doesn't grab guys like Shag, above, so nobody bothers?

Wages have stagnated and median household incomes have dropped as the education system has deteriorated. I'm not a social scientist. Perhaps someone more qualified than I could take up this angle?

I've been saying for years, the question Democrats ought to be asking is, "Where's your raise?"

Really, really, really good.

David in NY:

What craigie said...

Those numbers are stunning. Why can't Democrats just put a chart of that on TV and take over Congress?

Because low-paid workers don't understand charts. That's why they're low-paid. ;)

And if anyone understands ex-liberal's point, please clue me in. It seems to be: People who don't make much money don't deserve to make much. I guess the average raise of 54% for CEO's last year means they were really, really deserving and are much better people than everyone else.

I thought ex-liberal was an asshole and he just proved my point.

And to raise this question would question the legitimacy of corporate rule.

Yet question it we must, because the merging of corporate power with state power is the very definition of fascism. People like us are political nightmares for the political class because we are informed. Pity there are so few of us on both sides of the philosophical divide.

Note a contradiction. Kevin's post says,

middle class workers...wages have barely budged...largely because that's exactly the way the Republican Party likes it.

On the other hand, Kevin's comment above admits that this situation has been going on for 30 years.

IMHO the growing income gap is a social/economic problem, not a political one. However, even if there's no economic solution, the Dems could still use this as a political issue.

Let me elaborate. Ex-liberal's position seems to be that fully half the American population can't read. If he understands what "median" means.

I think the question why the Democrats are not addressing this deserseves a real, thoughtful response, not just ad-hominem idiocy.

Still, who knows? Maybe Hillary Clinton . . . . or some other Democratic worthy will start barnstorming the country . . . —Kevin Drum

Hillary Clinton is not a "Democratic (sic) worthy." In fact, she's not a worthy of any stripe.

RT's numbers are accurate. They are nothing to brag about. Think about this, since 2002 or so we have been spending money hand over fist on our military. We think most of the money has gone to Iraq, but actually it has mostly stayed here purchasing stuff that has been sent to Iraq. In short we are "enjoying" a war economy. Feel like you are benefitting from the war economy. What do you think is going to happen when we leave Iraq and we aren't spending as much money of military stuff?

David: perhaps I should clarify. I wasn't really commenting on what the true economic state of affairs is; I'm no economist. But, if I understood Derb correctly, he was suggesting that middle class incomes were stagnating or declining in absolute (quality of life) terms. Is this correct? If so, I think that finding a nice way to attack this angle would be a winner with guys like me. For example, imagine an ad where a sonorous voice informs us that every generation of the middle class has done better than the one before, but the next generation of the middle class will be poorer, and then toss in some scary line like "and there's no end in sight". Well, that's pretty cheesy, but perhaps you catch my meaning.

I think, philosophically, it doesn't bug me (or a lot of other people) if the rich get absurdly richer, as long as 'all boats rise with the tide'. It's even ok if the rich boats rise a lot faster, as long as the middle class boat is rising at some acceptable rate (and the poor boat isn't sinking to the bottom). After all, there's not a fixed amount of wealth in this world, so the rich aren't necessarily 'taking' their money from us. Plus, you have to contend with the fact that many people dream of becoming rich themselves, so they don't want to demonize the crew they're hoping to join!

Because low-paid workers don't understand charts. That's why they're low-paid. ;)

Please. Low paid workers continually vote Democratic. It's the upper middle class and upper class that vote Republicans in. Kevin even posted on how the "red states" voted along economic status. Wealthy people who blame the poor--something that they have done throughout the ages--are just trying to compensate for the fact that they, or their economic equals, are the ones keeping the poor poor. The wealthy have always voted Republican. "Morals" or "values" are just a convenient cover for the wealthy.

Thomas:

I had a couple of thoughts on Stem Cells.

One of the problems that makes it difficult for the Dems to capitalize on the downward trend in the real incomes of the middle class is that the leaders of the Democratic Party are themselves quite wealthy.

It's easy for the GOP leaders to pose fraudulently as Christian Evangelists and moralists. But for a person making $200K year to convince the public at large that he cares about the middle class is much harder.

Where are these so called stock market gains? The DJIA is almost exactly where it was in Jan 2001. We've got plain IRAs, Roth IRAs, 401Ks, and annuity accounts. They're in growth, new tech, etc. The only fund that's been chugging along in an i-think-i-can-i-think-i-can fashion has been our boring as spuds bonds only fund. That little blusterbuster makes 5.5% per year, rain or shine. Meanwhile, we're thankful if we've still got our annual contributions in our other funds.

I'm convinced the middle class is actually doing a lot worse than income statistics show. To get an accurate picture, you would need to factor other expenses such as health care, pensions and education (esp. higher ed) whose burden has been increasingly transferred to individuals. And how to do you put a figure on job insecurity and other "efficient" wonders of our new Gilded Age ?

David in NY: First of all, my joke said that poor Americans can't understand charts. That was an exaggeration, but there is a serious point: Most people's emotions aren't swayed by charts and graphs.

The more important point is that this issue is based on envy. I think selfishness beats envy. Voters care more about what politicians will give them than about what politicians will take away from somebody else.

Go ahead and post them, GC.

Because low-paid workers don't understand charts. That's why they're low-paid. ;)

Posted by: ex-liberal on July 20, 2006 at 2:10 PM

That is just too cute for words.

Poor people might not understand charts but they understand that they don't make enough to pay for food, clothing, shelter, and all the things they were able to buy just a few years ago.

Guess what, every one of those poor people can vote just as many times as your rich neighbor. That is the genius of democracy. If the elected elite doesn't take care of the poor, they might not be elected next time.

Fifi: And don't forget housing. Let me be the one to beat this drum first on this thread: in no major city in America can a minimum wage worker afford a two-bedroom apartment. I refer all doubting thomases to their local public library and anything written by Barbara Eherenreich.

When there is a stem cell thread I'll weigh in on that subject, but feel free to stop by - up my average to six readers a day :)

After all, there's not a fixed amount of wealth in this world, so the rich aren't necessarily 'taking' their money from us.

Right premise, wrong conclusion. Unlike the middle class, the rich tend to take money out of circulation. They're much more likely to sock it away in bonds, foreign bank accounts and trust funds. And, especially if you include corporations among "the rich", they're much more likely to send that money to foreign countries.

The middle class, on the other hand, tend to put their money back into the economy immediately.

*sigh* Why does John Derbyshire hate America?

Ron:

I believe Alexis de Tocqueville observed just the opposite.

GC:

If there is such a thread ever, I will be glad to you join you there. I don't register for other sites.

Bushco has decided that difficult times are ahead - war, oil crisis, global warming, China & India's rise et al - and its main mission is to protect those at the top. They expect that 40 years from now the US will resemble what Brazil and Mexico are - quasi-democracies with some third-world qualities but with enormous wealth at the top. The job of government will be to protect that wealth.

That is their philosophy, and all the lip-service to other issues, particularly social, is to keep the masses in line.

Global Citizen, it may be true that in no major city in America can a minimum wage worker afford a two-bedroom apartment., but did Barbara Ehrenreich have the integrity to point out that there are almost zero miniumum wage, head of household workers? In fact, even most fast food workers earn more than minimum wage.

Alexis de Tocqueville. Who cares, he is a dead Frenchman.

Talk to the "communists" in the old soviet union if you want to find out what happens to an elite that fails to take care of its middle class and poor.

IMHO the growing income gap is a social/economic problem, not a political one.

Translation: The growing income gap is a potential political problem for the Republicans.

Of course, "ex-liberal" has demonstrated how little value his/her/its opinion has.

Where's my raise?

Awesome.

Bushco has decided that difficult times are ahead - war, oil crisis, global warming, China & India's rise et al - and its main mission is to protect those at the top. They expect that 40 years from now the US will resemble what Brazil and Mexico are - quasi-democracies with some third-world qualities but with enormous wealth at the top.

"Expect" is overly passive; they are actively working to make that happen.

See what happens when you get lazy and use "cut&paste" on a link?

Ron:

Most of the "Communists" (or, all of the Czars, if you wanted to go back even further) are dead too. I'll stick with fighting class warfare, here and now, if you don't mind.

It's easy for the GOP leaders to pose fraudulently as Christian Evangelists and moralists.

Demonstrably. ;)

But for a person making $200K year to convince the public at large that he cares about the middle class is much harder.

If memory serves me right, Huey Long was able to campaign all his life as a populist on the grounds that "Sure I'm doing well! And you should too!"

Kevin,

May I point out that "wages" are probably not the best measure--one of the compensation measures that includes benefit costs would be better. This captures 2 things--first, the loss of pensions, which were valuable (and costly), and second, the increasing cost of health benefits, which are also valuable (and costly).

It doesn't change the analysis much, but it does change it some.

Ron Byers wrote: "What do you think is going to happen when we leave Iraq and we aren't spending as much money of military stuff?"

In order to avoid that economic catastrophe, the Keynsians in the White House intend to extend the war forever.

On another note, if anyone thinks that CEO comprensation has increased because CEOs are adding so much value to the companies they run, look at footnoted.org. This is a website devoted to reading 10-Qs and other disclosure documetns and relating often hilarious tales of executive compensation. The most outrageous are the ones that detail how much it takes to GET RID of CEOs. They may have been terrible leaders, but they were especially good at negotiating golden parachutes.

If the elected elite doesn't take care of the poor, they might not be elected next time.

LOL! When have the rich EVER allowed themselves to be removed from power by the poor?

Thomas;

No registration required.

ex-liberal: Minimum Scminimum - I used to supervise a phlebotomy crew in an HCA facility (the Frist family business) and the average wage was around ten bucks an hour, almost double the federal minimum. Kansas City is an affordable place to live. But every pay-period I refered someone to employee assistance because they were either in danger of losing their utilities or already had.

I don't question Barbara Ehrenreich's integrity, I do however question the integrity of anyone who attempts to evade reality by clever use of statistics.

..."lies, damned lies, and statistics." Harry S Truman

But for a person making $200K year to convince the public at large that he cares about the middle class is much harder.

Not really. To use just one example, in the 1960s much of the poor and the working class in this country were absolutely devoted to Jack and Bobby Kennedy, because they sensed, correctly, that they had their best interests at heart. The same applied earlier to Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.

I think Democrats can run with this theme, but many (esp. in the leadership) still cling to the mind-set they developed for survival in the 80s: that the country is inherently conservative, and their best bet is to learn to live with corporate sponsorship and not push too hard for middle-class equality. This was a defensible strategy in the years when the country leaned right...but there's alot of reason to believe those days are past, and the current group seems woefully shy about making even the obvious cases. (Like Lieberman, in the wreckage of Enron, worrying Dems would be perceived as "anti-business") There is historic precedent for hope Dems get past this timidity: Dems in the late 20s were just as wedded to GOP-lite economics; it took Roosevelt to nudge them forward.

Who is there to similarly shepherd today's Dems? I'd say John Edwards, who talked up the topic when it wasn't so sexy, has the strongest credentials on the issue.

But for a person making $200K year to convince the public at large that he cares about the middle class is much harder.

$200 thousand a year is hardly wealthy, though. I'd say that's more upper middle class.

For what it's worth on the stem cell topic, I think the veto was akin to knocking the crutches out from under Jerry's kids - something I can see a young George Bush or an old Dick Cheney doing.

And don't forget housing. Let me be the one to beat this drum first on this thread: in no major city in America can a minimum wage worker afford a two-bedroom apartment. I refer all doubting thomases to their local public library and anything written by Barbara Eherenreich.

I don't doubt the truth of it, and I don't want dispute the worrying rise in the cost of shelter. But as a political slogan, I'd be surprised if your point inspires any more than a shrug. I suspect that most middle class people think of the minimum wage as a temporary wage, the kind of situation that their kids face while they're slogging through school. Hell, the real problem with the minimum wage is that it's inadequate to cover a room. Complaining about two-bedroom apartments is a little like complaining that the minimum wage won't cover the cost of the HBO option in your cable TV subscription.

GC:

I will see if I get a chance to get over there, since I disagree with you -- I will note that Democratic Senator Nelson of Nebraska was the only one to vote against the bill -- that's good party discipline for your side at least.

sglover: Well, as houses go up for auction after forclosure in neighborhood after neighborhood, because of adjustable rate mortgages and rising payments, the housing issue will probably gain a little traction.

Vicenti Fox, see my post about the Soviet Union. See also any history book that talks about the French revolution. You could also review the Cuban Revolution. How about the Natzi revolution in Germany. I could go on, but you get the picture. Elites can never be sure of the future. The guard you hire to protect your gated community might just turn his gun on you.

I will grant you that the poor are rarely the revolutionaries. More often revolutions bubble up from the middle class. But in our situation the middle class is in decline. I don't think the members of our middle class are going to set back and take it for long. Of course, you might be one of those members of the elite who could find himself facing pitchforks.

Where's a little ergot poisoning when you need it?

LOL -- inciting violence or the overthrow of the government is still illegal, you know?

Not really. To use just one example, in the 1960s much of the poor and the working class in this country were absolutely devoted to Jack and Bobby Kennedy, because they sensed, correctly, that they had their best interests at heart.

I wouldn't bet on that. For one thing, I'd say that LBJ was more of a kindred spirit to working people, and did a better job of actually delivering for them. More important, the first time I ever heard the term 'limosine liberal' was in Michigan in the 70's, when it cropped up as a not-too-subtle shorthand for Ted Kennedy, who was supposed to be the kind of Democrat who endorsed court-ordered school desegregation, but would never put his own kids in public schools. I don't think it's a fair caricature, but you're kidding yourself if you think that deep class divisions aren't a big part of the general alienation that many people feel towards highly-educated (thus, highly affluent, often) liberals. Why do you think Republicans have been able to demagogue about "Democratic elitists" so successfully?

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or some other Democratic worthy will start barnstorming the country asking middle class workers why their wages have barely budged during a period when the economy has nearly doubled. And perhaps that same worthy will suggest ever so delicately that it's largely because that's exactly the way the Republican Party likes it.

Yeah, if only those two TNR centrist Dems could get liberal voters to not view both them as largely the same as the GOP. Obama is all talk that can't make anything happen, a turly over-hype Senator Evan Bayh twin. And please, if Hillary ever gets started with any public televised speaking, people are going to realize what she is exactly the same kind of bimbo as that young air-headed aid, Ms. Monica.

They may be Kevin's type of candidates, but certainly not anyone else, or least not amoung those silly leftist liberals that Kevin loves to hate. In fact, Howard Dean attracted more conservative voters that those supposed “core” centrist Dems being promoted by the spineless TNR, DLC member types. You would think that by the way Lieberman is being tossed about angry liberals, it would be a clue to centrist Dems, but lost election after lost election, they never get a clue that voters are looking for real leadership and real leadership has a spine. centrist Dems can't stop bowing down to Bush.

Cheryl thinks Hillary is too centrist; I don't believe she has truly relinquished her former far-left views. No wonder Hillary's Presidential poll numbers don't look too good.

I do not think those who desire a more equitable distribution of wealth in the US economy should put too much hope in either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama. Their constituency is wealthy corporations. I could say the same thing about universal health services. Neither Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama will do anything, even if they achieve the pinnacle of political power, to interfere with the profits private health care provides its investors. I could say the same thing about support for Israel... I could say the same thing about the occupation of Iraq...

Taobhan words: ditto

As usual, Al (and Thomas), YOU are wrong. The latest figure for average hourly earnings, in constant dollars, is for June, and has them down 0.6 percent from the year-ago month. (The source is the Burea of Labor Statistics.) There hasn't been a positive figure since early 2004. They are also down since the current recovery officially started, in December 2001. Since that time, real GDP has risen by roughly 15.5 percent; real GDP per worker has risen by roughly 12 percent. Employment growth during the current recovery, at only 3.2 percent since December 2001, lags far behind every other post-war recovery.

Most people still do work for an hourly wage, so the picture above certainly applies to the median worker, and no doubt, at least up to the 75th percentile of the income distribution.

Why don't you guys care about knowing what you're talking about. I guess the facts themselvs have a liberal bias.

As I said, I just got that piece of news from Brian Williams last night.

I have suggested, numerous times on this forum, that the best method for restoring more progressivity to the tax code is to eliminate the payroll taxes and fund SS and Medicare from the general revenue by increasing the rates of tax in income tax brackets by equal percentages. For example, if you raise a 10% bracket by 1% point, then a 35% bracket is increased to 38.5% etc. I, surprisingly, get almost no support for this proposal from the commenters here.

It would be nice if the Dems adopted to phrase "class warfare" to refer to such things as repealing the estate tax.

I suppose that the issue of income inequality is best framed in terms of --

ORANGE ALERT ORANGE ALERT ORANGE ALERT

huh? you were saying something?

-- who's the moron who said we wouldn't get fooled again? Wish I could believe it.

The sad, desperate hope that fuels so many state lotteries is the same emotional ploy that keeps people voting against their best interests - people like to think they are rich even as they walk into the courthouse for bankruptcy hearings - hell Donald Trump has been bankrupt at least twice, right? That hope taht before one shuffles off this mortal coil, we'll srtike it rich and go out in style, and when that happens, we don't want the damn gummint to take it do we?

Derbyshire reminds me of those retired colonels who write letters to the Telegraph (or get parodied in Monty Python). He's a paternalist Blimpish character, with some rather unseemly traits -- the 'thank heavens for little girls' stuff, most notably -- but he doesn't appear to be as intellectually vacuous or bankrupt as many other Cornerites.

GC,
The coming wave of foreclosures has nothing to do with peoples incomes. It has everything to do with people making $80K/year thinking they should buy that $800K house with a 2/28 I/O ARM loans and suddenly realizing that they just gambled their way straight into BK. We are in the midst of a huge housing bubble, especially in the blue states (with notable addition of Florida) on both coasts. I expect the fed to continue to raise rates until we get to 6%. This will slaughter the speculators and anyone who bought into the peak in the last few years ('04 to now) or HELOCed the equity out of their house. Median house prices should be no more than the median wage times 2-4 and 20% down should be common. Median home prices sitting at 10-15x the median income are killing people who bought. Expect a 25-30% drop(even higher in places like Phoenix or Florida) in home prices from the peak (spring '05) in '07. The real estate industry will lose 75% of the jobs created since '01. Home builders will get killed (note Toll Brothers stock price etc).

I expect the Fed will hold things together until after the elections and then the fall will come. I expect who ever wins the democratic nomination in 2008 will be the next president (in a landslide), and the discussion will be all economics (It's the economy stupid!) as we go into a recession or even a depression. The war will be a sidenote.
YMMV.

buffpilot: I just hinted at that economic dissonance that most people don't realize they suffer from.

"I think, philosophically, it doesn't bug me (or a lot of other people) if the rich get absurdly richer, as long as 'all boats rise with the tide'. It's even ok if the rich boats rise a lot faster . . ."

Besides the circulation issue raised above, the concern here is that some of these gains get invested in attempts to improve their class position, they become increasingly more influential at the expense of middle and lower class interests, and we tilt back towards a hereditary aristocracy . . .

The sad, desperate hope that fuels so many state lotteries is the same emotional ploy that keeps people voting against their best interests

I'll buy that explanation of why many lower middle class people vote Republican. Here's the next question: why do so many upper middle class people vote Democratic, against their best interests?

They have a conscience?

If there's a problem with talking explicitly about income scales, then it's the oft-mentioned (though badly remembered) poll that had 19% of Americans saying they expected to benefit from a tax proposal that only affected those in the top 1% of earners.

Americans tend to be optimistic about their futures, and respond badly to pessimistic projections. But I can't think of a more appropriate time to say 'we want you to keep feeling optimistic -- but those misgivings you're feeling? That's the Republicans' fault.' Oh, and who needs a chart? Just show Dick Cheney's tax return.

And yes, John Edwards is the most prominent Democrat doing substantial and on-point work on poverty and low-paid work. Much of it is happening outside the Beltway Bubble, but it's all the better for it.

My world history teacher in college made a convincing argument that the French revolution was sparked largely by a disaffected middle class that felt like they weren't getting anywhere. Conservatives can keep fooling themselves about inequality and in a hundred years or so we'll be "fixing" the problem with guillotines.

Actually, let me address your question seriously instead of as a smartass. They may be voting against their economic interests, but they are voting for their social interests, especially the "artistic elites" who glean their grain from forms of entertanment that are decidedly not artistic but none the less they have freedom of expression. How many people did you hear say in 1992 "I'm socially liberal byut I'm fiscally conservative." Personally I heard it so many times I thought I would hurl.

For one thing, I'd say that LBJ was more of a kindred spirit to working people, and did a better job of actually delivering for them.

Well, he did more for them substantively, but I'm not sure he personally was viewed as more of a kindred spirit. He was in many ways too much of a working class man to be loved by them, in that his flaws were all too apparent. The Kennedy represented a sort of wish-fulfillment.

I don't think it's a fair caricature, but you're kidding yourself if you think that deep class divisions aren't a big part of the general alienation that many people feel towards highly-educated (thus, highly affluent, often) liberals. Why do you think Republicans have been able to demagogue about "Democratic elitists" so successfully?

Oh, sure. But some Democrats are able to overcome the stereotype.

Plus, there's a cultural difference between the Midwest and the Northeast and West Coasts, which I'm more familiar with. During the Sixties in those areas, at least among working or lower class Hispanics and white ethnics, it was apparently a rare household that didn't have a picture of one of the Kennedys around (usually next to a picture of the Pope).

By the way, whenever you hear the phrase "limousine liberal" a handy counter is "Cadillac conservative," which, at least, has the virtue of making them seem stodgy.

Alexander:

Did any history teacher ever tell you what our Founding Fathers George Washington and John Adams felt about the French Revolution?

Posted by: buffpilot...

Still flying?

GC - I totally agree. Most people have absolutely no economic sense. They will study for literally hours when buying a car, but when it comes to a house they will invest so much emotion into the buying (or selling) of a capital asset, then make a decision in minutes. And a lot of it based on the advice of high-school GED holders know as Realtors.

What I fear will happen is the government will come in and somehow 'bailout' all these idiots and tax people who saved to death. Or inflate us out of this (aka "The Volker Solution") - again hurting people who saved.

The interesting thing about Rattner's articule to me was it's focus on a Democratic agenda.

Real median wages are declining - if there is any number that can be used an estimate of the financial health of the middle class, median incomes is it.

Real median wages are declining. Let that sink in - in America, the country where each generations promise to it's children has been that you will do better than me. This is no longer the case.

Yes, it's something Democrats should care about. I found it amusing that the writer, writing in the highly Republican editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, said it could be an issue for Democrats and didn't even pretend that Republicans would be interested in it. That would require the rather fantastical assumption that they care.

Here's the next question: why do so many upper middle class people vote Democratic, against their best interests?

Allow me to answer: I don't believe voting Democratic is against my best interests, either in terms of civil rights, national security (especially after Bush failed to protect my city on 9/11), and the economy.

If we consider the economy alone, the DJIA when Clinton entered office in 1993 was approximately 3300. The Dow then rose to 11,500 by December 1999, before settling back at 10,600 by the time Bill Clinton left office, for a total increase of 7,300. Meanwhile, under Bush the Dow went from 10,600 in January 2001 to about 11,000 today, for a total increase of -- tada! -- 400. (It looks even worse when you put it in percentage terms). If selfishness alone was my only criterion for voting I should vote Democrat so that my stocks have a chance to gain some value again.

RSM,

No retired after 24 years in uniform in'04. I do miss it though. Fly days were both challenging and you left all he office politics crap at the door to base ops. I don't miss the studs trying to kill me landing the beast on their first flight, or being in the middle of the pacific when your entire electrical system goes down...in a thunderstorm.

Bets part is I'm home all the time. But I got to see the world and in a few cases make deliveries...

GC - I totally agree. Most people have absolutely no economic sense. They will study for literally hours when buying a car, but when it comes to a house they will invest so much emotion into the buying (or selling) of a capital asset, then make a decision in minutes.

In the last decade there's been literally tons of economic research demonstrating how irrational people are when it comes to an assessment of their financial strategies. People, it turns out, are extremely poor decision makers when it come to money and are ruled as much by their heart as by their head.

I don't miss the studs trying to kill me landing the beast on their first flight...

Heh. Typical AF 30,000 ft long runway, how hard can that be?

Thomas-

Yeah, that guillotines in the street weren't really the way to go. Hence, all the more reason for fixing that little inequality problem now rather than say, in a hundred years.

My husband is a retired USAF Major. Do you know how many Airmen think it is feasible to buy a house in Tucson or Phoenix, then they end up in mandatory financial counseling and their careers are adversely affected?

Do you know how many predatory lenders surround military installations - where on average 85% of the personnel have a high school diploma and no post secondary education outside the tech school for their career field?

We are a nation of financial idiots. The bankruptcy bill last year was a big ole wet kiss to the credit card industry, with nothing asked of them in return. (DeWine, who sponsored the bill had declared bankruptcy himself and listed nearly a million in credit card debt. what a way to appologize for stiffing ones creditors, huh?) I'm a liberal, but I have a libertairian streak a mile wide - I wear my seat belt, but I resent the hell out of the fact that the government tells me to - but maybe some modest legislation is in order because some people are just too financially illiterate to protect themselves?

Wow - CLASS WARFARE over at NRO! He better not write his over at Human Events Online as that would make Robert Novak very angry.

Alexander:

I don't spend a lot of time worrying what's going to happen in 100 years.

Here's the next question: why do so many upper middle class people vote Democratic, against their best interests?

Not surprisingly, "ex-liberal"'s question begins from a false premise: That upper middle class people voting Democratic do so against their best interests. That's an assertion not in evidence.

Red State Mike! Good to see you!

Thomas:

Good thing you weren't one of the Founding Fathers then.

So Thomas, are you saying that you don't care about your grandchildren? Or what kind of world they are going to inherit? Call me a mushy headed liberal, but the moment I chose to have my first child, I accepted responsibility to think forward. Not to sound like a Sipson's charachter but "Please! Won't someone think of the children?"

Stefan
In the last decade there's been literally tons of economic research demonstrating how irrational people are when it comes to an assessment of their financial strategies.

To the contrary, humans have amazing powers of rationalization. My wife, for example, can rationalize any purchase no matter the frivolity or cost.

I used to, in my ignorance, bemoan the lack of rationality among the hoi polloi, but frankly if we were rational life would be extraordinarily boring. I bought a new mountain bike last week on a semi-whim. Suh-weet!

Hola, Global Citizen. I concur with everything you said about young military and financial predators. We'd get calls from loan offices all the time about sailors owing money. I'd tell them it was a bad loan to make, TBSS.

I have suggested, numerous times on this forum, that the best method for restoring more progressivity to the tax code is to eliminate the payroll taxes and fund SS and Medicare from the general revenue by increasing the rates of tax in income tax brackets by equal percentages.

I've actually argued for something similar—my suggestion on details was a flat increase on rates, rather than a progressive one: since it applies to all kinds of income, and all levels, rather than being capped tax on labor, its still an increase in overall tax progressivity, and I don't dislike your idea, either—one of the few areas we are in general agreement.

I would note, though, that when you eliminate payroll taxes (assuming you eliminate both halves), there is a transition effect where there is a substantial risk of employers leaving nominal wages alone while they lose the employer contribution to payroll taxes and that burden gets picked up on the income tax side that could produce undesired one-time effects, even if the tax structure is preferable, so turning such an idea into a practical proposal, rather than an abstract exercise, should involve consideration of how to deal with (if only through publicity to set expectation) that transition.

Not surprisingly, "ex-liberal"'s question begins from a false premise: That upper middle class people voting Democratic do so against their best interests. That's an assertion not in evidence.

I meant economic interests. Pubbies give tax breaks to the rich and Dems increase subsidies to the poor. If people voted purely on economics, the rich would vote Republican and the poor would vote Democratic. It's interesting to understand why major segments don't vote that way.

LOL -- what do you think Washington or Adams would say about our federal government vs. "income inequality"? As I recall, those like Thomas Jefferson died in huge debt. I see not much has changed in 200 years.

But, then again, President Jefferson (not William J. Clinton) set the bar so high with children outside of wedlock.

The sad truth is that the rulers of this country believe exactly what "The Objective Historian" posted here a couple of days ago:

"SEVENTY PERCENT OF AMERICA'S WAGE-EARNING FAMILIES ARE PARASITES!!!"
-- The Objective Historian, 07/17/2006

According to this belief, all wealth and indeed all value is produced by The Rich, and everyone else is mooching off of the rich. Thus it is a good thing that the incomes of the middle class / working class are stagnant or declining while The Rich get enormously richer, since The Rich are productive and the middle class and working class are parasites.

I meant economic interests. Pubbies give tax breaks to the rich and Dems increase subsidies to the poor. If people voted purely on economics, the rich would vote Republican and the poor would vote Democratic. It's interesting to understand why major segments don't vote that way.

As I explained above, (as always with ex-liberal, it's necessary to explain something three or four times before it sinks in) it's clearly in my economic interests to vote Democratic.

I work with Wall Street clients -- when the market does well (as it did under Clinton) it's very good for me; when the market does poorly (as it does under Bush) it's very bad. Screw the tax breaks, I'd rather have the market perform as well as it did under Clinton -- better to have my earnings increase by 100% than cut my taxes by 10%.

Seems as good a thread to bring these Bill Clinton women up again as the last one:

Paula, Gennifer, Kathleen, Monica, Mrs. Rich, Eleanor Mondale, Dolly Kyle Browning, Sally Perdue, Connie Hamzy, Juanita Broaddrick, Bobbie Ann Williams, Eileen Wellstone, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher, Lencola Sullivan, Elizabeth Ward, Susie Whitacre, and Belinda Stronach up in Canada.

To bad Arabs ain't embryos.

Israeli aggression on Lebanon

Gruesome pictures, not work friendly.

"Low paid workers continually vote Democratic."

That is, when the polls don't close before those at the end of the 12-hour line get to vote. And when they aren't purged from the voter rolls because someone with a similar name is a criminal. And when their voting machines don't record more votes for the Republicans than there are registered voters in the entire precinct.

"John Derbyshire: Last of the Sane Conservatives."

Well, as long as nobody brings up sex . . .

why do so many upper middle class people vote Democratic, against their best interests?

A fair question, which I'll answer, since that describes me. I feel that most of the Democratic programs strengthen the country. Because they strengthen the weakest link of the country, and the middle class. Having a strong middle class is definitely in my interest, even though I'm no longer a member of the middle class. Those are the people that get everything done, fight the wars, make the products, sweep the streets. I need them to be capable and strong, so that I can do what I do.

People who have a good job are less likely to steal. Families with steady incomes produce children that are less likely to become a burden on the state.

I like risk-spreading layers like Social Security because they allow the population to take on bigger risks in their work. And when those risks pan out, lots of people benefit. I think univeral health care is essential to maintaining business competitiveness and ensuring the vaunted "labor flexibility" that Greenspan loved to talk about.

Above all else, I want my family, my community and my country to be better for my having been around. In Boy Scouts we always said, "leave the campsite better than you found it." That's how I feel about the country. Sometimes charity is the best tool for that, but sometimes government is.

Hmm, I've got quite a rant going, why stop now? If everyone at a certain income bracket pays more taxes, the net effect on their lifestyle is going to be very small. The folks in, say the 100-200K bracket in the Bay Area all compete for the same class of houses. What determines what those houses sell for is what those folks can manage to bid to beat out all the other folks of roughly the same income.

If they had been paying more income taxes they would still be competing for the same houses, the price would merely be lower. Because everyone else they would be competing with would be under the same tax scheme. And the prices are set by competitive bid. But, it's such a big number on the paystub, everyone gets obsessed with that.

Luxury goods are such a scam. Often, the point of high fashion clothing is that it confers social status on the wearer, not that it makes them actually look better. So they must be outrageously expensive or else everyone would wear them, cancelling out any social status benefit. Personally, I prefer the status that I can garner with what I say and what I do.

So, in short, I don't necessarily see Democratic programs as contrary to my interests.

Thomas, who gives a rats ass who a politician is screwing in private, so long as they aren't screwing the public? I sure as hell don't.

cmdicely,

Turning Social Security from a mandated retirement investment into a government provided pension (essentially the effect of bringing Social Security into the general budget) would certainly ease the sting of stagnated middle class wages as would revising the rates. But, we are essentially talking about a one-time shift in taxation. Seems to me that if there is a structural problem with the economy that has left middle class wages stagnating, this solution does not get at that structural problem. I would be interested in hearing what people propose to do about that.

I think the reason conservatives are wary of this issue is that, from our perspecive, most of the proposed fixes (more government intervention in the economy) may be worse than the problem itself.