Yes, but we are much more worried about our babies being slaughtered and our graves being robbed!

"What's going to happen when there's a downturn?"

There will never be a downturn. We'll just keep borrowing trillions from China. There can be no possible downside to continuing that practice.

"What's going to happen when there's a downturn?"

Downturn?? What's the matter, Kevin, are you some kind of defeatist??

Things are chugging along nicely - stock market up, CEO salaries and stock options up, oil profits up, etc. etc.

Sounds like things are fine in Bushland.

But ... but ... the tax cuts! They fixed everything! They gave us working folks more money in our pockets!

Didn't they ... ?

Face it, folks -- we in the middle class are disapearing, and are just one layoff away from financial ruin.

Meanwhile (if you work for a company like mine and have seen their SEC filing like I have) people with kids who work 50+ hours a week and get results (i.e. making more than $4 million for the company) are handed a 3% raise and a 5% bonus.

The executives, however, get 100% raises and their bonuses are twice their annual salary, all for coming up with failed policies and spending more time on the golf course than they do in the office.

Although, at least I don't work for Wal-Mart, so maybe I should count my blessings ...

I live in a city where the housing construction market was the primary economic engine for the past ten years. It looks like that is going to end in 2007. In the late Eighties construction practically ended here and most construction workers had to leave the state to find employment. That was before the new bankruptcy rules and before a large portion of mortgage owners had ARM loans, so I expect the coming building downturn to affect people much more adversely. Construction and escrow companies have already begun layoffs, and I think many of these people are going to be trapped in debt in a way they could not have been fifteen years ago.

Downturns actually tend to hurt the upper classes the most. That's not to say that it won't hurt the middle and lower classes badly, just that it at least will tend to reduce inequality and boost the existence of--if not the welfare of--the middle class.

What's going to happen when there's a downturn?

Sounds like an excellent time to relieve the rich of their ill-gotten gains, starting with resurrection of the death tax.

I should say that by hurting the upper classes "most", I mean percentage-wise, not suffering-wise. I'm just talking about income inequality and the existence of the middle class per se, not who suffers the most.

The middle class deserves what it gets.

The soccer moms, the security moms, the church goers, the racists, the xenophobes, etc. are all middle class, and the continue to support the morally bankrupt and ethically corrupt republicans.

Must-read at Kos,

Republicans purge voter rolls in four states,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/18/85915/109

The soccer moms, the security moms, the church goers, the racists, the xenophobes, etc. are all middle class, and the continue to support the morally bankrupt and ethically corrupt republicans.

Yeah ... screw those intolerant people.

Hey, another EPI press release rewritten by McClatchy as a news story! (You can tell from the "sources" in the graph.)

Thanks for pointing it out, Kevin!

Just more proof that McClatchy is not a news source but rather a left-wing press release source...

If people don't like it here, they can move to Wonderful Iraq!

Construction and escrow companies have already begun layoffs, and I think many of these people are going to be trapped in debt in a way they could not have been fifteen years ago.

Maybe the construction workers will find jobs building new debtor's prisions.

Death to all extremists!

BTW, don't you just love it when the EPI press release, er, I mean "news story", just happens to to compare the data today to the data at the very peak of the prior economic cycle?

Awesome!

That article douible-counts inflation. First it shows "real", i.e., inflation-adjusted, wages, which are barely up. Then it shows high inflation rates of certain economic goods. It gives the impression that the middle class has lost ground. Of course, all the inflation was already reflected in the real wages.

What that exhibit doesn't show is that:
-- medical care is better than it was 5 years ago.
-- other technological changes have made life better.
-- lower taxes have increased workers' take-home pay.
-- the increase in number of jobs means more families have 2 wage-earners, rather than just one.
-- lower crime rates have made everyone's life better.
-- many workers have gotten real raises during the last 5 years. The typical pattern is for workers to progress and get promotions, at least during the early part of their careers.

Kevin asks: What's going to happen when there's a downturn?

Answer: the Democrats whose economic policies caused the downturn will be voted out of office. ;)

Interesting that the McClatchy newspapers have run this article.

McClatchy also owns the Lexington Herald-Leader. The paper is in the middle of printing an excellent expose of Mitch McConnel and his money machine. The articles would never have been written but for a $37,500 grant from the California based non-profit Center for Investigative Reporting. The paper did not have the funds to conduct the six month in-depth investigation. The former owner, Knight-Ridder, approved the receiving of the grant.

The McClatchy organization now is returning the money because of complaints by McConnell. Their spokesperson claims that in the future any investigation will be paid for by the individual paper. Oh yeah? And if they do not have the money? Will McClatchy cough up the funds?

For anyone interested in the slime of Mitch, I highly recommend the articles. They began on Sunday - I believe that tomorrow's article will focus on Elaine Cho.

One framing exercise that could alleviate the lack of discussion of this squeeze is focusing less on GDP and more on 'purchasing power'.

For example, in the Netherlands the central economic bureau devised a standardised purchasing power metric (which I believed was calculated as disposable income after core fixed costs including healthcare premia, taxes, and possibly accomodation, all adjusted for inflation). Nowadays the majority of Dutch political discussion about the economy revolves around the 'koopkracht' (purchasing power) of various social groups (poor, middle, well-off, disabled etc) and how this would be impacted by various government measures (as calculated by various economic agencies). Seems like a good way of talking about economic issues and how they relate to ordinary people. Maybe the Democrats could push for the introduction of reporting on such a metric if they take power again?

Kevin Drum [paraphrase]: But "free" trade is good! Bill Cinton told me so. Ignore the increasing inequality and uncertainty.

Please explain the contradiction in your positions.

-- medical care is better than it was 5 years ago.

prove it.

-- other technological changes have made life better.

what changes? how? prove it.

-- lower taxes have increased workers' take-home pay.

not in inflation-adjusted terms.

-- lower crime rates have made everyone's life better.

cite?

2000-2005, the crime index is down by less than 1%

-- many workers have gotten real raises during the last 5 years. The typical pattern is for workers to progress and get promotions, at least during the early part of their careers.

again, no. see inflation-adjusted earnings.

ex-liberal: the Democrats whose economic policies caused the downturn will be voted out of office. ;)

Oh yeah, that explains Clinton's one term presidency.

--medical care is better than it was 5 years ago.

-- other technological changes have made life better.

-- lower taxes have increased workers' take-home pay.

-- the increase in number of jobs means more families have 2 wage-earners, rather than just one.

-- lower crime rates have made everyone's life better.

--many workers have gotten real raises during the last 5 years.

But please, keep trying to paint everything as rosy and just danday when, in the real world, it’s not.

"more families have two wage earners"

And, geez, "share croppers can now marry, Miss Scarlett."

Do believe the boy was an overseer at Tara or Twelve Oaks in a past life.

The only thing that matters at this point is Iraq. After 3 1/2 yrs of war with no one in this gov't analyzing or adjusting our tactics; with zero accountability and no oversight is the biggest disgrace imaginable. We need our next congress to do a thorough examination of every defense contract, intelligence failure, troop deployment, etc. and get a real look at what's going on in Iraq. Oversight hearings will allow a national discussion about what is really happening there and what kind of long-term problems we'll be dealing with in the region.

Unholy Moses - I disagree with much of what you wrote. Your biggest mistake regards minimum wage. Minimum wage isn't that all common. Mostly it's earned by workers just entering the job market. A huge majority of those making minimum wage go on to jobs paying more than minimum wage.

So, the opposite of what you wrote is actually the case. A worker earning minimum wage 5 years ago has almost surely gotten raises in take-home pay far in excess of the rate of inflation.

sorry! I mis-posted from the democrats win thread.

I thought violent crime increased last year.

From Jurist:

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday announced the launch of the Initiative for Safer Communities, responding to growing concern about the increase of violent crime in American cities.

I consider the increase of violent crime to be a consequence of the Bush Regime's example of using force to solve foreign policy problems. The national identity has been transformed into a self-righteous avenger. Many of our fellow citizens now elect to use preemptive force, too.

Al nails it,The way Rush and Hannity come out with Rove talking points every morning,Al is right, It is just sick and needs to be stopped.Good one Al thanks for the insight.

From Fester, in Pittsburgh, who says it better and shorter than I can.

"The economy of the past five years has been pretty decent to those who own capital and can exercise significant chokepoint control over valuable economic resources (land, intellectual property, energy and limited domain specific intellectual ability) and neutral to negative for everyone else. This change is a breakdown of the conservative economy where wages tended to grow with inflation and a little bit of a bonus from productivity growth and the neo-Keynesian economy where wages grew with productivity and inflation. Instead we see productivity increase by fairly dramatic and positive amounts while wages and worker compensation using any metric have failed to keep pace as previous experience would have predicted."

http://festersplace.blogspot.com/

Echoing Bernstein, there is a disconnect between all the economic "growth" and what happens to families in the real world, Al and the other Bushies notwithstanding. It used to be that overall growth in the national economy meant paycheck growth for workers. Those days are gone.

"First it shows "real", i.e., inflation-adjusted, wages, which are barely up. Then it shows high inflation rates of certain economic goods. It gives the impression that the middle class has lost ground. Of course, all the inflation was already reflected in the real wages."

Actually, it compares nominal wage growth with growth in the nominal costs of health care.

zak822 - here's some info about the real world. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports (figures as os January, 2004):

-- Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
-- The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
-- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
-- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
-- The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
-- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car;
-- 30 percent own two or more cars.
-- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television;
-- over half own two or more color televisions.
-- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player;
-- 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
-- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens,
-- more than half have a stereo, and
-- a third have an automatic dishwasher

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Wages stay flat, expenses go down.

Not saying this isn't a problem. Just that it is not as bad as it looks.

Downturns actually tend to hurt the upper classes the most... Posted by: Miller

Wow! That's one of the stupidest things I've ever seen posted here.

The upper-classes (which is an admittedly amorphous appellation) usually have six-figure + incomes (hence being upper-class), and (should be) sitting on a much more significant financial cushion in the event of a major economic downturn. In most recessions, you don't see the lay-offs reaching much even into the middle-management (who aren't upper-class in any case in terms of salary)or upper-management (who are). The first level of employees directly affected during a recession are the wage slaves or low-level salaried workers, people who have a much smaller investment, shall we say, in our glorious "stake-holder" society.

Claiming that the upper-classes are hurt the most in a recession is the dangerous uncle locked in the basement to the nonsense of how "fair" a flat federal income tax would be. A 10% cut in earnings for someone making $100K a year is insignificant compared to a 10% cut for someone making only $40K a year, whether this is a cut in wages or an increase in the cost of living with no COLA.

Those are good things to know ex-liberal, here is afew that I experienced during the Reagan era. End of the month utility disconnect notices, occasionally eating, one winter without heat. I did have a car didn't run. When my car did run I didn't have in insurance. Was great can't wait to go back wanna join me?

For anyone interested in the slime of Mitch, I highly recommend the articles. They began on Sunday - I believe that tomorrow's article will focus on Elaine Cho. Posted by: thethirdPaul

Isn't she kind of like the Yoko Ono of the Bush administration?

A worker earning minimum wage 5 years ago has almost surely gotten raises in take-home pay far in excess of the rate of inflation.

Any evidence to support this assertion ?

Wow, is this not a wonderful country - No wonder so many are clamoring to come here - So they can be poor. "Look at me, Ma, I may be poor, but I have one more TV than back home." And geez, St Martin de Porres, even has television for the guys - and Lazurus walk-in center has all of those TVs - Life is indeed wonderful. And City Hall lets you sleep in the hallways on cold winter nights.

And ex-Liberal can keep getting all of that great yard work done for virtually nothing by the guys and even a few gals down at the MillionAir club.

Even Sally's has TVs in their shelters. Wow!!!

Ex-liberal,
If you are going to post something verbatim from someone else's work, you should at least give credit and a link.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

You might also want to point out that the article is slightly more balanced than you make it out to be.

"However, two caveats should be applied to this generally optimistic picture. First, many poor families have difficulty paying their regular bills and must scramble to make ends meet. For example, around one-quarter of poor families are late in paying the rent or utility bills at some point during the year.

"Second, the living conditions of the average poor household should not be taken to represent all poor households. There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor; while more than a quarter of the poor have cell phones and answering machines, a tenth of the poor have no telephone at all. While most of America's poor live in accommodations with two or more rooms per person, roughly a tenth of the poor are crowded, with less than one room per person.

"These points are illustrated in Table 7, which lists the financial and material hardships among poor households in 1998.31 During at least one month in the preceding year, some 20 percent of poor households reported they were unable to pay their fuel, gas, or electric bills promptly; around 4 percent had their utilities cut off at some point due to nonpayment. Another 13 percent of poor households failed, at some point in the year, to make their full monthly rent or mortgage payments, and 1 percent were evicted due to failure to pay rent. One in 10 poor families had their phones disconnected due to nonpayment at some time during the preceding year."

Stephen,

Not only do I not care if ex-l has any evidence to support that assertion, I don't care because its irrelevant to the present discussion.

For purposes of articles like the one cited, wage grown compared to expenses is calculated across broad ranges.

Sure, there are probably millions of people who, over the past five years moved from a position of being, say, in the top 60% of wage earners into the top 40%.

Of course, if when they ARRIVED at the top 40% they discovered that the comparative situation of the top 40% had either not advanced or had actually declined compared to five years prior ex-l's arguments would not make them feel any better.

I used to wonder about the theory that trolls actually show up here to hijack threads.

But so many of these irrelevant points keep being made I no longer wonder.

For example, what reasonably intelligent person could possibly believe that lower temporary tax rates (because, of course, all tax rates are temporary) coupled with higher than ever deficit spending could possibly be accurately classified as a "tax cut" for anyone other than those planning on dying very soon or leaving the country? For the rest of us, the bill is going to come due, that's for sure.

Yet, this ridiculous talking point is made all of the time.

Smuggler, you make some valid points. I accept what you have written.

Let me draw a couple of corollaries, which I believe follow from the data on the poor:

1. Today's middle class must be quite well off, given that so many of the poor have adequate diet, housing, applicances, etc. I have read that America's poor have a standard of living comparable to the middle class in some European countries. Obviously our middle class is that much richer.

2. America's poor are a lot better off than they were in the past. Not so long ago, the poor might literally be starving or crammed into tenements. Today, they have ample food and living space, automobiles, and color TVs. So, you can see there's something wrong with the statistics. What are you going to believe? Statistics or your lying eyes?

Hmmm, all those guys standing on street corners looking for work, all of those women and men lining up down at DSHS at 7AM to sign up for food stamps - Those long lines down at the churches where free food is available - Must concentrate on statistics and keep my eyes straight ahead.

Wow, "ex-liberal," are you still imagining anyone mistakes you for an honest commentor?

Of course he's not an honest commenter. Note that he's fudging his time scales, for one thing, to look well prior to the time period that's under discussion. Kevin's point, supported by the available data, is that the majority of people today are no better off than they were when Bush first took office, and many are measurably worse -- the rising tide hasn't lifted all of the boats. None of the data and anecdotes that ex-liberal supplies contradicts Kevin's point in any way.

Well, I'm not one of the forty-six percent of all poor households who actually own their own homes, much less a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio!

I'm not one of the seventy-six percent of poor households who have air conditioning, either! Live in a top-floor walk-up, too, that stays about 95 degrees alfor at least two weeks in July.

If "only" 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded, and ore than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person, I guess I should be singing "Don't Fence Me In." I have 3 rooms! And while it may be true that the average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe, it is also true that Europe is an older and wiser continent that has already moved past its fascist phase. Also, they get to have 5 weeks vacation (at least); all are insured; they value art, culture, and education; and are mostly free of theocratic vermin.

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Woo hoo! Paid cash for a new Honda. Pay $600+ a year to park it.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television (hey, me too!!); over half own two or more color televisions (well, I DO have the one with a 10-year-old VCR). Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Not me, tho. Can't afford it!

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, but I don't. More than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher, and I have neither.

And I'm highly educated (at my own expense, I might add) and gainfully employed full-time with a part-time freelance operation. Oh, and my daughter spent over a year in Iraq. Now we get to fight tooth and nail for her health and education benefits!

So, ex-librul, is it morning in America? Is that what you're saying? 'Cause I just read about how stocks are down, and all the new condos in my neighborhood have been standing empty for more than a year now.

let me know what will be witn this

Venezuela Stymied in First Day of U.N. Security Council Voting

And the catch 22 of the entire situation is that corp profits are riding flat wages. The moment wages begin to increase, expect a recession and watch the stock market fall. You see, profit has to come from someplace and currently, innovation and increased productiveity caused by innovation is non-exisitent (a personal gripe of mine whenever the GOP is in control), so the profit comes from flat wages and increased productivity from workers working longer, or the backs of the worker as Marx might say. The only econ engine the GOP has is the various wars and government expansion. Its really a house of cards. But authoritain cultists continue to put these people in office. What can you say. Would any of you work for a company that had Bush as the CEO, much less invest your money?

BTW, don't you just love it when the EPI press release, er, I mean "news story", just happens to to compare the data today to the data at the very peak of the prior economic cycle?

You noticed that too? Coming up with reasons why the economy sucks when almost every indicator shows a boom is pretty much a full-time job now for the EPI.

1. Today's middle class must be quite well off, given that so many of the poor have adequate diet, housing, applicances, etc.

How would you know as most poor are out of sight unless you spend a lot of time in neighborhoods where they'd probably beat you up simply for being so obnoxiously white? Spend a lot of time in rural areas?

I have read that America's poor have a standard of living comparable to the middle class in some European countries.Posted by: ex-liberal

Don't travel much, do you? It's a given you have no foreign friends.

You may be a bigger asshole than Charlie/Cheney/Thomas I and the rest of his Sybil act.

Kevin's point, supported by the available data, is that the majority of people today are no better off than they were when Bush first took office

I recall one of Reagan's campaign slogans from 1980, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

Democrats might want to dust that off, add a year and add 'safer,' too.

I have read that America's poor have a standard of living comparable to the middle class in some European countries.Posted by: ex-liberal

I notice that "ex-liberal" has been using this "I have read" locution a lot lately when he's trying out a particularly baseless and/or insane lie -- similar to Fox New's weasely "some say" tactic.

Meanwhile, I have read that America's poor wallow in gutters and subsist on shoelaces and boiled leather, while Europe's middle-class has free education, universal health coverage, and six weeks of vacation a year....

Go to the BLS site, plug in "Total Private Average Hourly Earnings, 1982 Dollars - Seasonally Adjusted"

Run it back about thirty years, and pull up the graph for some perspective.

And no, it isn't all rich people pulling the curves around. There aren't that many of them, and their hourly wages haven't gone up that much.

Be interesting to see the numbers on that McClatchy chart for the other 60 percent of workers.

But to be honest, I don't expect the govt to make things better for me. Currently, opportunities are less abundant but to me, that means I need to work harder. Corps are profiting from flat wages, but that is what they do. I and you have to figure out a way to be smarter and faster. A lot of business genius starts in somebodies garage.

Having been to Europe and having encountered lots of poor peoplein my work, I can assure you ex-liberal that middle class members of the European Union are better off than poor Americans in just about every way. Hell most of them are doing better than middle class Americans.

Don't start with median income and all the Instipundit mumbo jumbo. Effective standard of living is more than income. Remember everybody in the EU has health care provided for little or no out of pocket cost. They all take the month of August off. They have much better public transportation. Europeans might not have as many big screen tvs or SUVs but they do OK.

It's astounding how many people think Europe is paradise who don't live there.

Stefan, see http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242

It supports my contention. It reports the results of a Swedish study showing that Americans are a whole lot richer than Europeans.

It is astounding how many think that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a bastion for liberty, democracy and compassion for the masses, who do not themselves live there.

Opinion Journal, an offshoot of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page - James Taranto, the Genhis Khan of "journalistic?" reporting - Are you really that freakin' nuts?

That is like Albert Speer using a Himmler publication for backup for one of his building projects.

since hank already said it: I used to wonder about the theory that trolls actually show up here to hijack threads. But so many of these irrelevant points keep being made I no longer wonder.

Ok folks, the title of Kevin's post was "MIDDLE CLASS SQUEEZE". The title of the article he linked to was "Health care, wages, energy costs put squeeze on middle class". Yet most people are getting sucked into ex-liberal's totally OT "American poor are doing ok".

Why is he so OT? Probably because he has so little effective rebuttal for the actual topic. Maybe he only got half the Talking Points Memo (or the abbreviated version intended for the mentally inflexible) and so can only selectively cite http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm (as properly attributed by smuggler, not ex-liberal).

Obviously the middle class aren't poor, and so that's not what the post or article are about. It's the fact that with our "booming" economy they're not getting their cut.

As Warren Buffett put it so well "if this is class warfare, then my class is winning".

It supports my contention. It reports the results of a Swedish study showing that Americans are a whole lot richer than Europeans.

Sadly for ex-liberal, I've actually lived and worked in Europe and America (as well as South America and Asia) so I do have some independent ability to verify bizarre claims like these.

First, the link is to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, a notorious cesspool of propaganda, disinformation, and outright lies. Using Opinion Journal to "verify" something is like linking to Rush Limbaugh for fair reporting on Iraq.

Second, the study only measure gross domestic product per capita, which as any economist knows is a notoriously blunt and inefficient instrument for measuring prosperity (cue the old example that if Bill Gates walks into a homeless shelter the average wealth per capita will be hundreds of millions of dollars, even though not one of the homeless will actually be one cent richer). Since GDP measures mean rather than median output, countries with a skewed income distribution may have a higher per-capita GDP even the majority of its citizens have a relatively low level of income, thanks to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small fraction of the population. Therefore GDP figures on their own don't show the distribution of income and uneven distribution of financial wealth. If incomes are unevenly distributed among the population, then rising national GDP can still be accompanied by rising relative poverty.

Again, consider the Bill Gates example. Assume Gates earns $1 billion a year more, and the GDP rises accordingly. But ten more families go bankrupt and move to the homeless shelter. The sum decrase of their contributions to GDP doesn't outweigh Gates' gain, and yet the total number of people living in poverty has actually risen.

Let me throw another thought out there.

A couple of weeks ago I was doing some research, and I remember seeing on either the Census website or the BLS website a very interesting fact: people who are self-employed have a median net worth about twice as much as people who work for someone else.

I think this points to something very interesting, namely that while wages are stagnant for people who work for corporations and/or the government, i.e. in jobs where they have to negotiate wage increases, the environment is very good for entrepeneurs.

Think about how much wealth has been created in the last thrity years or so by people coming up with good ideas and building companies around them.

Microsoft - $284 billion market cap
Adobe - $225 billion
Google - $128 billion
Oracle - $97 billion
Apple - $ 64 billion
Dell - $56 billion
EBay - $40 billion
Yahoo - $32 billion
Amazon - $14 billion
Autodesk - $8 billion

That's roughly $950 BILLION in wealth created from just TEN companies in the last thirty years out of people's garages and college dorm rooms. Go back further and add in Hewlett-Packard and Intel, and the amount goes up to $1.8 TRILLION. Or just look at the last few months...MySpace bought for $600 million, YouTube bought for $1.65 billion, FaceBook turning down a $900 million offer from Yahoo. Or go back a couple of years when Netscape was bought for $4.2 billion, Hotmail was bought for $400 million, and PayPal was bought by Ebay.

My point is that the wage stagnation we are seeing is likely correlated in some way to intelligence and education. Smart people with great ideas are making boatloads of money, while ordinary people are just muddling along. In essence, the financial markets are shifting from a model that rewards labor to a model which rewards creativity, intelligence, and initiative. The smartest people are leaving the labor pool and starting their own companies instead of becoming corporate wage slaves.

As Warren Buffett put it so well "if this is class warfare, then my class is winning".

Indeed. The sad joke is that I probably make much, much more than ex-liberal, yet I'm the one arguing for a more equitable income distribution and he's the one arguing I should be able to keep more money at his and everyone else's expense.

"Yet most people are getting sucked into ex-liberal's totally OT 'American poor are doing ok'."

Not to mention that Kevin was looking only at the past six years, while ex-liberal really wants to look at technical and standard-of-living improvements of the past 20-30 years, none of which are relevant.

In short, not one argument that ex-liberal has made has any relevance to the point that Kevin made.

Stefan, see http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242

Boring. Higher per capita gdp huh? Of course more of our gdp goes to the rich than in europe, and twice as much goes to healthcare, and twice as much goes to transportation, and we get around 1/3 the vacation time, and we work longer hours,

Mmm, and where do you suppose that study came from?

Why its from "Timbro" http://www.timbro.se/EnglishDefault.aspx, which is a right wing think tank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbro funded by a swedish business organization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_of_Swedish_Enterprise which, according to wikipedia "...is actively lobbying for pro-business interests. Tax cuts, especially the abolition of property and inheritance taxes, is a main priority. The organisation also promotes letting private enterprises take over the production of a larger part of services today mainly performed by the Swedish public sector, such as education and health services."

""Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," "

Sure, and most Swedes have a standard of living the majority of americans will never come anywhere near. I get 10 days of vacation each year, Swedes get 32. I've been working 9 years and lacked health insurance for 2, Swedes have it their entire life. The violent crime rate here is far higher than there, so it the abortion rate and the rates of various STD's.

It's just different. We get cars and HDTV's, they get time off and fewer homeless people on thier park benches.

It's got to suck to be a Republican candidate for public office this year. You have some economic indicators that are legitimately good (along with others that are worrisome, of course), but you're having trouble persuading your constituents that things are as good as you claim they are, mostly because they know that, for them, they aren't.

Any time you find yourself having to tell people, "No, no, you really are in good financial shape now! Trust me!" you're in trouble. The Republicans were hoping to run on tax cuts and security and neither one of these is showing any signs of resonating with the public, most of whom are indicating that they want the Democrats back in charge again.

Ok folks, the title of Kevin's post was "MIDDLE CLASS SQUEEZE". The title of the article he linked to was "Health care, wages, energy costs put squeeze on middle class".

The charts on the post show the bottom 30 percent and top 10 percent. Where's the "middle class?"

mfw13: My point is that the wage stagnation we are seeing is likely correlated in some way to intelligence and education.

Then please provide evidence for your point.

people who are self-employed have a median net worth about twice as much as people who work for someone else

Meaningless, unless perhaps you show how that's varied over time (which you didn't).

That's roughly $950 BILLION in wealth created from just TEN companies

First you talk about median income, the cite a handful of very successful companies. Hint: there are more than 10 self-employed people in America. Rumor has it that Joe's Pizzeria isn't even considering going public.

Go back further and add in Hewlett-Packard and Intel, and the amount goes up to $1.8 TRILLION.

Wow, handful of very successful "new" companies account for much economic growth. How times change! BTW, ever heard of the Ford Motor Company, RCA, US Steel, Standard Oil, etc., etc. etc.? 23 skidoo!

The smartest people are leaving the labor pool and starting their own companies

Any evidence that the people starting their own companies are the smartest, the best educated, or whatever other unsubstantiated claims you care to make?

This apologist nonsense would have been equally apropos in the 1920's.

Alex is correct in saying this is a thread regarding the squeeze on the middle class and not the poor. However, with this squeeze, more and more middle class earners are heading for the poor house and not to the mansion behind the gates.

And, yes, John D Rockerfeller was indeed an accountant for someone else, before becoming self-employed. Somehow, I do not think of Bill Gates, as "self-employed". Perhaps the guy who comes around in the summer to mow my neighbor's lawn, but Bill?

jefff wrote: Of course more of our gdp goes to the rich than in europe

Yes, that't the popular image, but is it valid? E.g., no family dominates the American economy like the Wallenbergs do in Sweden.

"By the late 1990s the Wallenbergs controlled some 40% of the value of the companies listed on the Swedish stock exchange." according to the Economist magazine. http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=8023389

It's got to suck to be a Republican candidate for public office this year. (PaulB)

Maybe not ...

For those who may have missed cld's post above, please check out this post at Daily Kos:

It may even be 'technically legal' but it sure stinks to high heaven.

Purged Dem Voters, again

Diebold is at it again, and in 4 states at least if Kos is correct (and so far seems to be). The middle class is being squeezed, all right. In more ways than one.

And this is all happening when the broad economy is chugging along pretty nicely. What's going to happen when there's a downturn?

Its abstractly conceivable that, just as they have born a disproportionate share of the benefit, the rich would absorb the vast majority of the loss, and the average worker would hardly notice the downturn.

Okay. Finish laughing and I'll go on.

It seems to me what is being set up in practice in this country is a downward ratchet on the conditions of working Americans: the returns of aggregate prosperity are sucked up almost entirely by capital, but in a downturn, capital protects it self by ruthlessly cutting loose workers. Its exactly the right-wing idea of an "ownership society": not the friendly myth they sell to the public at elections, but instead a society governed by and for the present large-scale owners of capital where everyone else is a resource to be exploited and expended.

Yes, that't the popular image, but is it valid?

Yes, check the Gini coefficients of the respective economies.

Yes, that't the popular image, but is it valid? E.g., no family dominates the American economy like the Wallenbergs do in Sweden.

The market for publicly traded corporate equity is not the same thing as "the economy."

In 2012 many liberals will bemoan the fact they did not use the Bush debacle to create a new party and send the Democratic corporate machine to political party purgatory.

All of the news about Republican corruption will be re-played, except the name of the party will have changed and the prospects for a new conservative Republican adminstration, which promises to end the war in Iraq with honor, will be very good.

I will not be laughing or feeling very good about it, because there was an opportunity after 2000 to end the monopoly of corporate wealth politics, and I recognized it. In November liberals and liberal moderates will rejoice that the Republican regime has been broken. It will be good, but a moderate Democratic US will probably not do the right things to fix Iraq, our foreign policy of militant hegemony, and our health care system.

Let's compare the top of the internet bubble to today!! That'll show 'em!!

Or, let's compare the performance of the economy now, 5 years out from a recession, to the economy of 1997, 5 years out from a recession.

Would it be too much trouble to fake attempts at honesty?

Downturns actually tend to hurt the upper classes the most.

Nothing hurts the upper classes -- the powers that be see to that. (As Ray Charles once sang, "them that got are them that gets.")

You know some folks are desperate when they point to people having a teevee and deeveedee as proof of how wealthy poor people are. You better hope they a freaking teevee because they'd be out there having a revolution if they didn't have a teevee to keep them occupied. I'll have you know those Africans in Darfur are very wealthy because at least they have fire and clothes. Don't you know their predecessors didn't have fire or clothes.

FASB and SEC Mull Exec Pay Accounting Changes

America's accounting chiefs are close to deciding that salary and perks exceeding two million dollars annually can not rationally be deemed pay for work expended. Payouts of five million to hundreds of millions would quite boggle the minds of both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, said one insider, "off, off, off the record."
Going forward the recommendation will be that executive remuneration exceeding two mil annually will be construed as a disbursement of corporate capital in amounts agreed to by boards, directors, trustees and not so trust-ees as the case may be.
The new accounting will reflect that mega salaries in excess of the maximum two mil will be considered as an allocation of corporate capital which will no longer qualify for accounting treatment as a corporate expense.
A number of CEO's have formed a study committee particularly in response to the IRS position of "You can call it capital or you can call it Swiss cheese, we're still taxing exec' pay at the highest personal rate possible."
"There's a fundamental lack of fairness here, whinged" the corporate CEO's, further arguing, “even embezzlement is treated as a deductible expense.”
Sharehoders, mostly wearing Abu Ghraib style hooding to protect their identities, were cautiously pessimistic.

Inigo Montoya,

How's the economy doing back in Florin? Or are you still sailing the seven seas as Dread Pirate Roberts? Your swordplay seems a little rusty when you come here.

Alex....you appear to have missed my point entirely. The argument is was making is that in the present day, the markets are rewarding the creators of capitol, as opposed to the providers of it. It's not just the wealth that was created by the companies I mentioned, its also the wealth created by the several million small-business owners in the US.

I am a perfect example of this phenomenon. I used to be a high school teacher and made about $40,000 a year. Somebody else paid me for my labor and I had very little leverage over how much money I made. A couple of years ago I quit teachers and started my own private tutoring business. Now I make about $60,000-$80,000 a year. Now I am the arbiter of how much money I make, because I get 100% of the profits and my income depends solely on how good a job I do running my business.

Workers in this world fall into one of two categories....either they're the ones receiving the paycheck, or they're the ones giving them out. And right now, because we are in a period of rapid technological change and easy access to start-up capital, it is the entrepeneurs who are reaping all the rewards.

The average person who does not have any specialized skills and works for someone else does not have much leverage to increase their wages. The well-educated and/or naturally intelligent person has acquired specialized skills and has either leveraged that to earn higher wages if the work for someone else, or have started their own business and switched from being a paycheck receiver to a paycheck giver.

One of the many reasons we are seeing the gap between the middle-class and the upper class widen is precisely because the market is becoming much more efficient in rewarding intelligence and education. In the past, because access to capital was limited, most entrepenuers did not become significantly wealthier than the average person. However, these days entrepeneurs can become very wealthy very quickly, which is one of the reasons that the gap between the middle and upper classes in widening.

thethirdpaul,

You'll find that comparing the high points to one another and the low points to one another is better than comparing the high points to the midway points. You see, there are things called apples but also things called oranges. And it's important that we compare likes to likes in order to accurately reflect reality.

Look into it.

Inigo Montoya,

Perhaps you could get that across to Bill O'Reilly. Several months ago, he kept trying to compare the poverty level between the Bush and Clinton administrations. He kept showing Clinton at his midpoint and Bush at his - The result showed that the level was lower for Bush. What he did not show was that the level for Clinton decreased steadily year by year after that midpoint. It only began to rise after Bush was selected.
Selective cherry picking at it's finest.
Keep sharpening that sword.

One of the many reasons we are seeing the gap between the middle-class and the upper class widen is precisely because the market is becoming much more efficient in rewarding intelligence and education.

Even if that were true (for which I've seen no evidence), I fail to see why that is desirable, particularly as regards intelligence, which is an innate trait, not a chosen behavior, so "rewarding" it doesn't provide any incentive for it.

However, these days entrepeneurs can become very wealthy very quickly, which is one of the reasons that the gap between the middle and upper classes in widening.

If there was evidence class mobility was increasing—i.e., that the growing spread in wealth was really the result not of increasing returns to capital but increased access to capital for working-class worker-entrepreneurs who become phenomenally wealthy—this would be a defensible claims. I haven't seen any studies of class mobility showing that upward class mobility of the time you point to, however, is actually increasing, though I've seen some that seem to point the opposite way. Which makes it hard for me to accept your claims as anything more than your own ideological fantasies mixed with faulty generalization from anecdote and personal experience.

mfw13: I used to be a high school teacher and made about $40,000 a year. ... A couple of years ago I quit teachers and started my own private tutoring business. Now I make about $60,000-$80,000 a year.

Congratulations on the success of your small business. I hope that you will also wish my partner and I success on our engineering consulting business. So far the money has been pretty good, albeit with insane hours.

because we are in a period of rapid technological change

Rapid technological change is nothing new, it's been around since the beginning of the industrial revolution. During the post-WW2 "Great Compression" (which saw much more equitable income distribution than before or since) there was rapid technological change. Jet airliners, TV, transistors, IC's, computers, lasers, space travel, industrial automation, etc. were all as new and hot as the Internet in the '90's, and probably had a greater effect on both the economy and people's everday lives.

easy access to start-up capital

Neither your business or mine requires much startup capital. Unless I misunderstand your business, neither of us are talking to VC's.

The well-educated and/or naturally intelligent person has acquired specialized skills and has either leveraged that to earn higher wages if the work for someone else

Again, you provide no evidence for this conjecture. In fact, to cite one example, the wage premium for a college education has been dropping in recent years.

One of the many reasons we are seeing the gap between the middle-class and the upper class widen is precisely because the market is becoming much more efficient in rewarding intelligence and education.

1. How do you define "efficient" in this context. Precise definitions are very important in economics.

2. Where is the evidence for this conjecture?

3. Neither of us are in the upper class.

mfw13

I have started a couple of companies. One of the two companies still struggles. The other, started with my brothers and a couple of other partners, is very successful, but it came damn close to bankruptcy on more than one occasion. We have lots of better educated and smarter people than any of the founders working us.

My short hand on why my companies have survived-- dumb luck. Being in the right place at the right time, and taking advantage of an opportunity.

Why did my partners and I take advantage of our opportunity. We didn't have a choice. We weren't smart or lucky enough to get jobs.

Self congratulatory pats on the back might make you feel good. Just keep one thing in mind, none of us would be successful if it weren't for those regular folks who both work for us and buy our goods and services.

The more money members of the middle class make the more money small businessmen can make. Want proof. I think you can find it when you compare the incomes of lawyers in poorer communities with the incomes of equally skilled lawyers in richer towns.

I still don't make as much money per hour as at least 100 people who work for our company. They get to go home at 5:00 PM. They don't come to work until 9:00 AM. They have weekends. Right now I am praying for a vacation.

CMDicely,

You are correct in that what I say is conjecture based on personal experience. The only piece of hard data which I have to support my argument is the fact I mentioned on my original post, namely the fact that the self-employed had a net worth approximately two to three times that of everyone else. I'm pretty sure I saw the stat on the BLS website somewhere, but it was a couple of weeks ago.

Alex....when I'm talking about technology and easy access to capital, I'm talking about the fact that rapid technological change has created more opportunities for disruptive technologies to be developed and that access to capital has made much easier for someone to monetize their ideas. A generation ago it was much more difficult to get a small-business loan (collateral was always required), VC's didn't exist, it was much more difficult to use your home equity as a piggy bank, it was much harder to get a credit card, and the IPO market was non-existent. Nowadays if you have a good idea, it's incredibly easy to fund it, not just for big ideas like YouTube, EBay, etc., but also for your average small business, like my tutoring business and your engineering business. A generation ago, getting start-up capital was much much more difficult.

What I mean when I say that the market is becoming much more efficient in rewarding intelligence and education, I am simply arguing that it is now much easier to monetize good ideas.

Why noooo. I get all my information about how good MY economy is from the newwwwwz

I can't tell how fast my paycheck gets sucked away by the corporate pirates.

I'm too stooopid

mfw13,

There are plenty of good arguments for why "financialization"--the growth of consumer debt and the money-lending industry--are ominous signs for our economy.

Do you need to have these spelled out for you?

obscure: There are plenty of good arguments for why "financialization"--the growth of consumer debt and the money-lending industry--are ominous signs for our economy.

I agree that excessive consumer debt (and excessive government debt to China) are ominous signs. But in all fairness what mfw13 is talking about is loans for productive investment. Pizza is an important product (my brother-in-law just bought a pizzeria with a loan).

Putting aside whether or not it's easier to get startup/small business capital than it was in the past, the overall level of productive investment in the US is low. That's why the "we go into hock to China and use the capital for investment in the US" argument is nonsense. The money is mostly being used to bid up the price of housing.

alex: The money is mostly being used to bid up the price of housing.

Well, alex, I would say that blowing up a housing balloon in addition to debt-financed consumption is pretty fairly characterized as "financialization."

We're getting out of the business of making things and into the business of speculation while paying for our goods & services with borrowed money.

***It was mfw13 who brought up credit cards:

A generation ago it was much more difficult to get a small-business loan (collateral was always required), VC's didn't exist, it was much more difficult to use your home equity as a piggy bank, it was much harder to get a credit card,

obscure: We're getting out of the business of making things and into the business of speculation while paying for our goods & services with borrowed money.

Agreed, which is why we need more productive investment in the US. It all ties into the trade deficit, which is my favorite soap box.

(Excuse me for being a silly person)

***It was mfw13 who brought up consumer debt.

A generation ago it was much more difficult to get a small-business loan (collateral was always required), VC's didn't exist, it was much more difficult to use your home equity as a piggy bank, it was much harder to get a credit card,

Regarding credit cards and China - the Chinese just don't use them. They generally only buy something when they can afford it.

Radical economics, I know... :)

My brother's wife (Chinese) told me a Chinese joke/insight/commentary about Westerners - they're always one pay cheque away from bankruptcy.

It all ties into the trade deficit, which is my favorite soap box.

And a jolly good soapbox it is!

Mets won, and with that I bid you goodnight.

obscure: use your home equity as a piggy bank, it was much harder to get a credit card

Some people use home equity loans for starting a small business. Risky if you're overexposed, but not always a bad idea (having collateral lowers the interest rate). Credit cards can be useful in a pinch for short term cash flow problems in a small business. You have to be careful not to overexpose yourself, or use them for long term loans, but I've used them.

What matters is what you're using the money for. We need less consumer debt, but more productive investment (big businesses and small).

They generally only buy something when they can afford it.

Yeah, well give them a hundred years or so and they'll be singin' a different tune, Buster.

[bedtime funny attempt]

They generally only buy something when they can afford it.

Yeah, well give them a hundred years or so and they'll be singin' a different tune, Buster.

Who knows - maybe they're saving up to buy America?

;)

Oh, crap. I gotta go to sleep, but...

What matters is what you're using the money for

alex, you're blurring the line between observation and exhortation. Where does the bulk of American debt actually go?

obscure: you're blurring the line between observation and exhortation. Where does the bulk of American debt actually go?

Since I'm not getting any sleep either ...

I already agreed that consumer debt in the US is an aggregate problem. That doesn't mean that, for an individual, debt for productive investment is necessarily a bad idea.

floopmeister: Who knows - maybe they're saving up to buy America?

No, that was Japan in the 1980's. The problem didn't magically go away, as so many "don't worry about the trade deficit" types seem to think. The Plaza accords pushed Japan to sell USD, lowering its value, and so the trade deficit shrank from 4%/GDP to 0.5%.

One advantage of Japan buying America, and Hawaiian real estate in particular, was that we could be sure they weren't going to bomb Pearl Harbor again (except maybe as an insurance scam).

By contrast, China seems happy to hold US treasury securities. Of course if the dollar tanks, they'll have $1T in bad debt to write off.

Chinese joke/insight/commentary about Westerners - they're always one pay cheque away from bankruptcy

China has the opposite problem. If the US ever smartens up and does something about the trade deficit, the Chinese economy will be in big trouble unless they can increase domestic demand.

They know it too. Why do you think the PBoC has bought up almost $1T USD?

P.S. Australia is one of the few developed countries that has almost as bad a trade (current account) deficit problem as the US. There is an argument though that the structure of the debt is somewhat different.

Australia is one of the few developed countries that has almost as bad a trade (current account) deficit problem as the US. There is an argument though that the structure of the debt is somewhat different.

The situation is somewhat different, although I'm just as leery of our current account deficit. The big difference is that we do have something China wants (and it ain't opium!).

It's resources. Australia is being carried by a massive resource driven boom (copper, coal, uranium - you name it) so we are Siamese Twins to the Chinese and Indian economies. However, while us Australians are going insanely into debt buying cheap Chinese plasma TVs and whatever, we are in the position of having large reserves of what the three powerhouse economies of Asia need.

The other difference is that we are not strategic competitors with any of them - in fact we are in a complementary position economically. For instance, our (deeply conservative) government has already assured China that in the case of any 'disagreement' over Taiwan we won't be standing with the US.

Bread only being buttered on one side, and all that...

qd铃声 来电铃声 经典铃声 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片

Stefan wrote: The sad joke is that I probably make much, much more than ex-liberal, yet I'm the one arguing for a more equitable income distribution and he's the one arguing I should be able to keep more money at his and everyone else's expense.

Stefan, what is it that you do that makes you so much money?

wow, yes I received a 3% raise. My rent went up 15%, energy costs 34%, grocery costs 6%, insurance cost 28%, need i go on? So how does that 3%, first in 2 years, even begin to cover the difference. All of that extra increase has to come from what I would like to earmark for my savings account. Please continue to tell me how GREAT everything is, and how well the economy is doing.

I already agreed that consumer debt in the US is an aggregate problem. That doesn't mean that, for an individual, debt for productive investment is necessarily a bad idea.

Well, alex, I guess that was my weird way of saying... 'we're in agreement.'

Oh, and good morning!

Again, I'll point out that although wages are flat, expenses have gone down for all but the upper-middle class and higher.

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Woo hoo! Paid cash for a new Honda. Pay $600+ a year to park it.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television (hey, me too!!); over half own two or more color televisions (well, I DO have the one with a 10-year-old VCR). Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Not me, tho. Can't afford it!
http://rred.info/sitemap.htm
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, but I don't. More than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher, and I have neither.

The only piece of hard data which I have to support my argument is the fact I mentioned on my original post, namely the fact that the self-employed had a net worth approximately two to three times that of everyone else.

That doesn't support your conjecture, really, its equally easily interpreted as "you need more assets to be able to afford to be self-employed". You seem to be confusing correlation with causation in a way that goes beyond a simple post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, as you don't even have evidence that the self-employment precedes the higher net worth, rather than being enabled by it.

Calo Bob, do you have something to say or are you playing parrot this morning?

Hey, Ex-Liberal! let the Marine families know they are so well off they don't need to eat.

EDUARDO CONTRERAS / Union Tribune
Volunteer Marisela Helgeson and Military Outreach Ministry associate director Patty Dutra prepared to distribute food to Marine families at Camp Pendleton. Behind them, some family members waited to pick up the donated items.
Instead, they were waiting for day-old bread and frozen dinners packaged in slightly damaged boxes. These families are among a growing number of military households in San Diego County that regularly rely on donated food.

I say let them eat yellow cake.

Oo. Can I play?

I don't have a TV, dishwasher, stereo or microwave. And I'm middle class. Of course that's all personal choice. They just aren't necessary to me.

Again, I'll point out that although wages are flat, expenses have gone down for all but the upper-middle class and higher.

You keep pointing it out, but that still doesn't make it true.

All my arguments center around the proposition that if you have a good business idea, it's easier today to turn that idea into large sums of money than at any point in the past. More and more people are doing this (i.e. becoming successful entrepeneurs) and thus raising their incomes. The widening gap between the middle class and the upper class can be partially attributed to the increase in successful entrepeneurs.

And no, cmdicely, I do not have any cold hard numbers to support my argument. However, the fact that I can't prove my point with data doesn't mean that it couldn't be true.

And this is all happening when the broad economy is chugging along pretty nicely. What's going to happen when there's a downturn?

maybe the millionaires who fund the gop and the 527 attack dogs ,like swiftboat and this latest anti abortion racist sexist ad will not have the extra cash for spewing garbage

Stefan, what is it that you do that makes you so much money?

Wall Street.

mfw13:
It is easier to be a successful entrepeneur when wage gains are not keeping up with productivity gains. You get to keep the difference just like established corporations do. The deficit in wage gains has been going on for 30 years while our productivity growth has been about average for developed nations. What is hard to argue is that the suppression of wage growth has had a positive effect on productivity.

And no, cmdicely, I do not have any cold hard numbers to support my argument.

Or, apparently, anything else, other than that it subjectively seems that way to you.

However, the fact that I can't prove my point with data doesn't mean that it couldn't be true.

No, but the fact taht you can't present any reason to believe that it is true does mean that there is no reason to prefer your explanation over any other abstractly possible explanation one might imagine, and plenty of reason to prefer any explanation that can be supported by some kind of evidence to yours.