Middle class decline looms over final years of Obama presidency

[ND-Dem]

Reuters) - Barack Obama enters the final two years of his presidency with a blemish on his legacy that looks impossible to erase: the decline of the middle class he has promised to rescue...

Administration officials said on Saturday the president would propose higher capital gains taxes, new fees on large financial firms, and other measures to raise $320 billion for programs and tax breaks aimed at the middle class.

Obama's administration can take credit for stabilizing the U.S. economy, which is growing again and last year added jobs at the fastest clip since 1999.

But for the middle class the scars of the recession still run deep. Federal Reserve survey data show families in the middle fifth of the income scale now earn less and their net worth is lower than when Obama took office.

In the six years through 2013, over the recession and recovery that have spanned Obama's tenure, jobs have been added at the top and bottom of the wage scale, a Reuters analysis of labor statistics shows. In the middle, the economy has shed positions - whether in traditional trades like machining or electrical work, white-collar jobs in human resources, or technical ones like computer operators...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/18/us-usa-obama-economy-idUSKBN0KR0HD20150118

[MannyGoldstein]

1. "But it could have been worse!"

The Third Way rallying cry.

[ND-Dem]

2. not for me, unfortunately.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Sorry to hear that!

Hopefully we can all work together to get Elizabeth Warren and other FDR Democrats in control of our party, and our country.

[kelliekat44]

17. But the decline started way before Obama came into the picture. Try the Reagan years for starters.

And no one has yet to explain who is really in the middle class. The poor are growing but growing from the low wage earner who does not consider themselves to be in the middle class in reality.

[raccoon]

28. THANK YOU. After the first oil shock, or thereabouts. nt

[JonLP24]

33. I agree for the most part

Though Reagan era (which is actually from the Hoover era & the Republican party was still embracing Wall Street after The Great Depression) economic policies. Tax cuts, slash safety nets, privatize, union bust, eliminating trade barriers, the works.

Basically there is still an element of that with the Obama administration mainly because he offers a Republican goody like a tax cut for the rich to get a middle class policy. He even went as far as to put social security cuts on the table, he is such a good faith negotiator but he is playing fair with sociopaths. 15 minutes after that was mentioned is a Republican turned around and announced the Democrats are the "cut social security party" (I'm not sure where that article is, it has been so long since I read it).

While he did manage to enact one of the most sweeping Wall Street reform in awhile shortly after taking office. I notice far too often he has lobbyists for Wall Street, Health Care, whoever at the negotiating table. He is almost too fair in working with the other side that it is very unfair (much more than it normally would be in politics) in the way they attack him. I noticed after "Obamacare" talks he was using the health insurance's arguments to make his case for the about-face on mandates. Either he is naive or pretending but the young or rarely sick "gaming the system" (his words) are actually the customers health insurances covet. Outside of employment-based health coverage, health insurance is dominated by a few monopolies. They can hike up rates, deny the already sick (what competitor is going to scoop them up?). Basically the whole idea they have to charge this much because those who only use the ER. There are high variables involved when it comes to the already sick but any hits they take are now subsidized by the younger, healthy, rarely go to the hospital until they need to & racking up monthly check after monthly check. However, there is no incentive to lower prices (because it assumes wealthy private insurers were offering previous prices out of the kindness of their hearts).

It did a lot of good things as far as patient protections, adding options, covering the already sick so I can see agreeing to the mandate to get health coverage (though lawmakers have the power but probably also want their money too) to those who can't get it or cover more treatment options & this online site where you can view all insurers you can buy from would actually help in lowering prices (I haven't seen it, I just use the VA) but it was using their argument or their talking points that got me. Especially since it was a false argument. (Those who rarely go to the hospital until they need it is the reason its false that they're driving "health care costs"--especially since bills are very inconsistent or so out of whack what they charge private insurance and a significant portion actually do pay the hospital bills out-of-pocket. Community based hospitals like Scottsdale Health Care, if you have low income it is probably a cheaper stay if you say you don't have health insurance,

On edit - My point was it seems there is far too much wealthy influence at the negotiating table & not enough unions, unemployed, hell--I don't think mainstream politicians talk about people less than middle class like poor. He certainly does a hell of a lot more in just proposals alone that any Republican bought and paid for would never do. Hell, they wouldn't even agree to big tax cut for some infrastructure jobs & closing some tax loopholes.

But it seems there is far too much of looking the other way because they earn massive profits, we give away more in tax breaks than we spend in discretionary spending and while certainly Hover/Reagan economic policies have led to this -- it will take actions going another way, we have to find a way to reverse the easing the free trade has done because that is the #1 labor killer next to union busting. Free trade is not good in that way because labor isn't free and even if they were allowed to leave & go to the country that has the business offering a better wage, could you afford to travel, set-up etc? Its why the imbalance is as large as it is.

[guillaumeb]

153. when money talks

people without money are not heard. Given that the Supreme Court feels that money is speech, how do the rest of us speak? By voting. But voting wisely assumes that the voters bother to vote, and that the voters have a way of educating themselves on the issues.

How can a Democratic Party that is owned in large part by the same rich people as the Republicans offer a credible alternative? You make great points about the President attempting to meet Republicans in the middle, but they have moved so far to the right that the middle is quite far to the right.

When people have a choice of voting for a Republican or an "I'm almost a Republican" type Democrat, is it any wonder that so many do not vote?

If we cannot get money out of politics than the country will become more of an oligarchy than it is now.

[MisterP]

23. "and we're gonna make sure it does": the Third Way policy once they're in office

[ananda]

46. Yeah, they can just eat ramen noodles!

..

[brush]

152. Ahhh . . . fyi everyone, this started with Reagan and trickle down and union busting . . .

but sure, blame the black guy like the repugs and Susan Smith, that usually works.

[quaker bill]

176. True

but also correct. Grumpy Gramps and the Thrilla from Wasilla would not have improved things. The car elevator guy - Mr 47% - would not have helped much either.


It is fairly weak sauce as a rallying cry, but there is a grain of Truth in it. The fact that we are better off than we could have been, does not mean that where we are is good.

[Warpy]

3. Decline? Try disappearance.

With no buffer class left, they're soon going to realize what they've done and what danger it's put them in---unless they get behind a reverse wealth redistribution that transfers wealth from the parasitic class back to the laboring classes.

[ND-Dem]

5. I think this is the end game; wealth is moving out of the US to other places in the world. There's

no political need to maintain a middle class here anymore, no more need for pretense.

[DFW]

6. With recent developments, I'd say wealth is moving from other places to the US

Normal mortals just aren't seeing any of it.

The BRIC economies are all shaky, and at least three of them (Russia, China and Brazil) have seen heavy declines with some of their richest private people parking their wealth in the USA. The trouble is, they are doing it by busing up $80 million penthouses on Park Avenue and buying $20 million paintings at Sotheby's (NY)to hang on the walls of said penthouses. From foreign billionaire to foreign billionaire, and New York City is happy if they see some sales tax so they can finally fix some potholes on Seventh Avenue.

I'd say there is plenty of reason to maintain a middle class in the USA--or in any of the EU countries, where I now live. It's called a tax base, and many EU countries are squeezing theirs out of existence as well. The problem is that there also needs to be a political will to fix it. A middle class rises from a conscious effort to create one. I do not advocate a return to a 90% marginal tax rate because these days it is too easy to move abroad and take your money with you. Call up your broker, sell your stock, then call your banker and send a wire. 36 hours max, and you're offshore if you want to be. But Obama had the right idea in 2009 with his stimulus to restart the economy. Keep in mind that the Republicans blocked the stimulus until Obama had to pare it down to HALF what he originally asked for. We sputtered and crawled out of the recession, but we would have been on all six cylinders within two years if he had gotten what he had asked for, and the Republicans knew it. They also knew that if they handed him THAT big a success, they'd have been out of power for two decades. So, they gave him enough to get the big banks and defense contractors--not coincidentally, all big Republican contributors--back on their feet, but not enough for masses of voters in the middle to share in the fun. This is the audience from whence come people who think Fox is actually news. They are the big swing, and in 2010 they either swung Republican or they stayed home.

*on edit--I just saw the New York Times ran this today--talk about timing! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreign-wealth-flows-to-time-warner-condos.html?emc=edit_th_20150208&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=34053085&_r=0

[appalachiablue]

89. I saw that NYT article, more of the same but huge increase in the last 6 years, due to record

stock, all gains going to the 1% in 'The Recovery' as planned. Problems are that few of these will pay much or any tax; many hide these properties through a shell corp. or 3rd party. These oligarchs cannot generate a broad middle class. There's only so many of them (unlike the larger M.C.): how many cars, insurance policies, jackets, houses, college educations, Disneyland vacations can they buy? Plenty of expensive luxury items and personal chefs, body guards, caretakers, gardeners for sure...

US Middle Class, R.I.P.

[JDPriestly]

8. You may be right.

The big danger is that due to the terrible pain that this disparity in wealth causes, we become a nation divided by class or ethnicity or region or religion or some other factor. That is what has happened to so many empires. And when I speak of the US as an empire, I am merely speaking of the US within our borders. We are a large nation that encompasses a lot of cultures. We don't think of ourselves that way. But that is what we are. The Northeast and the Southeast, the Midwest, the Southwest and Northwest -- are very different cultures. And then you have the trio -- Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. We could easily become divided. The disparity in wealth is evident if you compare the incomes of people in Alabama with those of the people in Massachusetts or California. And those are just the regional divides that could tear us apart if the struggle to live a middle class life becomes much more difficult.

When we talk about disparity in income, the very rich think we are being jealous and want their stuff. At least for me, that is not at all the problem. The problem is that I don't think our society can function well, that we can be cohesive and able to solve our problems and get along and remain one nation if we don't do something about the disparity in wealth.

Our nation could divide and fall apart due to the poverty of so many and the extreme wealth of so very few. That has happened in other countries across history. Russia should have had a seat at the 1919 peace negotiations that ended WWI. But it was caught up in division and revolution and did not participate. Today, we are paying for the turmoil in Russia, its absence at the negotiating table at that time.

Great disparity in wealth and the poverty that it produces, slows down technological and scientific progress. New products, new ideas do not have a market, do not have enough buyers or consumers to allow them to spread when the middle class does not have discretionary income and the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few who don't know what to do with it except gamble.

My concern about the disparity in wealth isn't about jealousy. Most middle class people really don't want the yachts of the very rich. Middle class people want opportunity, jobs, a reasonable income that permits them to buy and then own some property, at least the property where they live. Middle class people want to go to school, to be able to donate to their church, educate their children, enjoy new technology, travel, communicate with family and friends, entertain on a modest level and pursue personal interests and hobbies such as sports.

Right now the modest, healthy lifestyle of the middle class is in jeopardy. Competition for jobs and a decent income is getting tougher and tougher. I worry about the lives my grandchildren will have. When the wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of very few, more and more people fall into poverty. That does create resentment and understandably so.

[woo me with science]

11. Yes, global corporations have a global plan,

and they have purchased governments, including ours, to enact it.

[azmom]

39. The new Greek government is inspiring in

That it's pushing back somewhat.

[woo me with science]

74. [phone]

Courage is contagious.

[hatrack]

32. Still a few bites left on the carcass; bit gamy, but enough to inspire some economic "activity"

[guillaumeb]

154. "no political need"

and no business need either. Big business is world business now. Automakers do not need American customersas long as they can find customers somewhere in the world.

[woo me with science]

7. They know exactly what they've done, because it was the plan.

This administration has aggressively and proactively defended, entrenched, and expanded the corporate agenda since Day One. The One Percent have profited beyond their wildest dreams, and the president will be handsomely rewarded for his service.

Gridlocked democracy is an illusion. We have had a corporate coup in this country, by the global corporate elite. We live under united oligarchy that is pretending to be a democracy, but that is, in reality, dismantling the democratic foundations of this nation and replacing them with corporate authoritarianism. And our nation is added to the list of of those being transformed into a feudal state for corporate profit.

It wasn't an accident.

[CrispyQ]

57. You stated that so succinctly:

Gridlocked democracy is an illusion. We have had a corporate coup in this country, by the global corporate elite. We live under united oligarchy that is pretending to be a democracy, but that is, in reality, dismantling the democratic foundations of this nation and replacing them with corporate authoritarianism. And our nation is added to the list of of those being transformed into a feudal state for corporate profit.

Did we think we would be immune from shock doctrine?

[woo me with science]

75. [phone] American exceptionalism.

We're raised on that lie.

Vast numbers of us grow up believing that poverty happens to brown people far away, and we're never encouraged to think about why.

But you're right. Global corporations have ravaged and looted other countries into husks for profit before us, and they'll continue when they're through with us if we don't find a way to stop them.

You're right. We're not special.

[appalachiablue]

88. +100

[pansypoo53219]

9. put the blame where it belongs. reagan + destruction of the unions. tinkle down.

but hey! you got tax cuts!

[Maedhros]

58. We're deluding ourselves if we don't acknowledge the roles played

by Clinton and Obama. The growth of the wealth gap accelerated under Clinton and has exceeded that of the 1920s under Obama. Neither of them did a damned thing to slow it down.

[840high]

162. You are right.

[rhett o rick]

104. What do you think the TPP will do to the middle class? nm

[YoungDemCA]

120. I thought the middle class was already dead?

nt

[obxhead]

10. That's what happens when you replaced middle class jobs with walmart

And Starbucks jobs. Even when you work 3 of these low wage jobs, you still drop into poverty.

But, steady job growth. Bestest potus ever!

[JDPriestly]

13. A service economy cannot work well.

The oligarchs may be able to invest in equipment that produces lots of say, carpets, but the low-wage jobs in the service economy in which their potential customers are trapped will not enable those potential customers to buy the carpets.

It's a lose/lose equation.

Some way has to be found to get enough money CIRCULATING beyond the few rich at the very top to keep production and enterprise paying off.

The middle class and it income demands are not just an annoyance in a healthy economy. They are the heart of a healthy economy. They keep the money flowing through the economy. An economy of relatively few very rich and multitudes of poor people is not going to be very productive. And an economy in which most jobs are service jobs is likely to have very few rich who own a lot of property but whose incomes are actually dwindling and many, many poor people who vie for jobs that require a lot of physical stamina but not much else.

Creativity and entrepreneurship decline in a service economy over time. It's a race to the bottom when it comes to wages.

[woo me with science]

14. +1 What a scam.

We are being eaten alive by corporate fascists in democracy costumes.

Next stop: TPP

[Maedhros]

59. Who robs life of its quality? Who renders rage a necessity

By turning countries into labor camps?

Modern slavers in drag as Champions of Freedom.

[woo me with science]

76. Powerful video.

Thank you.

[Maedhros]

163. Also from Bruce Cockburn, and appropriate to our situation:

Strikes across the frontier and strikes for higher wage
Planet lurches to the right as ideologies engage
Suddenly it's repression, moratorium on rights
What did they think the politics of panic would invite?
Person in the street shrugs -- "Security comes first"
But the trouble with normal is it always gets worse

[RiverLover]

20. +2

We stopped making products in the US so stockholders could get filthy rich on the backs of cheap slave labor in foreign countries, and yet, somehow the media was able to vilify labor unions. And both parties are to blame. Because Moneyed Interests are pulling the strings.

[azmom]

40. It's going to take a 50% unemployment rate

For people to wake up. That's the unemployment rate in Greece.

[frazzled]

36. Obama did that? Who knew?

The odd thing about this thread, and the article on which it is based ... is that it dumps 35-40 years of chipping away at the middle class and lays it in the lap of Obama's last two years.

Clearly an attempt to whitewash all of American policy since 1980 which led to this point, and then say the black man did it. Nice try. Not buying. It's simply false.

[ND-Dem]

38. There have been many hits over the years. The difference during this admin is that, at least

thus far, various measures of 'middle class' status haven't come back to even baseline after 6 years. It's rather unprecedented.

[frazzled]

41. It didn't come back during ANY administration's term

since 1970. It's been a steady decline with no major upticks.

Face it: your interest is not in economic facts or policy; it's in slamming this administration. That's a sad job that accomplishes nothing.

[ND-Dem]

45. I think you're mistaken.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS12500000

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA672N

[frazzled]

42. Not so

Wages have been in a steady decline since 1970, with no major upticks.

Face it: your interest is not so much in economic facts or policy; it's in slamming this administration. That's a sad job that accomplishes nothing.

[ND-Dem]

48. Do you want to post some data on that, as I have? I'm open to being convinced.

[frazzled]

66. Here are a few things to start with

We do know from recent news reports that job creation has now exceeded levels not seen since 1999; and that there has been for the first time in a decade a sight uptick in wages. But that's not what you're asking for. I'm a bit under the gun right now (a lot under the gun!) with a deadline project, so I don't have a lot of time to research for you at the moment, but perhaps start with this article on the 40-year decline in workers' wages. (Actually wages have flatlined over that time; but buying power has decreased, so it is in effect a decline in wages):

http://prospect.org/article/40-year-slump

Then, it all stopped. In 1974, wages fell by 2.1 percent and median household income shrunk by $1,500. To be sure, it was a year of mild recession, but the nation had experienced five previous downturns during its 25-year run of prosperity without seeing wages come down.

What no one grasped at the time was that this wasn’t a one-year anomaly, that 1974 would mark a fundamental breakpoint in American economic history. In the years since, the tide has continued to rise, but a growing number of boats have been chained to the bottom. Productivity has increased by 80 percent, but median compensation (that’s wages plus benefits) has risen by just 11 percent during that time. The middle-income jobs of the nation’s postwar boom years have disproportionately vanished. Low-wage jobs have disproportionately burgeoned. Employment has become less secure. Benefits have been cut. The dictionary definition of “layoff” has changed, from denoting a temporary severance from one’s job to denoting a permanent severance.

Click on the graphics at the link or here:

http://prospect.org/article/40-year-slump#charts1

[ND-Dem]

81. Your own link says median income continued to rise, despite people at the bottom losing

ground. That doesn't jibe with median income heading down since the 70s.

Median = middle.

1974 would mark a fundamental breakpoint in American economic history. In the years since, the tide has continued to rise, but a growing number of boats have been chained to the bottom.

Productivity has increased by 80 percent, but median compensation (that’s wages plus benefits) has risen by just 11 percent during that time.


What happened since the late 70s was, pay stopped rising.

What's happened under Obama is, it fell. A lot.




and here's data from a chart from the census with median income in 2013 dollars, 1970-2013. It shows that median income nearly doubled from 1970-2007, in real dollars. Nothing like what the top 1% got, but not a decline in the median. Since 2007, however, median income has declined 6%. Time will tell if it comes back or continues to decline.

2013: 22,063
2012: 21,833
2011: 21,856
2010: 22,196
2009: 22,760
08: 22,576
07: 23,505
06: 23,123
05: 22,166
04: 21,788
03: 21,860
02: 21,769
01: 21,860
00: 21,729
99: 21,396
98: 20,595
97: 19,830
96: 18,946
95: 18,410
94: 17,822
93: 17,535
92: 17,429
91: 17,474
90: 17,399
89: 17,457
88: 16,810
87: 16,271
86: 15,432
85: 14,900
84: 14,666
83: 14,046
82: 13,645
81: 13,414
80: 13,243
79: 13,014
78: 13,330
77: 13,800
76: 13,312
75: 13,326
74: 13,130
73: 13,103
72: 12,942
71: 12,350
70: 11,976


Table P-8. Age—People by Median Income and Sex
•All Races [XLS - 1.0M]
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/

[blm]

65. When did GOP allow Obama's economic and tax policies to pass and replace Bush's?

Got a date for that?

I'll give you a clue - Bush's tax breaks were set to expire on Dec 31, 2010.

[ND-Dem]

86. And the relevance to my post is?

38. There have been many hits over the years. The difference during this admin is that, at least
thus far, various measures of 'middle class' status haven't come back to even baseline after 6 years. It's rather unprecedented.


BYW, here's what the Economic Policy Institute said about the negotiation surrounding those tax cuts at the time:


The Bush tax cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, were designed to sunset after 2010 so they could pass Congress through the reconciliation process. They were extended by President Obama through 2012 so as to not raise taxes during the recession/weak recovery; additionally, in exchange for extending them two years, Obama was able to negotiate the payroll tax holiday and the extension of Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC).

The most recent extension of these cuts has allowed conservative members of Congress (and others, like Grover Norquist) to claim victory on these tax cuts, which briefly expired on Dec. 31, 2012, only to be reinstated almost in full. Conservative representative Dave Camp (R-Mich.) summed up the situation by saying, “After more than a decade of criticizing these tax cuts, Democrats are finally joining Republicans in making them permanent.” Indeed, in many ways these are now Democrats’ tax cuts as much (if not more so) as they are Republicans.’ In the House of Representatives, the bill was passed by majority Democratic votes.

With this new agreement, Democratic members of Congress and President Obama have permanently set tax rates—in the sense that the rates don’t expire, not that future Congresses can’t change them—at extraordinarily low levels by historical standards. Short of major revenue increases, projected general revenue consequently will grossly underfund government services and investments; relative to a current law baseline (in which the tax cuts would have expired), passing the income tax rate cuts will lead to $3.2 trillion in lost revenue over a decade, according to Citizens for Tax Justice...

Higher deficits in the future, thanks to all-but-certain continuing low revenue levels, will give the GOP many opportunities to pressure Democrats into accepting spending cuts. And while there is something to be said for the stability that comes with a more permanent tax code, this permanent solution is not a good one. It will not be too long before Democrats will again be forced to fight for more revenue increases because of this decision—and who knows if they will have the circumstances in their corner to persuade enough Republicans to join them.

http://www.epi.org/blog/bush-tax-cuts-stay/

[blm]

149. LOL - Forgot about GOP holding unemployment checks hostage, eh?

Perhaps you didn't mean to forget.

[ND-Dem]

151. huh? maybe if you presented some reference to what you're talking about.

[blm]

64. Dems didn't. GOP intransigence that protected Bush's economic and tax policies did.

.

[woo me with science]

12. The "recovery" is an illusion of propaganda.

An important recent thread by Teamster Jeff:

Reality Check
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026192719

Much, much more at link.

[GummyBearz]

15. That 93% number you have circled in the bottom right

Is proof Reagan came back from the grave. He's the only one that can be responsible for any bad economic trend.

[RiverLover]

21. LOL nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

56. The recovery worked just fine. For those for whom it was designed.

'The economy' hasn't been OUR economy for decades, as your chart shows.

Of course, the income isn't as important as the wealth. The Bush recession creamed the lower classes, especially PoC, destroying accumulated 'family' wealth at a dizzying pace. Iirc, before the recession, black families had accumulated wealth amounting to roughly 10% that of their white counterparts, but 'after' (if we can consider ourselves yet to be 'after') it was 5%. They had started a few hundred years behind in accumulating wealth, and that single 'recession' wiped out half of what they had managed to finally accumulate to narrow that racial wealth gap.

[appalachiablue]

90. +100

[woo me with science]

143. [phone]

[flygal]

16. Just watched "Inside Job" on itunes

It's now available to rent ($2.99) and pretty much says what the Reuters article said, that Obama didn't make the change he promised and the US continues its rewarding of the financial sector at the price of the middle and lower class. We're basically at the mercy of the $$$$ people. We're basically screwed.

[Bandit]

30. How was Obama supposed to make any changes the GOP didn't want?

Congress has complete control of America's purse strings. Obama and Democrats had but one opportunity in 2008 and 2009 when they had a filibuster proof Senate and yet what exactly did they accomplish except Obamacare which in itself is probably as much responsible for the complete take over of Congress as any other factor. They had a choice when they did the Stimulus package, bail out the wealthy or bail out the middle class. Guess which one they chose.

[edhopper]

47. Yes

I am of the opinion that if he pursued a true progressive agenda and didn't go so easy on Wall street, they would have kept Congress and accomplished much more.

[RazzleCat]

18. But what is middle class?

Real question, I hear that the middle is shrinking, again what is the middle? Lower middle, upper middle, wealthy. Is it based on income and if so how much. Based on net worth again if so how much. Or is it based on how much is left after you pay the bills. I ask because we always worry about the middle yet we have no definition of who/what the middle are. I do not see how we can fix it until we define it. I can only guess that the middle is any one above the poverty line and below ? (so whats the cap to the middle, when you enter wealthy). Again is it income, net worth or a combination of the two. No snark, I do see the majority of workers are earning less, or the same while the average cost of living has gone up, so yes we are loosing the middle, more persons who were able to make it can't. The slip down is faster and easier than ever from making the bills to not. With all that, I still want to know what is the middle?

[elias49]

19. I think one hallmark of the 'middle class' is single wager earner households.

That went away with Reagan - I distinctly remember his admin crowing that more people were working than ever before. Yeah, because they HAD TO have 2 incomes to survive.
And middle class is retiring with a pension and SS that actually works!
I fear I'm going to be old and poor despite a life of hard work.
Sucks.

[Enrique]

69. the OP put it in bold for you

Federal Reserve survey data show families in the middle fifth of the income scale now earn less and their net worth is lower than when Obama took office.

[betterdemsonly]

22. The idea that Obama was a protector of American jobs should have died

the day he called Jeff Bezos a "job creator!" Hillary deserves the same reputation as Obama!

[SMC22307]

24. Kick (n/t)

[woo me with science]

25. kick

[NaturalHigh]

26. I think President Obama is a very nice person.

He's done some good things, or at least tried to. That said, he cares a lot more about Wall Street and campaign donors than he does about the middle class.

[laundry_queen]

27. Exactly.

If that's not the case, he's very good at making it appear that way. If he would've gone up against Wall Street in the beginning he'd have had the whole country behind him then and now. What a lost opportunity.

[fredamae]

29. I agree

Additionally-his words will soon be forgotten for the people (98%) who's small personal wealth continues to trickle upward...his final legacy will be - imo - the "real-time" cooperative efforts that were continued and completed to the benefit of wealthy/wall street etc.

That's just the way it works.
It will end up being Not about the (lets face it: most awesome) speeches-It's about the "collective American Experience During the ride on this 8 year long journey" itself.
Our collective cars are Still in the ditch.

For Wall Street-Kochs et al-it has been a Power Grabbing, Wonderfully Profitable, Cash Filled, Guilt and Accountability Free very productive ride.
Their "car" was Pulled up and out of that ditch tout de suite, period-courtesy of the tax payers who were the victims of theft. And then, in return...instead of keeping Their promises to Help us..make it right. Or even to simply acknowledge OUR tax dollars that SAVED them with so much as a Thank You" etc? They said: "Go Pound Sand You Stupid Lazy, Good for Nothing Takers-You Get Nothing and We Will Do As We Damn Well Please And We're taking the rest of what you have" and Nobody's going to Do a G'Damned thing about it
It has been So wonderful for them-they (Corp MSM Lawmakers) have MSM spreading the GOOD NEWS! The "poors" are cheering for part-time job growth paying minimum wage now that a mere decade ago were Full time and paid a much better if not a living wage.

Media has performed well in convincing the masses - The economy is doing Wonderful-the recovery is nigh-we're being served caviar on toast...when if we could see thru the façade we would taste the crap sandwich we're actually being served.
TEAMWORK in action, folks...
All imvho and my "experience/observation" so far in this journey-of course

[hatrack]

31. Middle class decline looms over 30 years of neo-liberal free trade conventional wisdom

There, I fixed it for you.

[lonestarnot]

34. Let the truth be told.

[blm]

35. Bush-Cheney INTENDED to destroy middleclass and GOP congress protected their plan

in every way possible the last 6 years.

Seems to me your post could benefit from an actual TIMELINE graphic.

Plain to see the revisionists will be out in full force, conveniently forgetting every procedural trick in the book that GOP used to maintain Bush's jobkilling, deficit-growing policies from being replaced by any return to Democrats' surplus budget policies this nation enjoyed before Bush stole the WH.

Revisionism - it's what Republicans rely on to lie - even to themselves.

Eh?

[stevenleser]

43. Exactly. That Obama was able to keep our economy from collapsing completely is a major achievement

and that it has recovered to the extent that it has is another major achievement. That he was able to do all that in the face of relentless Republican opposition is major achievement #3.

If you think about all of that, the idea that he could, while he is struggling to make all that happen, shape it in such a way that alters the fundamental trajectory of the economy over the last 40-50 years so that the middle class starts getting more of the wealth just obviously seems a bridge way too far and is a ridiculous criticism.

[blm]

159. Pinning the destruction of middle class on Obama's policies is utter Horseshit and

they know it. They also know they have armies of dumbed down voters who will not only believe their diversionary tactic, but, will spread it all over the internet.

[ND-Dem]

50. I'm sure they did. Nevertheless, the article is factual.

Reuters) - Barack Obama enters the final two years of his presidency with a blemish on his legacy that looks impossible to erase: the decline of the middle class he has promised to rescue...

Administration officials said on Saturday the president would propose higher capital gains taxes, new fees on large financial firms, and other measures to raise $320 billion for programs and tax breaks aimed at the middle class.

Obama's administration can take credit for stabilizing the U.S. economy, which is growing again and last year added jobs at the fastest clip since 1999.

But for the middle class the scars of the recession still run deep. Federal Reserve survey data show families in the middle fifth of the income scale now earn less and their net worth is lower than when Obama took office.

In the six years through 2013, over the recession and recovery that have spanned Obama's tenure, jobs have been added at the top and bottom of the wage scale, a Reuters analysis of labor statistics shows. In the middle, the economy has shed positions - whether in traditional trades like machining or electrical work, white-collar jobs in human resources, or technical ones like computer operators...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/18/us-usa-obama-economy-idUSKBN0KR0HD20150118

[blm]

63. Article completely blames Obama for GOP's tactic of intransigence

which makes the article disingenuous at best.

I think it is deliberately written to BE deceptive.

[emulatorloo]

78. Indeed. GOP deliberately sabotaged recovery/etc as a political tactic

The article is full of half-truths. Half-truths are the opposite of facts.

[ND-Dem]

85. It clearly doesn't do any such thing.

Administration officials said on Saturday the president would propose higher capital gains taxes, new fees on large financial firms, and other measures to raise $320 billion for programs and tax breaks aimed at the middle class.

Obama's administration can take credit for stabilizing the U.S. economy, which is growing again and last year added jobs at the fastest clip since 1999.

But for the middle class the scars of the recession still run deep. Federal Reserve survey data show families in the middle fifth of the income scale now earn less and their net worth is lower than when Obama took office.

In the six years through 2013, over the recession and recovery that have spanned Obama's tenure, jobs have been added at the top and bottom of the wage scale, a Reuters analysis of labor statistics shows. In the middle, the economy has shed positions - whether in traditional trades like machining or electrical work, white-collar jobs in human resources, or technical ones like computer operators...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/18/us-usa-obama-economy-idUSKBN0KR0HD20150118


A clip I've included every time I posted the article. You must have overlooked it in your haste to defend Obama from imagined criticism.

[blm]

158. HS - I have very clear recall of the way it all has REALLY been going down.

You must be accustomed to an audience of corpmedia swallowers.

[ND-Dem]

164. i'm not a performer, so i'm not accustomed to an audience at all. i don't know what you're reading,

but it has nothing to do with what I posted.

[brush]

165. So why repeatedly argue and post repug talking points if you know . . .

they obstructed relentlessly to stop this administration's attempt to help the economy?

[ND-Dem]

166. 1. I didn't 'argue' anything. 2. I didn't post any repug talking points. I posted a news article

from reuters, headquartered in the UK, owned by Thomson corporation, owned by David Kenneth Roy Thomson, 3rd Baron Thomson of Fleet, a Canadian media magnate.

Are you saying it's a gop propaganda front?

[brush]

167. So your posts are what . . . to just blame Obama . . .

for some 40 year of repug policies of trickle down and union busting?

[ND-Dem]

168. Please point out the specific Obama-blaming in the articlem where it lays all the failures of the

last 40 years at the feet of Obama.

[brush]

169. Oh please! Start with the title. nt

[ND-Dem]

171. There's no agency stated or implied in the title. "Storm looms over kansas" doesn't mean

Kansas caused it.

[brush]

172. Not nearly the same. Come on, stop playing dumb.

There is nothing but blame implied in that title.

And I'm not the only one on this thread that has told you that.

[ND-Dem]

174. i'm not playing dumb. there's no blame in the title, explicit or implicit. nor in the article, if

you read it. and I don't really care that people in the thread keep telling me there is.

the example I gave is exactly the same. 'storm' is something bad; 'looms' is the verb; and 'kansas' is what the bad thing is affecting or shadowing.

[SidDithers]

37. Oh, Hannah...

picking up right where you left off, I see.

Sid

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. ROFL

[MannyGoldstein]

54. Better Believe It

[zappaman]

61. Yup.

[msanthrope]

67. At least it's not the WSWS. nt

[Hekate]

116. Good catch. I was wondering where this

yahoo came from.

[FSogol]

49. Translation: Hannah Bell doesn't want you to vote

[SidDithers]

60. The 2nd iteration of Hannah Bell was banned as an homophobe...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=282775&sub=trans

Just putting that out there.

Sid

[FSogol]

62. Wonder what Amazon's Jeff Bezos thinks about that?

[msanthrope]

68. Wasn't that based on RT article posted as an OP? One found easily by using the

helpful little search box provided by admin?

Oh yeah......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023453360#post111

[SidDithers]

70. Yup. That was the one...

Banned just hours later.

Sid

[msanthrope]

71. Hmmm...22 recs. nt

[FSogol]

93. Reply #72 was quite good in that thread.

[tammywammy]

144. Haha, that was me!

And it wasn't hidden!

[stevenleser]

160. I had forgotten about that. This person should not be allowed back on DU.

[SidDithers]

161. I agree...nt

Sid

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. There are almost always more than one path to achieve a goal.

But the path does matter for things associated with the goal that aren't the primary goal. Putting the same foxes that crashed the economy back in charge of the economic henhouse was always guaranteed to 'arrive' at a 'better economy' that continued to make things 'better' for the 1% (or 0.1%) at the expense of the rest of us. Since the 'path' had to at least pretend to be 'left' of center, there was a cosmetic change that allowed the statement to be made that 'the rich were paying more taxes' while still allowing the gap between those same rich and the rest to continue to grow, because in addition to 'paying more taxes', the rich were also 'getting more money shoved at them'.

[ND-Dem]

52. The only reason the rich were paying more taxes is that the rest had less money. Percentage-wise,

the rich are/were paying less all the time.

[CrispyQ]

53. I know the economic mess started long before 2008,

but why didn't he propose these things when he first got in office? The timing was perfect. The People were pissed that the crooked banksters got a big bailout as their home values & 401s dropped significantly overnight. Now the 1% has regrouped, they've got another shiny new bailout coming their way & we have a republican congress. Good fucking grief.

I tell ya, my sig line says it all.

[ND-Dem]

55. I agree. First order of business was bailing out the crooks who brought down the economy.

Now Obama is touting some populist measures, but since the R's have a solid majority, I doubt any will happen.

Yes, missed opportunity. Obama had a constituency ready to follow him into hell. It's mostly dissolved now, because he let it dissolve.

[aspirant]

83. Pemember,

2008 they didn't need the repubs because they had Plan B. The Blue Dogs were entrenched and stopped all the progressive legislation.

Obama had his Veto Pen from day one and could have forced a progressive budget anytime he wanted.The repubs shut down the govt and won in 2014 so that shut-down propaganda doesn't fly anymore.

[davidthegnome]

72. Hmm

This particular working class individual is grateful to finally have health insurance (effective march first, hell of a deal) in addition to being grateful to the man who put that together. It wasn't what I wanted - and there are plenty of people in my state who are still screwed due to my Governor refusing to pass medicaid expansion... but when it comes to my personal economy, I am grateful to have health insurance. The risk there is that, if I lose my job, or if my income drops much, I'll have to give it up again, I'll be told to apply for Mainecare, routinely rejected, and back to square one...

I think Obama is a man who tried, who tried damned hard to get some good things done. I think he succeeded somewhat - and was able to help many people. Unfortunately, I do not believe it will take long for that work to be undone. I do not believe it will take long for Republican "destructionism" (we're well beyond "obstructionism" at this point) to undo what positive changes have been made in our economy.

Frankly, I think a Republican victory is likely in the 2016 Presidential election. I'm going to do my damndest to fight it, but, I don't have that much hope for victory. We have a senate full of republicans, a congress full of them, an electorate that is increasingly not well educated and perhaps semi-literate at best. While there may have been a slight uptick in wages for those of us at the bottom, we are working harder since that time. Productivity, generally speaking, is pretty damned high... and guess what a slight uptick means when you earn minimum wage? Not to knock it - as I'm grateful for my bread... but when minimum wage is so slow that it hasn't kept up with inflation, cannot sustain costs of living and generally leaves people in desperate poverty... yeah, I'd say it's pretty damned broken and urgently requires fixing.

It seems likely that, in the years to come, many more members of the middle class will join those of us down here among the working poor or desperately impoverished. It's cheaper to hire the Chinese. It's cheaper to outsource labor to third-world Countries. You can save a fortune by putting together a few offshore tax havens as well. The system favors the rich, the politicians work for them - and most of the rest of us are caught between a rock and a hard place.

I just... hope that I'm wrong. There is enough compassion, enough heart, bravery and dedication among the middle class and the working class to change this. There is enough humanity and empathy left within your average person that it's not too late for us to declare "Game over" for the corporations and their stooges - and we still have some time.

All that said, my faith is with the American people, not with our government or it's ability to accomplish things that are meaningful and lasting. If it's going to be done, we have to do it.

[babylonsister]

80. Thanks so much, and keep the faith! We have no

choice, some of us.

[CrispyQ]

87. Hey David, nice to see you.

I hope things are looking up. Glad to hear you will be getting insurance, but it would be nice if the US had real health care for it's citizens instead of insurance. Oh well, We the People are just pesky takers.

but when minimum wage is so slow that it hasn't kept up with inflation, cannot sustain costs of living and generally leaves people in desperate poverty... yeah, I'd say it's pretty damned broken and urgently requires fixing.

How much as CEO pay risen in the past 20 years? Why don't we ever outsource those fuckers? And the VPs & Directors. The company my husband used to work for would lay worker bees off & then hire a bunch of VPs & Directors. Too many Chiefs & not enough Indians.

[ND-Dem]

97. "If it's going to be done, we have to do it." There I agree with you. And I have to say that

contrary to many posters' assumptions, I have no idea what kind of man Obama is, what is in his deepest heart, etc. And I don't believe I expressed any assumptions like that in the OP. Nor does the article, IMO. All it says is what is actually happening to the middle class during this administration. Whether that is an outcome desired or not desired by the President, it's what's happening.

[woo me with science]

73. kick

[Phlem]

77. But Hillary!?!?

n/t

[cheapdate]

79. The decline has been in motion for more than 30 years.

The trends are historic. Globalization, liberalization of trade and movement of capital and labor, the rise of multinational corporations, the ascendency of banking and finance, the increasing use of technology and capital intensive production, etc.

Who sits in the White House isn't going to have much of an impact. President Obama has taken some steps in the right direction, and he has taken steps to try to soften the blow for ordinary people.

For convenience, we can wrap all of this up in the term "globalization". It's not inevitable and it's not unstoppable, but it's dug in mighty deep. Myself, I don't hold president Obama personally responsible for not reversing history and revamping the present economic order of the world.

[ND-Dem]

84. "Globalization" has been going on for centuries. It's not the reason for our current predicament,

any more than it was the reason for the Great Depression.

[moondust]

91. Wrong.

cheapdate is spot on. Globalization has really only taken off in the past half century or so with the rise of cheap global transportation and communications making it possible to easily move jobs and raw materials to the cheapest labor markets on the planet.

[ND-Dem]

94. Jobs & raw materials have been being moved all over the planet for millenia. What do you think

slavery was about?

[moondust]

103. Not on a large scale.

It wasn't fast enough or cheap enough to sustain a consumer economy of mass-produced goods and services. Not feasible until 30-50 years ago.

You know why feudalism faded away? Largely because the black plague killed off so much labor in Europe that the remaining serfs realized they had some power to demand better pay and conditions, which they then used to buy stuff and learn trades and open shops and...escape feudalism. Today the planet has an endless supply of cheap labor accessible by rapid communication and transporation systems.

If today's cheap global communication and transportation systems had been available to the feudal lords of the Middle Ages, don't you think they would have used them to replace the serfs lost to the plague? Life was good loafing around the castle getting rich off somebody else's hard work. (Sound familiar?)

Airfreight carriers, cargo shipping lanes, global satellite telephony, and now the Internet--the infrastructure of today's globalized economy--are all quite new but certainly did not start with Obama.

[ND-Dem]

105. on a very large scale. I think you don't know your history if you think imports weren't fueling

mass production before 30-50 years ago. Or if you think cheap overseas labor wasn't in use before 30-50 years ago.

The black death (I presume that's what you mean when you say 'black plague') as the cause of the end of feudalism is a theory.

I don't buy it. Too many complicating factors, such as plague also being epidemic in the Islamic world, china, india, and elsewhere, most of the world in fact, where it didn't end feudal and semi-feudal economic relationships.

Also in Russia, where feudalism continued into modern times, actually only ending with the Russian revolution.

[moondust]

109. ...

~

How did peasants respond?

Those who survived the Black Death believed that there was something special about them – almost as if God had protected them. Therefore, they took the opportunity offered by the disease to improve their lifestyle.

Feudal law stated that peasants could only leave their village if they had their lord’s permission. Now many lords were short of desperately needed labour for the land that they owned. After the Black Death, lords actively encouraged peasants to leave the village where they lived to come to work for them. When peasants did this, the lord refused to return them to their original village.

Peasants could demand higher wages as they knew that a lord was desperate to get in his harvest.

~more~

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/black_death_of_1348_to_1350.htm

More: https://www.google.com/search?q=feudalism+plague&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[ND-Dem]

110. I've read similar stuff. But there wasn't just *one* black death epidemic 1348-50; there were

many waves, over many years, in many countries.

though Russia was hard hit by the black death, feudalism didn't end until the 20th century.

china, india, korea, the middle east etc. were also hard hit and had feudal-like systems that continued nearly to the present day.

those areas were just as depopulated as Europe, losing 1/3 to 1/2 their people.

I look elsewhere for the roots of the decline of feudalism and the rise of capitalism.

The decline of serfdom in Western Europe has sometimes been attributed to the Black Death, which reached Europe in 1347,[1] although the decline had begun before that date. Serfdom became increasingly rare in most of Western Europe after the Renaissance, but conversely, it grew strong in Central and Eastern Europe, where it had previously been less common (this phenomenon was known as "later serfdom&quot .

In Eastern Europe the institution persisted until the mid-19th century. It persisted in the Austrian Empire till 1848 and was abolished in Russia in 1861.[2] In Finland, Norway and Sweden feudalism was not established, and serfdom did not exist; however, serfdom-like institutions did exist in both Denmark (the stavnsbånd, from 1733 to 1788) and its vassal Iceland (the more restrictive vistarband, from 1490 until 1894).

According to Joseph R. Strayer, the concept of feudalism can also be applied to the societies of ancient Persia, ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt (Sixth to Twelfth dynasty), Muslim India, China (Zhou Dynasty, and end of Han Dynasty) and Japan during the Shogunate. James Lee and Cameron Campbell describe the Chinese Qing Dynasty (1644–1912) as also maintaining a form of serfdom.[3]

Tibet is described by Melvyn Goldstein to have had serfdom until 1959,[4][5] but whether or not the Tibetan form of peasant tenancy qualified as serfdom was widespread is contested.[6][7] Bhutan is described by Tashi Wangchuk, a Bhutanese civil servant, as abolishing serfdom officially by 1959, but Wangchuk believes less than or about 10% of poor peasants were in copyhold situations.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom

[cheapdate]

92. It has everything to with our current situation.

"Going on for centuries" doesn't really address anything. Communication has been going on for centuries, but modern communications are almost unrecognizable from 50 years ago, much less centuries ago.

No other period in history even remotely resembles the global economic system of today, where massive amounts of capital move freely and instantly across oceans, continents, and international borders, where the economic activity of money chasing money in purely financial transactions outweighs the total economic activity in "real" markets many times over, where ever more capital and technology intensive production can move freely to anywhere in the world.

I think it has everything to do with the jobs market in the United States.

[ND-Dem]

96. Massive amounts of capital have always moved across oceans, continents, and international

borders.

Located in the Bolivian Tin Belt, Cerro Rico de Potosi is the world's largest silver deposit and has been mined since the sixteenth century... Potosi became the second largest city, and the site of the first mint, in the Americas.

Founded in 1545 as a mining town, it soon produced fabulous wealth, and the population eventually exceeded 200,000 people.

In Spanish there is still a saying, vale un Potosí, "to be worth a Potosí" (that is, "to be of a great value&quot ...Potosi was a mythical land of riches, it is mentioned in Miguel de Cervantes' famous novel, Don Quixote (second part, chap. LXXI) as a land of "extraordinary richness". One theory holds that the mint mark of Potosí (the letters "PTSI" superimposed on one another) is the origin of the dollar sign.

Potosí lies at the foot of the Cerro de Potosí[3]—sometimes referred to as the Cerro Rico ("rich mountain&quot —a mountain popularly conceived of as being "made of" silver ore, dominates the city. The Cerro Rico is the reason for Potosí's historical importance, since it was the major supply of silver for Spain during the period of the New World Spanish Empire.

The silver was taken by llama and mule train to the Pacific coast, shipped north to Panama City, carried by mule train across the isthmus of Panama to Nombre de Dios or Portobelo whence it was taken to Spain on the Spanish treasure fleets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potos%C3%AD

According to one popular view, globalization is the "inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before-in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach round the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before" (T. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, 1999).

By contrast, some groups of scholars and activists view globalization not as an inexorable process but as a deliberate, ideological project of economic liberalization that subjects states and individuals to more intense market forces (P. McMichael, Development and Social Change, 2000; P. Hirst and G. Thompson, Globalization in Question, 1996).

http://sociology.emory.edu/faculty/globalization/debates.html

[cheapdate]

98. Well, I don't think shipments of gold and silver from the New World

400 years ago exactly captures the essence of modern capital and labor markets, exchanges, and financial systems.

Well, anyway, so what's your theory or idea to explain the jobs market, employment picture, and sorry state of wages in the United States?

[ND-Dem]

106. of course nothing is ever *exactly* the same and no one claimed it was. of course capital

labor, etc, moves *quicker* today, and communication is quicker. that's the basic change. But that change is quantitative more than qualitative.

"My" theory is power relations between labor and capital. same as it ever was.

[appalachiablue]

108. There's no comparison, Cheapdate and Moondust are correct on this. Your posts & positions

are very well done, I appreciate that. The Black Death is the common term for the 14th c. European Plague. Been used for decades, the Black Plague must be a bit newer, but ok.
l

[ND-Dem]

113. It's *bubonic plague* or "black death." google "black plague" and see what you get.

look up some reference books or histories and see what you get.


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#tbm=bks&q=%22black+death%22

https://books.google.com/books?id=oK4HTBcdSJsC&pg=PR16&dq=%22black+plague%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W_vaVMCDOsrgoASC2YKACQ&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22black%20plague%22&f=false


and your saying that the other posters are "correct on this" doesn't convince me.

[appalachiablue]

115. It believe that google uses Bu. Plague or Black Death. Eveyone knows it's the Bubonic Plague, but

from my time Black Death was common, or just the Plague, sometimes the Bubonic Plague. Apparently Black Death isn't common anymore, my mistake. I have two degrees in history from studying at US colleges and Cambridge, pre google. So therein lies the confusion. Being old is good sometimes but not often.

[ND-Dem]

117. I got a bit confused there. I initially thought you were claiming black plague was the common

term. then I reread. I agree that black death is the common term, and has been so long as I was a reader (50+ years). and so far as I know, it's still the common term. I wasn't arguing otherwise, though it may have seemed like it because of my own confusion. lol.

and apparently moondust agrees and was also victim of brainfart. so we're all on the same page so far as terms go.

[appalachiablue]

127. It's ok, I don't think the Medieval Police or the Sforzas are watching. But the Borgias could

be, hard bunch that group. Whatever. (The Plague was usually for the Great one in London, that S. Pepys wrote about fortunately).

[ND-Dem]

129. but it wasn't the 'black plague'. it was the 'great plague'. (lol at the 'medieval police/sforza'

joke)

[appalachiablue]

137. It certainly was the Great Plague of London like the Great Fire of London, which provided

for rebuilding much of the city. Rough times there in the mid-1600s. Why so many came to the Americas if they could, plus no life there. Cromwell's boys rounded up thousands of Irish and Scot POWs, shipped them to Barbados to the cane fields, known then as to be 'barbadosed'= dealth sentence (but not the Black Death). Lol but not funny. I figured you were maybe 40s, not sure why. Many older ones on here maybe.

[ND-Dem]

140. yes.

[moondust]

114. Calling it

black plague was just my careless mistake.

[appalachiablue]

121. Not a problem, easy to do. And who the heck would think it wrong?! TC.

[The2ndWheel]

148. Globalization has been going on for centuries

and it is the reason for our current predicament.

Not directed to you, but just in general. The same way that history didn't end after the fall of the Soviet Union, history didn't start with Ronald Reagan. If Obama becomes President, everything is going to change! If only Reagan hadn't been President, everything would be great! Existence is far more complex than that. Enough with the Ronald Reagan and 35 years ago.

[moondust]

170. Foreign trade has been going on for centuries.

Last edited Thu Feb 12, 2015, 07:21 PM - Edit history (2)

Countries trading domestically produced goods and raw materials. That was generally good and not what has ravaged the job market and middle class.

It's the closing of thousands of factories and offshoring millions of jobs, lots of automation along the way, and financialization that rewards investment/gambling/insider trading rather than work that have led to the inequality and disappearing "good" job opportunities of today. That all got started pretty much in the 70s and then took off in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s.

I'm so old I can remember when electronics and textile products were mostly "Made in USA."

This article from November 2013 frames it as a "forty year slump" starting around 1974.

[ND-Dem]

179. you don't remember when britain was the 'jobs and industry' leader before ww2? that was an even

longer run than the US's. and before the british took over and impoverished india, it was the world's largest textile manufactory.

Historians have questioned why India did not undergo industrialisation in the nineteenth century in the way that Britain did. In the seventeenth century, India was a relatively urbanised and commercialised nation with a buoyant export trade, devoted largely to cotton textiles, but also including silk, spices, and rice. By the end of the century, India was the world’s main producer of cotton textiles and had a substantial export trade to Britain, as well as many other European countries, via the East India Company. Yet as British cotton industry underwent a technological revolution in the late eighteenth century, the Indian industry stagnated, and industrialisation in India was delayed until the twentieth century.

Historians have suggested that this was because India was still a largely agricultural nation with low wages levels. In Britain, wages were high, so cotton producers had the incentive to invent and purchase expensive new labour-saving technologies. In India, by contrast, wages levels were low, so producers preferred to increase output by hiring more workers rather than investing in technology.[2]

The above explanation contains a serious flaw. The analysis ignores the fact that under British rule, India did not operate in a free and competitive environment. Quite the opposite. Once British rule through the East India Company was consolidated by the late 1700s the British dismantled India's advanced textile industry that was in direct competition to the developing British textile industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj

[appalachiablue]

107. +100

[Octafish]

82. Tim Geithner foamed the runway for the banksters starting in January 2009.

Neil Barofsky, the former special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, has published a new book, “Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street.” It presents a damning indictment of the Obama administration’s execution of the TARP program generally, and of HAMP in particular.
…
By delaying millions of foreclosures, HAMP gave bailed-out banks more time to absorb housing-related losses while other parts of Obama’s bailout plan repaired holes in the banks’ balance sheets. According to Barofsky, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner even had a term for it. HAMP borrowers would “foam the runway” for the distressed banks looking for a safe landing. It is nice to know what Geithner really thinks of those Americans who were busy losing their homes in hard times.

CONTINUED w VIDEO and links and more letters...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/video-geithner-sacrificed-homeowners-to-foam-the-runway-for-the-banks/article/2502982

I'm so old I remember when Democrats used government service to make life better for ALL Americans, not just Wall Street banksters.

[deutsey]

145. My thought exactly...How did anyone think that having Geithner and Summers

on Obama's team would somehow magically translate into benefiting the average American?

They serve, above all, the banksters' interests--the economic royalists, as FDR called them--and then they toss us leftovers and scraps to string us along until their next economic disaster blindsides us.

[Phlem]

95. K&R! K&R! K&R! K&R!

[eridani]

99. Let's not forget that this has been going on for 35 years n/t

[ND-Dem]

100. what has? families in the middle of the income distribution have been earning less since 1979?

http://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/chartbook/Income%20and%20Earnings.pdf

[eridani]

101. Reaganomics laid the groundwork. There was a lot of flatlining before the decline n/t

[ND-Dem]

102. did you look at the chart? specifically, at the yellow historical median family income line?

[eridani]

111. If median income goes up by 13% from 1980 to now, but food and gas are double, minimum

--and health care and college tuition are up by a factor of 11 times, what, in your opinion, has happened to living standards since then?

[ND-Dem]

112. That's all in 2012 dollars. Which takes care of your objections, more or less.

[eridani]

131. No, it does not. Expenses have increased dramatically in REAL terms n/t

[ND-Dem]

132. that's why they used 2012 dollars. those are 'real' terms; IOW, the dollars being compared

are equivalent.

[eridani]

134. You don't seem to be seeing the difference between income and expenditures

Why all the cheerleading for the 1%? Love your inclusion of MEAN incomes. You do realize that if Bill Gates got an allowance of $10 a week, and nine other kids got nothing, the mean allowance is $1?

[ND-Dem]

135. I believe I used MEDIAN income. Can you link me to what you're referring to?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median

[eridani]

136. It's in your own graph reference. And if you really want to be honest, the

--only true measure of the central tendency of a skewed distribution is the MODE.

[ND-Dem]

138. The title of the chart is: "Real Mean and Median Income, Families and Individuals, 1947-2012..."

It contains lines for both mean and median. As I made reference to median in my post headlines, it seemed obvious to me what I was referring to, and the separate lines are very clear in the chart.

Also, divergence between mean "mean" (average) and "median" on the chart provides additional information about skewed distribution. Mode may give information about skewed distribution, but it doesn't tell you where the middle of the distribution is.

In a strongly skewed distribution, what is the best indicator of central tendency?

It is usually inappropriate to use the mean in such situations where your data is skewed. You would normally choose the median or mode, with the median usually preferred.


https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/measures-central-tendency-mean-mode-median-faqs.php

[YoungDemCA]

118. Obama is not a miracle worker

And regarding the article's subject:

Correlation is not causation.

[ND-Dem]

119. is there somewhere in the article anyone claimed obama caused anything?

'middle class decline looms over final years of Obama presidency' doesn't mean Obama caused it.

[YoungDemCA]

122. Obama's Presidency has been a net positive for the vast majority of Americans

I guess if you expect several decades of (bad) policy to be completely changed overnight, it's easy to blame Obama for "not doing enough." Why do we put all the responsibility for this country's fate on one man? Or one office. Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Obama's power is severely limited in many ways, even as he has considerable power in other ways. That may seem contradictory, but then again, politics is quite complicated.

[ND-Dem]

124. is there somewhere the article claims obama caused anything?

[YoungDemCA]

126. Don't be coy.

nt

[ND-Dem]

141. i'm not being coy. it's a serious question. the article doesn't say or imply that obama

personally caused the decline (rather the opposite, it credits him for stopping the economic freefall).

[treestar]

147. The headline sure does

If the article admits this is long term, why the headline referring to the Obama presidency?

[ND-Dem]

150. No, it doesn't. The headline refers to the Obama presidency because wages & net worth are lower

and jobs in the middle have gone. This is the middle-class decline "looming over the final years of the Obama presidency". "Looming over the final years" = simultaneous in time.

Middle class decline looms over final years of Obama presidency


Obama's administration can take credit for stabilizing the U.S. economy, which is growing again and last year added jobs at the fastest clip since 1999.

But for the middle class the scars of the recession still run deep. Federal Reserve survey data show families in the middle fifth of the income scale now earn less and their net worth is lower than when Obama took office.

In the six years through 2013, over the recession and recovery that have spanned Obama's tenure, jobs have been added at the top and bottom of the wage scale, a Reuters analysis of labor statistics shows. In the middle, the economy has shed positions - whether in traditional trades like machining or electrical work, white-collar jobs in human resources, or technical ones like computer operators...

[Hekate]

123. Ronald. Reagan. Good grief, the amnesia is incedible.

[ND-Dem]

125. not seeing the reagan reference.

[Hekate]

128. Uh huh. It's only been pointed out a dozen times already in this thread. nt

[ND-Dem]

130. i don;'t see that either. can you link me?

[Hekate]

133. Poor you just wants to pick a fight, and I don't want to play along. Read your own thread. nt

[ND-Dem]

142. i'm not trying to pick a fight. i don't see the reagan reference, in the article or in the thread.

but I guess you weren't referring to the article, more to me personally.

[guillaumeb]

155. Racist Ronnie Reagan

is not mentioned in the original post, but to ignore the obvious effects of Reagan's revolution is to ignore recent history. Reagan's Presidency was the beginning of the right wing pushback against all of the gains made under Democratic Presidents from Roosevelt on. Whether we are talking about the decline in unionization from a high of approximately 40% in the 1960s to the current level of 12%, to the stagnation of real wages for the bottom 90%, to the massive outsourcing of jobs, to the resurgence of openly racist attitudes and talking points, the seeds of all of these things were well fertilized and watered during Racist Ronnie's Presidency.

[ND-Dem]

175. reagan left office 26 years ago. his presidency may have been the "beginning of the pushback",

but it was followed by more years of democratic presidents than republican ones: 12 years of bushes, 8 years of Clinton, and 8 years of Obama (not yet complete). but apparently Reagan was the only president who mattered.

does the corpse of dead Reagan animate them all?

[guillaumeb]

178. Reagan was a figurehead

but his acting ability was good enough to fool people.

When we talk about Democrats like Clinton and Obama, are we really talking about real progressive alternatives to Republicans or are we, as Ralph Nader has said, talking about 2 sides of the same corporate coin?

Clinton gave us NAFTA, sanctions in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children, and the drama of impeachment based on his creepy sexual tendencies to pursue very young women.

Obama has given us an Insurance company bailout disguised as healthcare reform, a promise to not prosecute torturers from the Bush Presidency, and continuing financial bailouts in the form of quantitative easing. A nice term for buying rotten assets from the banks.

Now we have the prospect of another corporate-friendly Clinton as the Democratic nominee?

I would gladly settle for 2 different national parties instead of 2 corporate parties owned by the 1%.

[Bluenorthwest]

146. Ronald Reagan, his Supply Side Republicans, their Union busting, middle class gutting piracy is

deftly unmentioned in yet another piece about the economy, and yet again it is endorsed by many DUers who are in fact promoting a politician who was a Supply Side Republican, a Reaganomics advocate who made millions and millions under those very policies.
I get uncomfortable when the boosters of a Reagan/Bush voter want to skip Reagan and Bushes and talk about the Democrat's flaws. It's transparent and veers over toward that whole 'blame minorities' thing that Regan and Bush excelled in.

[Stargazer99]

156. And you think the middleclass would do better under Republicans

I've got a Brooklyn bridge you can buy cheap!

[ND-Dem]

157. I do? I think that? Where did you get that information?

[Katashi_itto]

173. I Believe In Hillary! I Believe She Can Finish The Job!

Vote Hillary!

[smirkymonkey]

177. I just found out that I am being laid off.

I guess I am lucky in that I have a few months left to work and that I will get severance if I don't find anything, but the chance that I will find another job making my current salary are very slim. I have been with my company for 10 years. I can't tell you how much I dread going back out into the job market at the age of 51.

[ND-Dem]

180. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you find something relatively comparable. My best wishes to

you and yours.

[smirkymonkey]

181. Thank you so much ND-Dem!

I really appreciate your words of encouragement!