WSJ's own graph belies American Enterprise Inst. B.S. about middle class.
The recent Wall Street Journal editorial ('About That Disappearing Middle Class', Jan. 12, p. A16) seems to blatantly close eyes and ears to the actual data when it yaps in its sub-header:
"Yes, the middle class is hollowing out - because more are rising upward."
Expatiating:
"We're pleased to report the American middle class is indeed "hollowing out" - because ever more Americans are earning their way into higher income brackets. That runs counter to today's populist gloom on the left and the right."
The "core middle class" in the piece is defined as having incomes in the range: "$67,000 - $133,000" and upper middle class as "$400,000 upward."
But the AEI maestros who arrived at this brilliant conclusion, i.e. of more moving into the $400k + category, evidently totally left out the millions who've fallen out of it since 2020. Including millions of older workers near retirement, i.e.
Mass Layoffs Targeting Older Workers - The Collapse of Retirement for Millions
Indeed, a separate WSJ article on the same date ('Job Seekers Feel Stuck In Stagnant Labor Market', p. A3) introduces us to several workers who'd been in the 'upper' earning category but since dumped out of their high earning jobs and forced to scrabble and chase multiple gig work. People like double Master degree (in marketing and human resources management) recipient Monique Battista of Dallas. One of "more than 5.3 million higher earning Americans now working part time."
Do the AEI gurus factor these folks into their mix or are they placed in a special category, i.e. "temporarily part of hollowed out but maybe soon restored to upper middle class"? I doubt it. The chances of these folks like Monique and another former high earner Jeff Lind, returning to their former income glory are slim and none. In the case of Lind, we learned he'd been taking in $250k/yr. "as "a head of institutional sales for an injectable drugs maker." But since being laid off he has:
"applied to more than 800 jobs without luck, including delivery and retail jobs".
To cover his bills poor Jeff has: "taken $100,000 out of his 401(k) paying $40,000 in taxes and early withdrawal penalties."
Does Jeff believe he'll soon return to the gloried ranks of the uppers? Hardly. He suspects he will be consigned to the realm of lower middle-class earners indefinitely. Hell, he's still trying to pick up retail and Door Dash delivery work!
As for Monique, she manages to earn perhaps four fifths of what she earned before her release from her high earning marketing job, But that entails: "Arriving by 4:30 a.m. each day at a Dallas client's apartment for an hour long personal training session, then logging online by 9 a.m. to work as a part-time marketing assistant, before hurrying to n Amazon warehouse for a 6 1/2 hour shift." Her workday finally ends at 10:30 p.m. Lots of energy used to try to avoid being part of the hollowed out.
All this shows that while the eggheads at AEI can pick and curate all the data they want to try to present an optimistic profile of upward mobility, it is all mostly bunkum in the end. It either ignores the top earners who had made it - temporarily(like Jeff and Monique) briefly made it then fell back. Or it blindly includes those in the top earning class category - but only by dint of multiple family members doing multiple gig jobs. Not, as we're led to believe, escaping the middle class by having one grand income of $400, 000 or more. Oh, and having it permanently.
Let's also bear in mind that BLS stats after 6 months no longer show the unemployed, so for all we know the AEI stats could be badly skewed (such as not factoring in Jeff Lind's current unemployed state, i.e. no longer earning the big bucks.) The very existence of the graph at the top, showing the K-economy, clearly shows the AEI study is hogwash. To be specific, how can you have the top 20% able to afford: "designer handbags, cashmere sweaters and $620 jeans, they don’t walk out with just one item. They get one for each of their houses."
And 80% having to go to thrift stores.
The fact of the matter is this very graph does indeed show the hollowing out of the middle class the WSJ denies, and not from upward mobility. If the latter was the case, as opposed to the real downward mobility, you would see at least 30% in the upper tier, not 20%.
See Also:
Brane Space: A Skewed Economic System (Weighted to the Wealthy) Explains Why Gen Z Is Embracing "Financial Nihilism"
Yesterday, both Trump and his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development told us that 50-year home mortgages may soon be a thing. While seemingly insane (you could end up paying more than three times the cost of the house and never escape the burden of debt before you die), this is just the latest iteration of one of American businesses’ most profitable scams: the rental economy.
It’s a growing threat to the American middle class that rarely gets named, even as it reshapes our lives every day. Over the past two decades, it’s snuck in quietly, disguised as convenience, efficiency, and “innovation.”
As a result, nothing is “ours” any more. Instead, we’re renting our lives away.
There was a time when you bought things.
No comments:
Post a Comment