On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Dan M wrote: >> Okay ... so where's the middle class gone to, then? > > It's still there, but whether the middle class has noticeably > improved its > standing over the last 30 years is a argument based on subtle > interpretations of the inflation index. The subtle nature of the > argument > is based on a number of things: > > One discussion is at: > > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3765/is_n3_v18/ai_18824582/pg_2
Huh, that's talking about food, and was written thirteen years ago. While a discussion of food price as one aspect of inflation is certainly relevant, I daresay things have changed considerably in the wake of hundred-buck-a-barrel oil and eight years of borrow-and-spend warfare. > But, even taking that index at face value, every income group, from > the > bottom quintile to the top quintile has improved. The top has > improved a > whole lot more, but the middle class has not gone away. The distance > between the top and the middle has increased, but that's separate > issue. It is, in some ways, but it might not be in others. The middle, I think it's fair to say, has shrunk; and there are some services that we might consider humanely desirable that are available only to the monied, or at least the privileged. For instance, while it's indubitable that even the poor in the US are doing considerably better than the poor were in, say, 1931, I'd be surprised to learn they live significantly longer or have better educations. The latter is easily addressable in any society with as much money to waste as we clearly have; the former is perhaps more problematic. While the possibility for longer life has improved greatly, a lot of that longer life presupposes the conditions of relatively low stress, high-quality diet, decent (but not overtaxing) exercise and extensive healthcare that can accommodate -- quickly and properly -- both conventional and contingent conditions: Not just the regular diseases and such, but catastrophic events such as stroke or heart attack, for which prognosis is heavily dependent on speed of care; and cancer, which requires phenomenal amounts of money to treat. These major events are essentially life-changers for the privileged; for the poor -- and for an increasing number of middle-class individuals with low or no insurance -- they are effectively fatal. This renders the ability to remain alive and in decent health something that is given only to those fortunate enough to be wealthy, which is absolutely contrary to the egalitarian ideals of the US. I'm not trying to suggest that there's something necessarily wrong with the state of healthcare in the US today (I think there is, but that's not relevant to issues of costs). But in order to have the higher-quality diet, higher-quality care and high-tech advanced treatments that turn myocardial infarction into little more than a weekend inconvenience, money is irreplaceable. Especially with advancing age, life tends to become very expensive. Thus even someone who has lived comfortably most of his life might find himself facing destitution in his seventies because of the single syllable "Hmm" from his proctologist. That's only one example, of course; what I'm suggesting is that "middle class" is (as you suggest) hard to define. I've seen ample examples of people making twice minimum wage who still cannot cover all their needs, and there are even more people making less than that. At my income level I'm probably arguably in the middle class bracket, and the sorry truth is that I'm in the minority in this community. To dovetail with the Wal-Mart discussion, I see an employer that squeezes out competition in small communities, then employs only part- time workers (35 hrs/wk) so as to avoid having to pay any benefits. This does not in any way help the wage base in this community improve; it only guarantees a perpetuation of the poverty. Lower prices on clothing and food (which aren't actually significantly lower; Wal-Mart has a few loss leaders but the overall prices of items in their stores aren't better than any other retail outlet's) at the expense of better employment, retirement and benefits packages is a classic example of the cliché about being penny wise and pound foolish. It's a short-term mindset that is not going to be of benefit to this community in another three or so decades, and I do not have any reason to think my community is unique in this regard. That's the problem I have with pure-market solutions. They embody no foresight, and do not take into account the suffering of the individual humans whose lives are adversely affected by the fluctuations of business. This might be a useful way to run a business, but it is an absolutely unacceptable way to structure a society. And in a society that is increasingly privatizing, that's something of grave concern. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
