The Middle Class in America Is Radically Shrinking. Here Are the Stats to Prove it

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
From The Business Insider
Michael Snyder is editor of theeconomiccollapseblog.com
The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.
So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.
Here are the statistics to prove it:
• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.
Giant Sucking Sound
The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker 10 times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool.
What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.
So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.
What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about six unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.
Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.
But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.
The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.

Soon to be gone like the dinosaur. Thanks to President Obama and his liberal horde.
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,336
66
48
51
Das Kapital
Why should the US gov peanlize a corporation for taking advantage of trade benefits that they helped implement through international organizations?
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
American first. If they want any consumers, they should provide jobs, not reduce qualified workers to fast food chain workers. If the companies want to move outside the U.S., let them we will rebuild our economy around our needs. No more poor quality foreign products. (poison pet food, Chinese wall board, lead based toys etc.)
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America....
Statistics like this are why right-wing toenail-suckers like Harper want to break down information gathering services like Stats Canada.

Accurate statistics show that the north American economy is being turned into a form of "Friendly Fascism" called Plutonomy, where a small percentage of people own and control everything, while the rest eke out a minimal, barely survivable living as peasants, and plutocrats find it annoying when ordinary people start becoming aware of facts like that, because plutocrats fear that people might actually get a brain and start doing things to reign in the plutocrats in order to maintain a middle-class.

Consequently, plutocrats will strive to suppress and/or shut down sources of accurate information, and that's why Harper is trying to gut Stats Canada, rated by the London Economist as the best statistical information gathering service of the G8.

Stats Canada is so good that the *other* G8 nations *buy* information from it, which means it's a sources of national income to Canada, but the plutocrats don't want the peasants to know too much about what's really going on.

Now... if Harper had just squiggled things so that only the plutocrats could see the information that Stats Canada gathers and processes, *then* Harper and his masters would *love* the service and would be striving to *extend* the depth and degree into which is can dig for details of the national picture.

Why should the US gov peanlize a corporation for taking advantage of trade benefits that they helped implement through international organizations?
That's like asking why a doctor should penalize a cancer for taking advantage of its propensity for unencumbered cell division.
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
Statistics like this are why right-wing toenail-suckers like Harper want to break down information gathering services like Stats Canada.

Accurate statistics show that the north American economy is being turned into a form of "Friendly Fascism" called Plutonomy, where a small percentage of people own and control everything, while the rest eke out a minimal, barely survivable living as peasants, and plutocrats find it annoying when ordinary people start becoming aware of facts like that, because plutocrats fear that people might actually get a brain and start doing things to reign in the plutocrats in order to maintain a middle-class.

Consequently, plutocrats will strive to suppress and/or shut down sources of accurate information, and that's why Harper is trying to gut Stats Canada, rated by the London Economist as the best statistical information gathering service of the G8.

Stats Canada is so good that the *other* G8 nations *buy* information from it, which means it's a sources of national income to Canada, but the plutocrats don't want the peasants to know too much about what's really going on.

Now... if Harper had just squiggled things so that only the plutocrats could see the information that Stats Canada gathers and processes, *then* Harper and his masters would *love* the service and would be striving to *extend* the depth and degree into which is can dig for details of the national picture.


That's like asking why a doctor should penalize a cancer for taking advantage of its propensity for unencumbered cell division.

Seriously, you're a comedian aren't you? This is just a shtick you do right?

Well, as several philosophers have noted, when faced with a tragedy or a dilemma, the options are to laugh or else cry, so, when presenting facts that might be difficult for others to wrap their minds around, it's easier, and nicer, to do it in a way where they can laugh about it, instead of just cry.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Soon to be gone like the dinosaur. Thanks to President Obama and his liberal horde.

So, Obama is the one who brought you Free Trade? He was the one who famously said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. He's the one who caused:

66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.

Seriously? The gap between rich and poor has been growing for decades.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Obama has been in office long enough to assume the responsibility, no reason to blame past Presidents, they made their mistakes and moved on. Yes, the rich made the most money, but also created the most jobs. Now the goverment wants to take more from them, for what? It is not the goverment that creates and supports a middle class, it is the private sector. (those rich dudes were always envy and try to steal from.)
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
Obama has been in office long enough to assume the responsibility, no reason to blame past Presidents,

You're joking, right?

The process of changing all the laws so that money would flow from the middle-class to the rich took years to implement, starting with Reagan and continuing with both Bushes, over a period of time spanning 16 years for all Republican administrations combined.

The rewriting of all the laws was very complex, and there's no way a President would be able to un-do all the tinkering and "deregulation" in even one full term of four years, much less the less-than two years that Obama's been in.

It's going to take more than the less-than two years the Obama's been in to do things like renegotiate NAFTA, and re-implement the important parts of the regulations that were "deregulated" out of existence under Reagan/Bush, etc.

they made their mistakes and moved on.
They were not "mistakes", because they knew exactly what they were doing (although it's possible that Reagan didn't quite understand what the implications to the middle class would be from what he was doing... he wasn't that bright... and come to think of it neither was Bush Jr., but Bush Sr. should have understood what he was doing)...

... But yeah, after doing those favors to their puppet-masters at the expense of the middle-class, indeed, they just moved on.

Yes, the rich made the most money, but also created the most jobs.
No they didn't. During the years of deregulation and corporate-downsizing under the Reagan-Bush's, it was suddenly out-of-work middle management starting their own little operations on a shoe-string that was "creating" most of the jobs.

Job creation by the rich was deliberately minimized specifically so that the rich could become richer.

There was a time when big-business would justify its existence in the name of job-creation, but that hasn't been true in a long time. Remember the era of "downsizing" that happened in the 90's, when vast numbers of middle-management and administration lost their corporate jobs because their functions had been replaced with computerization?

If big-business had things its way, they wouldn't create *any* jobs... it would all be done by robots. They only hire people when have to.

(Which is ironic, and always kind'a cracks me up, because who are they expecting to sell their products to when nobody's got a job to make the money to buy their stuff.)

And with the exception of automotive, those industries that actually make things with human labor outsourced all those jobs to China.
Now the government wants to take more from them, for what?
Well, would the government be "taking more" if it just started taking what it used to when the US economy was the healthiest and most booming back in the 50's and 60s?
It is not the goverment that creates and supports a middle class, it is the private sector.
Actually, it was the unions that created the middle class.

The only role the government had to do with that was when the corporations tried to bust up strikes with hired thugs, Roosevelt sent in national guardsmen to stand between the strikers and the strike-breakers.
(those rich dudes were always envy and try to steal from.)
Do you *really* think that the only motivation that people have to try and draw a living wage from a job is because they're *jealous* of the corporate owners?

I've worked for big-businesses owned by super-rich families, and I even got to be friends of members of the family, and it never occurred to me to give a tinkers damn how rich they were as long as they payed me what the job was worth.

I couldn't care less if "becoming rich" was what they wanted to do with their lives, as long as they didn't hurt anyone else, and as long as they paid living wages for the human labor they required... otherwise... hey... if becoming rich is what floats your boat, go wild... just don't make a mess of the civilization around you in the process.

I honestly don't understand that part of how the rich blame workers for being jealous when the workers ask to be paid enough to live on.

Hmm... maybe that's what motivates the owners... maybe what's driving them is seeing other rich families and seeing it all as a competition of who can be the richest, and they go on to project their own motivations onto the workers, because they think everyone's driven by a competitive game defined by who can have the biggest number in a bank, the same as they are, when in fact the majority just want to make enough to have an adequate middle-class standard of living so they can focus on their families.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
The Obama stimulus packages and plans have not given me even the remotest hint that he is trying to change anything, just adding a few more hands in the pot, but no plans yet to help the middle class, only take more from them.
 

Omicron

Privy Council
Jul 28, 2010
1,694
3
38
Vancouver
The Obama stimulus packages and plans have not given me even the remotest hint that he is trying to change anything, just adding a few more hands in the pot, but no plans yet to help the middle class, only take more from them.
In the first place, it wasn't just an Obama "stimulus package"...

ALL leaders of all nations affected by the loss of the thirteen trillion dollars - triggered by the double-whammy of the sinkhole-quicksand of playing with Derivatives as an investment tool combined with granting variable-rate mortgages to people who needed the cash but who couldn't afford to pay the mortgage back when the variable-rate was cranked up to a level too high for them to afford - who pumped money into the economy to keep it from collapsing into a full-scale Depression.

In the second place, nobody - not Obama, not Harper, not anyone - has said that the "stimulus spending" was supposed to *change* anything. It was *just* to stop everyone's economies from spiraling down into a total economic collapse of full-scale all-out Depression. It was just to hold the line.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Being somewhat older than a few of the forum mebers I know that this is not a new development. The middle class in the US peaked in the 1950s and has been in gradual decline ever since due to a multiplicity of factors that favour the wealthiest 10% of Americans. Nothing will change until Americans (and Canadians as the situation here is similar) demand that their governments change the tax structure of the country, a most difficult proposition given the tremendous power of those who favour the status quo.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Obama has been in office long enough to assume the responsibility, no reason to blame past Presidents, they made their mistakes and moved on. Yes, the rich made the most money, but also created the most jobs. Now the goverment wants to take more from them, for what? It is not the goverment that creates and supports a middle class, it is the private sector. (those rich dudes were always envy and try to steal from.)
Nuts. Economies have been built around capitalism, corporatism, consumerism, etc. for centuries: about 3 or 4 in North Am. Humans built this sort of society long before the USA even had presidents.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Nuts. Economies have been built around capitalism, corporatism, consumerism, etc. for centuries: about 3 or 4 in North Am. Humans built this sort of society long before the USA even had presidents.

No argument from me there, it is just that we are heading back to the feudal system of goverment. Where we have the very rich and the very poor. No middle class to speak of, similar to modern day Mexico. (less all the chaos in Mexico so far)

Being somewhat older than a few of the forum mebers I know that this is not a new development. The middle class in the US peaked in the 1950s and has been in gradual decline ever since due to a multiplicity of factors that favour the wealthiest 10% of Americans. Nothing will change until Americans (and Canadians as the situation here is similar) demand that their governments change the tax structure of the country, a most difficult proposition given the tremendous power of those who favour the status quo.
I would prefer that the goverment leave the tax structure alone, as it was before President Obama came to office. Raising the taxes will only cause more poverty and the Robin Hood syndrome again. (Robberies by individuals who just want to stay in their homes and feed their families.)
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
0
36




New trade pact will hurt U.S. wages



Trade agreements, while typically touted as good for the economy and therefore employment, have had the effect of pitting American workers against competitors in low wage countries, thereby driving wages down in the U.S.

According to the report, "In isolation, the annual one-hundredth of 1 percentage point of growth for 10 years would be better than no additional growth. However, growth is not the only effect of trade agreements. There are winners and losers from trade, and research has shown that trade contributes to inequality. In fact, it would take only a very small contribution to inequality due to trade to wipe out all of the gains that most workers would get from this agreement."

Supporters of the agreement say it will increase U.S. trade intensity in the pact by 6 percent over 15 years. By looking at records from 1990 to 2007 -- when U.S. trade intensity increased by the same rate - Rosnick found this had a significant impact on wage inequality in America. This happens because U.S. workers must compete with lower-wage workers in other countries.

Rosnick also found that the workers most likely to be hurt by this are median wage earners. Those in the bottom quarter of earnings won't be much affected because their incomes are determined by the minimum wage. Top income earners, who are more protected from international competition, will likely see incomes rise as a result of TPP expansion of the terms and enforcement of copyrights and patents.

"Most U.S. workers are likely to lose out from the TPP," CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot said today. "This may come as no surprise after 20 years of NAFTA and an even-longer period of trade policy designed to put lower- and middle-class workers in direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world, but it's still important to examine the economic projections."


more

Report: New trade pact will hurt U.S. wages - CBS News

Companies lay off thousands, then demand immigration reform for new labor







On Tuesday, the chief human resources officers of more than 100 large corporations sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi urging quick passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

The officials represent companies with a vast array of business interests: General Electric, The Walt Disney Company, Marriott International, Hilton Worldwide, Hyatt Hotels Corporation, McDonald's Corporation, The Wendy's Company, Coca-Cola, The Cheesecake Factory, Johnson & Johnson, Verizon Communications, Hewlett-Packard, General Mills, and many more. All want to see increases in immigration levels for low-skill as well as high-skill workers, in addition to a path to citizenship for the millions of immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally.

A new immigration law, the corporate officers say, "would be a long overdue step toward aligning our nation's immigration policies with its workforce needs at all skill levels to ensure U.S. global competitiveness." The officials cite a publication of their trade group, the HR Policy Association, which calls for immigration reform to "address the reality that there is a global war for talent." The way for the United States to win that war for talent, they say, is more immigration.


more

Companies lay off thousands, then demand immigration reform for new labor | WashingtonExaminer.com
 

Highball

Council Member
Jan 28, 2010
1,170
1
38
This is all due to the great American Swindle engineered by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paulson and numerous global financial giants. Paulson even go a bonus for the successful oversight (as US Treasurer, retired from Goldman-Sachs) who was reinstated and unretired by GS and gioven a $25 mil bonus for his performance) and we taxpayers generously provided that money with careful guidance from Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. Both soon retired on a full allowance and then took other prestigious positions. Dodd in the Movie Industry and Barney as Male Madam of a Male Bordello in DC serving his fellow Congressional's exclusively. I'll bet we the taxpayer even get to pay their tabs with Barney today?
 

Christianna

Electoral Member
Dec 18, 2012
868
0
16
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
Ah yes I remember the first president Bush saying it didn't matter if people made potato chips or computer chips. Which one do we think pays a living wage?
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
The American peoples have brought this all upon themselves through their acts and omissions. Americans are enduring the foreseeable consequences of those acts and omissions. Voters who elected Barack Obama twice deserve what they get.