sure, the stock market has been going on an upward trajectory at all
lol
The supposed "shrinking" of the middle class is due completely to people graduating to higher classes, not lower.
Here's a more detailed look, from the same Urban Institute
![]()
The supposed "shrinking" of the middle class is due completely to people graduating to higher classes, not lower.
hmmmmm
![]()
.
Whatever the metric 20% have graduated from Middle to Upper Middle classification.
However the 10.6% gain of the rich is on the back of the lower middle and the poor. The most vulnerable. (LowerMid - 8 / Poor -3 )
Telling me, if this upper mobility was real we would see it from, at the least, Lower Mid to Mid.
Should we be growing the middle class as you assert, we would show gains across the board.
This furthers my point that mobility is restricted to the top tiers of the economy
Like I said earlier, this graph shows the economy is serving only 2 of the 5 economic classifications.
the upper 2.
Is that sustainable ?
Would be curious to see what the cut off middle to upper middle is -- location,status,age,demographic.
That was why I was looking for the Urban Institute article that somewhere accompanies the graph
You need to look at the post #241.
More people are moving out of poor and lower middle. More people are moving out of middle to upper-middle. And more people are moving out of upper-middle to rich.
By any way you slice, this is a good thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are arguing that it would be better if more and more people stayed in middle class, rather than moving upward? If so, why do you think that is better?
You need to look at the post #241.
More people are moving out of poor and lower middle. More people are moving out of middle to upper-middle. And more people are moving out of upper-middle to rich.
By any way you slice, this is a good thing.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are arguing that it would be better if more and more people stayed in middle class, rather than moving upward? If so, why do you think that is better?
You need to look at the post #241.
Link for context ?
Therefore tax cuts were bad?
57 and julio and goldy and jpx has a right to ATT's profits.
Indeed: workers do have a right to a greater share in the profits derived from the surplus value of their labor.
I've never understood the Republican aversion to unions in the private sector. I just spent a few days with a couple of relatives who each worked loyally with the same employer for 40+ years. Now they have a decent retirement income thanks to the pensions they receive because their unions negotiated for them. Both companies made plenty of money and are still going strong, and both retirees are still active members of the economy due to their disposable income. What's the problem? Is this still just left over from the old Tammany Hall "voter turnout" jobs the unions pulled for Democrats centuries ago, or what?
Indeed: workers do have a right to a greater share in the profits derived from the surplus value of their labor.