All of the polarizing social commentary aside, two parties have two very different approaches to expanding the middle class. I'm interested in learning how many on here think we established a middle class initially.
Who built the middle class and how?
- Thread starter Boomboom521
- Start date
The "middle" of anything is an aggregate of two extremes...in this case wealthy and poor. I'd argue the vast expanse of the so called "middle class" in America is a direct result of the expansion/creation of wealth in this country. The more wealth that's been created, the larger our "middle" became. In some cases a middle class income is defined as a six figure income...for some affluent parts of the country this is common.
Here in Atlanta, our median income is approaching 60K.
http://www.forbes.com/places/ga/atlanta/
One thing is certain, Government doesn't create wealth that expands the "middle class". If anything, it has restricted it's growth through confiscatory taxation of the earnings among wealth creators & generators.
Here in Atlanta, our median income is approaching 60K.
http://www.forbes.com/places/ga/atlanta/
One thing is certain, Government doesn't create wealth that expands the "middle class". If anything, it has restricted it's growth through confiscatory taxation of the earnings among wealth creators & generators.
The middle is not an aggregate of two extremes. The middle is separate from the two extremes.
The middle class doesn't result from expansion of wealth. We have seen evidence of that in the last twenty years. The wealthy are getting wealthier while the income of the middle class is stagnant.
Then how do you know what it is unless you compare it to the other two extremes?
Without wealth being created, how does a middle even exist?
Here's what it means in housing...a comparison between the highest and the lowest prices in any given market.
http://www.realestate.com.au/advice/median-house-price-what-does-it-mean/
No different for incomes.
Was it you or PATX that didn't understand the simple definition of median a couple of weeks ago? I'm thinking it was PATX.
Good lord it took forty posts to get it through his thick skull.
I wasn't involved in that scrum so I have no idea what you're talking about countryroads89. But that's a different question. Determining the "middle" of something requires an understanding of what the opposite extremes are...logically.
Seasonal temperatures, wellness of meat cooking on a barbecue grill, Fuel economy standards, grade point averages, adult obesity, crop yields, College football team scoring....anything you are trying to measure.
Unless you understand what the highest high is or the lowest low is, it is impossible to determine what the middle of any of those measurements could ever be.
Quit lying. I misread the table. I know both median and average. For one of the dumbest posters on the board, it is ironic you question my intelligence.
The middle class grew due to one factor, innovation. Innovation that started the Industrial Revolution. Jobs, jobs, jobs. As high school graduates and even non high school graduates found nice paying jobs, they could feel their families, save some money, build a house and yes send their kids to college. And as famlies made more money, they spent some of it creating growing consumer demand and yes, more jobs.
American was making things. Cars, planes, ships, energy, clothing, electronics, appliances, homes, etc.
The GI bill certainly helped the military get an education but it was not the single biggest factor in growing the middle class.
Good article:
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/r...oots-of-the-middle-class/stories/201111200308
American was making things. Cars, planes, ships, energy, clothing, electronics, appliances, homes, etc.
The GI bill certainly helped the military get an education but it was not the single biggest factor in growing the middle class.
Good article:
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/r...oots-of-the-middle-class/stories/201111200308
The reason I brought this up was that there are many different people and happenings that can we can attribute the building of the middle class to in America.
Wartime production. The GI Bill. Innovations in technology and business. The interstate system. Public works projects. Massive expansion of investment. Labor unions.
Look at labor unions and social security for example. Once vilified as attempts to destroy capitalism, these endeavors were labeled as communist and socialist ideals. Both are examples of a blending of business and labor, personal financial liberty and government assistance into successful components of the American experience. Without allowing business the freedom to expand, innovate, and produce, none of it would have been possible in the first place.
Wartime production helped moved the US out of the depression, but the many public works projects FDR implemented helped as well. Examples of how isolationism could have hurt us, and big government undertakings helped. They stand in contrast to situations today that have had opposite effects.
The point is that America is a blending. It is taking a little of everything in order to create a successful recipe. As we get more polarized, the political civil war threatens that success. Open minds. And appreciate the other side once in a while.
Wartime production. The GI Bill. Innovations in technology and business. The interstate system. Public works projects. Massive expansion of investment. Labor unions.
Look at labor unions and social security for example. Once vilified as attempts to destroy capitalism, these endeavors were labeled as communist and socialist ideals. Both are examples of a blending of business and labor, personal financial liberty and government assistance into successful components of the American experience. Without allowing business the freedom to expand, innovate, and produce, none of it would have been possible in the first place.
Wartime production helped moved the US out of the depression, but the many public works projects FDR implemented helped as well. Examples of how isolationism could have hurt us, and big government undertakings helped. They stand in contrast to situations today that have had opposite effects.
The point is that America is a blending. It is taking a little of everything in order to create a successful recipe. As we get more polarized, the political civil war threatens that success. Open minds. And appreciate the other side once in a while.
I disagree with your characterizations of the long term positive benefits either Labor Unions or Social security have had on our overall economic health.
Social security by any definition is nothing more than a failed ponzi scheme and is failing because it is both inadequately funded and poorly designed as a viable retirement plan, Unions have done nothing more than add needless costs to both labor and capital which have restricted growth and wages.
Both use forced systems of participation that do not add value to either our Nation's or corporate bottom lines.
I do share your belief that in order for our economy to grow exponentially, we need a consensus on those programs that not only work but provide the greatest benefit to the most people at the lowest possible costs to both taxpayer's and consumers.
That consensus is admittedly difficult to reach because you have people with agendas that do not have that focus, but the free market with informed free people is the best solution to find what that consensus is or should be.
Your looking at today, not history. Without social security the amount of elderly in my grandparents and parents generation that would have died in poverty would have been staggering. Without labor unions, the wages for workers in America would have never reached a level that allowed suburbia America to flourish. These programs helped build the middle class. They are now facing a critical point in their existence in which they are running counterproductive. The amount of retirees versus the workforce for social security, and the contribution of pushing jobs overseas from union gains. It is a time in which these programs must be evaluated and adapted. But if you cannot see their contributions in the past....you're blinded by political ideology and partisanship.
No boomer, I'm looking at the results. The Left is always long on intentions, but very short on evaluations of their always admirable (in most cases) social objectives. So you simply cannot look at either the promise of Social security as it was proposed in 1935, or its results after more than 4 decades in operation and argue that Americans would have otherwise "died in poverty" without it. Many today forced to live on its meager payouts are indeed suffering in poverty and in some cases dying because it does not provide for their overall comfort or health.
Compare its rate of return to almost any other financial instrument for retirement available on the market, and it is a demonstrably poorer retirement instrument...under performing even the worst private investments over time.
It's the same result with labor unions. There is a reason most modern hi-tech companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and even Left winger Elon Musk's entrepreneurial endeavors are fiercely non-union in their operations today. It's because Unions only exist to perpetuate the power of a few selected leaders who dictate how a company should direct its resources. They do not exist to improve the overall corporate bottom line, only to grow its membership ranks to wield power for the hand selected leadership either politically or personally. If Unions hold such promise for workers, why do they force membership? Shouldn't workers be free to decide if the Union is best to represent their interests with the company?
I grew up in Western New York, which at one time was a rich manufacturing base for heavy industry like steel and automobiles. I watched Union demands and environmental regulations virtually shut down the powerful steel making operations in Lackawanna, Tonawanda, and Hamburg. I saw how Union demands forced many auto companies to their knees, causing GM, Ford, Saginaw steering gear, Harrison radiator, Trico, Carlite glass, Dupont, and a host of other major auto manufacturers and suppliers to either leave New York State for the non union South, or America altogether for Mexico or China because they simply could no longer meet Union demands that did nothing more than add costs to their Labor & products so much so they could no longer operate profitably.
When Henry Ford created the assembly line to build the Model T, he did so in part so more Americans could afford to actually buy the car he had created. It did no good for Ford to build a car in such low quantity and at such high cost that no one could afford to buy it. Henry Ford saw mass production through the assembly line as a cheaper, faster, more efficient way to build more Model T's in greater volume, and he employed more workers to build them who could then earn enough money to buy one for themselves because they had a good paying job.
That miracle of innovation from private entrepreneurship among others was the engine that drove the building of our middle class, and Unions or Social security have done nothing to build on that legacy...they have in fact done more to undermine it in my opinion.
How much wealth would have been passed from one generation to the next if parent's retirement and medical costs had to be covered by their children. Insurance, safety, 401k Matches, weekends, holidays, wages that can support college tuition for children....all thanks to union efforts. You trust business WAY TOO MUCH. You either own a business, owned one at some point, or are just so entrenched in your hatred for the left that you don't see the facts. Maybe business would have gotten there on its own....I don't think so....but thanks to unions, we didn't need them to.
I reiterate that we are in a new era in which many of these effective initiatives are facing a point of critical adaptation. Without a change in the structure of social security and unions...they will continue to be counterproductive. But to act as if they didn't serve a positive purpose in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and even into the 80's and 90's is incorrect.
I reiterate that we are in a new era in which many of these effective initiatives are facing a point of critical adaptation. Without a change in the structure of social security and unions...they will continue to be counterproductive. But to act as if they didn't serve a positive purpose in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and even into the 80's and 90's is incorrect.
This was my point. To say that the middle class was built by one component of American history or one figure in American history is foolish. It was a combination of many things that came from both Republican and Democratic initiatives and ideology. When we cannot recognize how the balance helps us, we are risking failure as a society. You are an example of how angry and polarized our electorate is today.
Boomer, you're the one who insisted everyone would be "dead" without Social Security. You can't say that, you don't know that, you can't even suggest that especially if you examine where the program stands today vs how it was promised.
There are many other factors that have contributed to the growth of the middle class, and compared to Social Security, it doesn't measure as a blip on the radar screen.
Which do you think had more of an impact on the growth of middle class wages and incomes...Social Security or Henry Ford's assembly line?
The invention in 1947 of the transistor by brilliant scientists John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Shockley Bardeen, or Roosevelt's WPA 10 years earlier?
The advancement of commercial Aviation and flight (which was fueled in part by the way from transistor radio) or Roosevelt's "new deal" policies that actually prolonged the Depression?
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409
You're just hermetically sealed to Leviathan Government under which you believe nothing else worthwhile can ever happen in a Free society. I am suggesting it's always been Free people left free to innovate, create, and produce in their own interests who have always found answers to make their lives and ultimately our country better. All Government does in my opinion is get in the way of our progress & innovation, or gum up the works trying to direct us to do what we already know how to do on our own without their needless meddling.
Last edited:
Alt....this was not an attempt to measure what was better. This was an attempt to recognize that both left and right contributed.
I never said everyone would be "dead" without social security. I said many people would have died (meaning naturally) in gut wrenching poverty. I would have stepped up for my family, as many other Americans would have, and my families ability to get out of debt and build wealth would have been substantially effected.
Only one of the two of us have chosen to not recognize how the other's mentality has contributed to American success.
I understand the point you were trying to make boomer, and I agree with you there has been collaboration in some cases between Left and Right over the proper direction for the nation. We saw that after 9/11, when we all put politics aside and pulled together to protect our Homeland. That was great. I wonder who killed that Spirit of cooperation?
I agree with you we need to pull together...but who doesn't want that? I'm on the Right, and if we can agree on what works I don't care who proposes it. Honestly.
If we're asking what is best for us my argument is and always been Freedom boomboom. Freedom works. Freedom is us...we are the reason America works. The more we have our Freedom, the better off we will be in my opinion.
I'm opposed to so much Government that our Freedom is restricted. As I said and as I always will argue...we know what works best for us. We don't need bureaucrats deciding for us what that is. Government didn't invent the Telephone, T-V, or Twitter. We're better off with all 3, and all I see now is Government control or attempts to control all 3 which does nothing to help us build the consensus we need to find in order to make all 3 work better for us. All of those I'd argue have more to do with the growth of our middle class, and wealth creation than any Government program or handout like Social Security.
Join me in desiring more Freedom boomer...come on in...the water's fine my Man!
Last edited:
Unfortunately boomer, as smart as you are...you don't understand what I'm saying. Even less of what I believe is the ultimate solution to your desires for us to "come together".
Oh no I get it. The government should just be the CIA, FBI, the military and Republicans that do nothing but restrict actions of the American people that do not align with Judeo-Christian values of decency and normality. Businesses and corporations should be allowed to operate unfettered and unrestricted and basically unregulated. Because in the end, everybody is good and cares for one another and will do right by one another. At least once all the bad guys with guns are shot by good guys with guns, and everyone converts to Christianity. Tell me people on the left are the only ones with idealism
And you don't trust them at all boomer. but who are businesses? You act as if they are detached anthropods who aren't run by for and to the benefit of other people.
If Union membership is so great boomboom, why don't they allow workers to organize freely? Why do they "force" membership and dues onto those who may wish not to be represented? Why do modern companies, especially hi-tech companies and Foreign manufacturers not encourage or prefer Unions for their businesses or employees?
The only sector of American employment where Union membership is growing or remains relatively stable is with Government workers. AFSCME, NEA, AFGE, and a host of others who are forced to join, pay dues, and ultimately support their leadership's political agendas. But this is not surprising to me boomer, because Government workers don't have a "market" to operate under, they don't have "competitors", they don't have to show "profits", they don't pay "shareholders" they don't have to be sensitive to cost efficiencies or even labor per say because as long as taxpayers are funding their operations, they essentially get a blank check to make nothing. they don't produce anything of any material value or create any products which require customers to purchase over someone else's product.
So it's reasonable for me to assume boomer why Labor Unions are firmly entrenched inside Leviathan which remains antithetical to the basic synergies which drive the free market private sector. If Unions are so confident in their ability to survive in the free market offering workers their best chances to improve working conditions and wages, why not let them join or leave freely?
Nope boomer, just stay within the limits of the Constitution...that'll settle everything else you're so worried about. There is a reason the Founders wanted the Government limited. The way it operates now with the ruling class restricting our Freedom is the reason why.
I'm glad the Founders both trusted the people and granted them the right to overthrow that very Government you place so much trust in. I think they were right, and you boomboom521 are sadly mistaken in your distrust of the people who ultimately, thankfully, still have Constitutional authority over the Government and every right to limit it as much as they feel is necessary to protect their Liberty.
And yes I do believe through morality we can handle everything else, even the heathens who think it's Christians who are all screwed up.
I hear your points atl, but sometimes talking to you has no point. I have said twice now in this thread that unions and social security are reaching a point where they are becoming counterproductive and need to adapt. I do not live in a world of absolutes at all.
SS was never intended to be a retirement plan. It was always intended to be a retirement supplement.
It is failing because Republicans have robbed from it.
Failed ponzi scheme?
You are an idiot.
The constitution was created to adapt! I'm really tired of hearing people place this document in such rigidity. The founding fathers were not infallible nor could they even begin to see certain aspects of modern society. Free to bare arms.....doesn't ok the possession of a missle system in my back yard. There are always going to be areas where we must adapt and interpret how the constitution applies to modern society.
countryroads89 I'll bet you don't even know what the Social Security administrators and actuarial tables say about it's immediate future? You say Republicans have "robbed" it? OK.
Explain the Republican policy that has resulted in the current status of Social Security's unfunded liability?
What program, what policy...what was the financial state of the trust fund before the Republicans began "robbing" it, and what did they do to leave it in it's current state?
Inform me, since I'm an "idiot".
Show me boomer where the Founders said this is what they intended for the Constitution? Adapt to what? How?
Yes, but the point of the thread was to appreciate how the other side has contributed to American success. You cant do that....it's why America is failing....polarization and political civil war that creates an atmosphere of non-collaboration and no compromise. Just career politicians rich from war chests that were stocked by "anti other side" passion.
[QUOTE="Boomboom521, post: 1422978, member: 14642"]I'm really tired of hearing people place this document in such rigidity[/QUOTE]
I know boomer, because in it's purest most basic understanding or reading, it clearly limits and places restrictions on Leviathan. You do hate that, because you so love it (Leviathan).
You love it so much that you don't even trust people free from it.
Unreal.
I know boomer, because in it's purest most basic understanding or reading, it clearly limits and places restrictions on Leviathan. You do hate that, because you so love it (Leviathan).
You love it so much that you don't even trust people free from it.
Unreal.
The times! By allowing open interpretation of amendments...the second for example "for a well regulated militia" was a part of that amendment for a reason. We (TODAY) are meant to adapt the admendment to apply realistically. Militia? No. Right to own weapons? Yes. What weapons, and how....we determine what's best for our safety.
I didn't see the thread that way at all boomer. You started it off by asking "what created the middle class" not "how have we collaborated to build the middle class"?
I and others have weighed in on what we believe had more to do with the expansion and or creation of the middle class, and you're all into what Government policies both sides have pursued to build it?
I'm arguing very little.
Last edited:
Where did the Founders say this boomer? What is "open" to interpret? What they said, or how to implement it?
I don't think the Constitution is "open" to interpret if by that you mean change what it actually says?
Fundamentally disagree with you there my Man!
Honestly boomer I do understand your example here, but I don't see that to mean anything less or more than what it says. Sure that can vary from era to era, but that "right" also shall not be infringed.
"Shall not be infringed" is not open to interpretation in my opinion. It means whatever it has to mean by that right not being "infringed".
Sure you do, because how you read it is always right.
And look back at my posts in this thread. "Without allowing business The freedom to innovate, expand and produce none of it would have been possible in the first place".....you get so full of anger and frustration against the left that you don't see clearly. You need to deal with that.
And....the US Constitution IS a social contract. It is a contract that allows us mobility and voice in shaping the direction and capacity of our government. Your no better because you abhor the left, and your no more anti-leviathan than you are anti-American. You cherish powerful government is foreign affairs and social "ills", but condemn it in business.