PPR Should Care About The MiddleClass

Post Reply New Topic

It's time we started caring for the middle class on WP PPR

There's always only talks about soaking the rich and helping the poor but welfare doesn't provide upward mobility for anyone.

Expanding the middle-class is what makes ease-of-entry possible for those looking to enter it.

So, we all know where most of you lie politically.... What policies from your political end can you lend to this discussion on growing our middle class and allowing access to upward mobility for the masses?

I see little sign of many here caring about anybody.

Blame is more to the point.

For one thing, supporting the middle class in the American context entails NOT destroying popular middle class social programs like social security. Another key element is supporting unions, which (particularly in ethnic minority communities) have proven the surest way to ensure upward mobility through wage bargaining. Supporting unions in general supports a broader middle class and stronger social mobility.

Don’t forget condescension and one-upsmanship.

What middle class? the middle class is mostly non-existant.

it mainly exists in suburbia. Our upper-middle class has been largely depleted as they are the highest taxed group in America but the lower middle-class has been swelling thanks to Clinton and then Bush's tax policies towards the poor.

Phil has been one-upped.

It seems more like the upper middle class has stayed about the same, and the middle class has fallen into the lower middle class, which is just one step above the lower class and the lower class has increased quite a bit.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mCxq5a-vuY[/youtube]

how so?

the middle class is leaving California in droves for right-to-work states like Oklahoma, Arizona, and Texas(the same is true of Michigan and most of the rust belt). There might not be a correlation but job availability is much harder in states where unions are allowed. BMW, Ikea, and Nissan tend to like the south and pay extremely well so they are growers and sustainers of a thriving powerful middle class.

Middle Class's are not the same everywhere as India has a middle class but they don't live as well as ours.


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/archive ... 69101.html

This has been the problem with many states who are hostile to business. I'd like to find a state however where they are business-friendly in every way except for allowing unionization as I'm sure it is possible but do not know of any examples.

We MIGHT like to define what we mean.

Pertaining as I do to three generations of steadily economically receding professionals [law and academia and engineering] I tend to see "our kind" as upper class - far higher class than the moneyed groups most people see as high class.

But in economic terms we barely match middle class definitions - and are decidedly worse off than some who would count and be counted as working class.

So are we talking economics, culture, ocopation - what?

not in terms of the number of people who can be called upper-middle class... the physical manifestation has changed as the ways that one can flaunt their wealth has evolved so it might appear as there is a large number of them... as well as middle and lower-middle class who have been enabled by cheap availability of credit to live beyond their means might paint that picture. But just looking at households and what they earn relative to where they live... the upper middle class has been the most depleted part of the middle class over the last 10 years. The lower middle class has been growing immensely, though all of this was before the crash and we have some rebuilding to do.

I am middle class, in the sense that i was raised in what was the lower middle class in the 80's and now - thanks to my own efforts and skills - exist independently in the middle-middle-class. I have one sibling who is solidly upper-crust (works in finance), some who are middle class, and some who are lower-class. Some who have been on welfare. One who is on social security disability.

As a single non-parent in the middle class, I am taxed far more than i get anything from the government. I will note for the record that you haven't seen me bitching that my taxes are too high.

My parents, now with no dependents, probably qualify as middle-middle-class as well, these days. They certainly live better now than i did when i depended on them.

It turns out that I'm a redistributionist, and i don't mind much that some of my income gets redistributed to my less fortunate siblings. And i think people as well off as myself and better should quit their bitching.

The lower class get a lot from the government. Not enough, IMHO, in many ways. And too much in a few other ways. My sister on disability complains that she gets so much money for food that she could eat prime rib five days a week, but nobody will help her pay her gas bill in the winter.

The upper class have goddamn lobbyists, and get more or less anything at all they want from the government.

I know numerous people who have trouble making ends meet, many of them with children who depend on them.

I am disgusted that the republicans in congress have decided to make this year all about the budget instead of doing anything at all to improve the job market or even ease some of the pressure on the people who are struggling the most.

You tell me if i care about the middle class.

Because they provide the job security, financial security, and even incentives for long-term thinking in management that enable a middle class to develop. They help offset the skew in wealth distribution caused by higher-ups (particularly CEOs of major companies) having a lot more bargaining power the the masses of workers, particularly in economies where the NAIRU theory ensures unemployment is kept a given rate by the central bank. They also may, in the long-run, strengthen the consumer base as not all the productivity gains shot up to the top with unions.







Calfironia, and the Rust Belt, like many major industrial centres (as well as many major financial centres, as the banking crisis did hit California), do particularly bad in recessions. Texas, given its economy's heavily resource-based nature, fairs comparatively well in recessions (as doees the social democratic country of Norway). Manufacturing, the heart and staple of the Upper Midwest, has been declining for quite some time due to the US's overvalued dollar.



Okay, I'd like to see some elaboration on this.



So? Do you expect me to come up with a generic solution to sustaining and growing the middle class everywhere in a single post?

People are leaving California because the attempts at socialism have been a disaster, and unfortunately they will try to vote for the same kind of politicians to pull the same crap in the states they move to. I worry that the exodus from here might end up being more like a locust infestation in the years to come. If they destroy their new home state they will just move someplace new.

Our economic problems are the result of bureaucratic and environmental red tape, business laws that tend to be hostile to doing business here, attempts to create a "green economy" (better known as a recession), forcing farms and industries to shut down, and refusing to make use of natural resources. They wonder why it's not working so they raised taxes. People and businesses left, so they levied an internet purchase tax and are attempting to collect use taxes from out of state internet purchases as well. A bunch of businesses that conduct online transactions are pulling out in a hurry and cutting ties with their local small business affiliates. Once again, the state can't figure out why it's revenues are far below their projections. Now they are sucking up to the alien invaders and they wonder why their cost of social services is so high and schools have as many as 60 kids per classroom, and huge waiting lists to get into college classes!

A sort of mini revolution has been attempted to provide more services to the poor (including the ones that don't belong here) and promote environmentalism through legislation rather than market demand and it all backfired. Looking after both real and imagined environmental problems alike and looking after the poor may give liberals a nice piss your pants warm feeling, but it's not a good place to start rebuilding the economy. I've been criticized for my willingness to leave the homeless on the street, but in addition to homelessness being a very complex problem that won't go away just by throwing money at it, you have to make some investments in the economy first in order to provide a decent standard of living make enough revenue possible to take care of those that got left out of the boom.



Unions must be handles as carefully as cars, firearms, and power tools. If you let them grow too big and have too much power they might try to take over large parts of the system to promote their own agenda or feel they are in a position to resort to civil unrest if they can't get their way through the system. They can be useful for keeping wages and benefits up, but come on, what's a guy that's main responsibility is to mop the floor really worth? Should he be in the country in the first place? Could you get a high school or college kid to do it instead? If a union has known communist ties, is it worth it to you to pick a fight to get rid of them? Or on the flip side, what is a secretary or other paper pusher at a county or state office worth? Do we risk bankruptcy paying their overpriced union contracts? There is a nice for unions, but their power demands must be kept in check to keep the economy stable, and they will be counterproductive until after the employment rate drops by at least half.

so then then the plan is to make unions allowable in every state of the country and all over the world so that there are no states competing for jobs with each and places of employment will more likely stay put? How does making every state in the country union-friendly make America competitive when nations like Mexico to the south and China across the pacific don't care about labor rights? One of the reasons why America doesn't lead in exports is because of the cost of doing business. Ford and GM have unionized work forces but prior Obama devaluing our currency and our new export-friendly initiatives, they were only expanding outside the US, including Mexico, or even considering importing from abroad north America.


Since then every manufacture has been pumping hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to expand in the South, Nissan moved its US operations from California to Tennessee, many design studios in California have closed down, Toyota closed its NUMI plant in Fremont CA and SF said it didn't want its business and jobs that it would bring in its attempt to build the Prius in SF. Note the shrinking middle class in and around these romanticized and unionized metropolitans, save for perhaps Austin and Portland. LA has lost its aerospace and defense industry that it had built up during the cold war to Virginia and the DC area. Intel had announced not too long ago that it would pour 8 billion dollars into the economies of Oregon and Arizona to build new research and manufacturing centers, 8 billion dollars that could have stayed in the state. The examples are endless, and we are not even talking about small businesses. Forget these high-skilled places of employment, California is not an environment for low-skilled labor either as those foolish enough to try a hand at the state end up packing for a cheaper alternative like Oklahoma or Oregon.

California Vs. Texas
The last decade has not bode well for California, and these trends have begin long before the recession. Texas has been coming up well over this last decade and even with its share of problems, it is the young California before California became what it is today. It is romantic for startups, families, and young people just finishing college looking to get ahead, your wages rise immediately from the incredibly low rent allows for families to keep a larger portion of their income and afford a home. Do note that the environment that allowed the likes of Cisco, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Intel to come up no longer exists in California. Going forward, California is only a model for the left and are largely living off of the business revolution of the golden days which have long passed.

Real World Results
I don't expect you to do it in a single post either. I was looking for simple suggestions with proven results and the results being places with a growing and vibrant middle class because we can dwell in theory of things that in theory should have an intended affect but I'm looking for examples wherein these theories are lived out. Housing is one issue and places like Vancouver BC and San Francisco are hostile to the middle class(with some of the most expensive real estate in North America), their surroundings only have upper middle class and the poor or the lower end of the lower middle class. Lower taxes and availability of jobs that pay a decent wage is also vital to every place in America that has a robust middle class. I only questioned your union suggestion because I don't see many unionized states with a growing middle class, unless its the middle class leaving one uber-expensive unionized state(california) for a less expensive unionized state(oregon). It's even a problem in a union-friendly state, wherein Seattle is seeing a major jobs rush out of its downtown core into the surrounding suburbs. People vote with their feet, and downtown areas that foster great public transportation, a vast array of social services, high-density living, low-income housing subsidies, are all liberal ideals. But major downtowns are becoming more and more irrelevant in population growth, affordable housing is non-existent for couples who don't meet income restrictions and looking to raise a family, and the city is too expensive. In a unionized state like Washington, job-creation is largely outside of places where not everything is against a middle-class living.

BMW Provides well-paying stable Jobs. Jobs Sustain the Middle Class.
There isn't much I can do to elaborate on BMW, Ikea, VW, Nissan, Mercedes and other foreign makes moving into the United States. The point is that they provide a great paying job in the non-unionized south. There are others who will disparage this (See thread: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt164358.html) that they are making the American South into China forgetting that a person making a Nissan makes close to 30 dollars with another 20 dollars worth of benefits. The middle class is sustained by a robust economy that has stable employers who provide wages that can afford them a home and a vehicle, be able to support a family, and a decent enough of a life. California's middle class has taken a beating as anti-housing and anti-job measures (including unionization) has lead so many jobs to leave the state - you should read about the weekly companies who relocate or expand outside the state or country here: http://thebusinessrelocationcoach.blogspot.com/ You can perhaps make the case that unions are good for workers but are unionized places good for middle-class families? I'll word it in my final questions:

Can you name one economically robust metropolitan wherein the middle class is thriving, entry into the middle class is far easier when similarly compared to other competing regions, the cost of living is cheaper then urban areas with affordable rent/housing, is a job machine wherein it attracts working-class jobs and is an economic hub, and is also unionized? Can you name one that is a magnet for business that support the middle class, families, immigrants, and poor to lower middle class looking for upward mobility?

This isn't a challenge, some of unionization's ends are idyllic and help foster a healthier work environment. But their demands fully lived out will kill business and has been choking both GM and Ford and the respected communities those factories serve.