The American Dream Goes On
Is the American middle class an endangered species? The majority of Americans have long shared one state of mind: that they are in some central way members of the middle class and hold a passport to the good life.
It's true that there's been a contraction of the number of middle-tier households earning between $45,000 and $90,000. And it's true they are having a tough time. Six in 10 testify to incomes falling behind the cost of living; six in 10 find it hard to pay for gasoline; and five in 10 say they can't afford healthcare. More than a quarter say they have trouble even affording food. To maintain their lifestyle—including those fancy cable TV packages, broadband Internet connections, and travel—they've sent more family members to work, taken on more debt, and borrowed through home equity loans, though the housing slump has undermined that asset.
At the other end of the income spectrum, the well heeled keep doing better. The number of millionaires has shot up, and the wealthiest 1 percent of U.S. families have pushed their share of total national income to levels—21 percent—unseen since the Gilded Age. Yet growing inequality has had little traction thus far as a political issue.
Why is this?
Partly because some have moved up, as economist Stephen Rose points out. There are 12 percent more households earning in excess of $100,000 than 20 or so years ago. And those making less than $30,000 have not increased. So virtually the entire "decline" of the middle-class group has come from people moving up the income ladder, not down.
Higher standards. Those in the middle, and below, are also living better. As William Robert Fogel, the Nobel Prize-winning economic historian, put it, "In every measure that we have bearing on the standard of living...the gains of the lower classes have been far greater than those experienced by the population as a whole." Among the inequalities that have narrowed: The quality of goods at the more moderate price levels has improved faster than at higher price tags; rich and poor are less apart in life expectancy, height, and leisure. It's the attitude of Americans that explains the low combustibility (at the moment!) of income inequality. Most Americans tend to believe that people bear primary responsibility for supporting themselves and that market forces are immune to public policy. There's a reflection here of the optimism and confidence characteristic of American life. In one study by Roland Benabou, more than half of Americans think they will be above the median income in the future (even though that is mathematically impossible). Americans, quite simply, believe that plenty of opportunities exist to get ahead, and, indeed, 82 percent of those born into poverty are much better off than their parents and more than a third of them have made it into the middle class or higher.
Education is another great American success story. There has been a dramatic increase in the percentage of adults completing high school and college. Nearly 90 percent of all adults get high school diplomas today compared with 33 percent in 1947; college graduates have soared from 5.4 percent in 1947 to almost 30 percent today. More than two thirds of Americans concur with the statement that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill—the largest percentage across 27 countries taking part in an international survey of social attitudes. This reflects the widespread belief in the ability to get ahead and helps explain why Americans are more accepting of economic inequality than peoples in other countries and why Americans are less likely to believe their government should take responsibility for reducing income disparity.
For all that, reaction is gathering force in at least two areas. One is an increasing distrust of free trade. There is a widespread conviction that globalization—seen by economists as a boon—holds down earnings for millions of Americans who compete with workers overseas. Free trade has become a political albatross.
Secondly, the level of wealth in the stratosphere of incomes has gotten so extreme that it is provoking a considerable majority to support the notion that wealth should be more evenly distributed through higher taxes.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
The Rich Don't Pay Their Fair Share?
Why is it that the top 1% pays over 50% of the taxes in this nation. I say that isn't fair. The Republicans don't take our money and give it to corporations. They help Americans by giving tax breaks to corporations. By taking less in the form of taxes it means more capital for reinvestment; that grows the GDP. With an increase of GDP means more Governmental Revenue. If you raise taxes you lower revenue; if you lower taxes you increase revenue. The problem is not that the rich don't pay their "fair share" but the fact that they government is spending our money on useless projects and increasing the size of government. As Reagan said, "Government is not the answer, Government is the problem". You say that the government should care about the poor, but why should they? If the Government would step out of our way it would be easier to succeed in this nation. By creating a false sense of entitlement to the poor it does only one thing and that is create more poor dependent on a welfare state. They only way for a man to bring another man out of poverty is to make poverty unattractive. By handing out checks and making poverty "livable" and it allows people to get by with the status-quot. Human-Beings are complacent creatures; the majority of us do just enough just to get by. We need to take responsibility for our own lives. After all; Responsibility is a burden of freedom.
Out of touch
Columns such as above are exacty why politicians and the elitists they represent are thought out of touch by regular Americans.
Yes, I have internet. So what? Does that make up for the fact that the stock market effectively has been stagnant since Bill Clinton left office? Does it make up for the fact that gas and insurance and food have doubled or tripled? Let's not even get going on what Bush's deficits, like Reagan's, have done to college affordability and national infrastructure. Hell, we literally have bridges collapsing in America.
No, the richest were just too damned greedy and they destroyed America. It's really not a hardship for someone who inherits 50 million dollars to pay a little in taxes. After all, these people have no trouble taking 40% or more of my income and I've never made more than 75,000 dollars and my mommy and daddy didn't leave me so much as a note when they died.
American Dream?
I hope that I am wrong but my impression is that Mr. Zuckerman is either too out of touch to realize what is really happening to the middle class. First, and this is basic stuff, I really get anoyed when I read statistics that have not been ajusted for inflation. Of course there are fewer people making less than 30k/year all those people ajusted for inflation are probably making 40k. Also my definition of the middle class is not some monitary value but represents a rang around the median income, that is the statistic I want to see.
My understanding is that many economists believe that we are now the worst country in the big 10 economic group in the ability of a person to change they're socioeconomic status in one generation. Not the middle, not second but the worst. I acutually believe in the conservative value of (as Ronald Regan would say) "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" the problem is I believe it for everyone including the children of the rich. This lack up upward mobility is ruinging our country and should be the issue of this presidential election.
Ed Pino
ps Thanks to the last oil boom, I was able to completely pay for my own University Education with vertually no loans, is that even possible today?
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.advertisement


