Canadian middle class passes American- Thanks Reaganism...

[9aces]

Canada is a great country. They know how to manage natural resources. That's why millions upon millions of us Americans tho there every year to catch fish. Nothing bad about Canada.

What's your point?.....Canada has 30 million people living on less than 2% of the land mass. 70% of Canada is virtually uninhabitable...That's not a criticism. Only a fact. A fact that relates to the availability of pristine waterways and wildlife habitats.
What does this have to do with anything?

The whole "It's cold as hell" bit is why most of it's still pristine waterways and wildlife habitats.

 

[initforme]

Just saying. I love going there. Don't waste my time fishing in the us. Canada has it going on. Canadians are the friendliest people on this planet.

 

[initforme]

Those who can't take a little cold ate south of the mason lazy line.

 

[francoHFW]

The Gipper declared war on the middle-class of this great nation and decimated iy to making sustenance wages. Thanks Repub useful idiots.

View attachment 58627

Even a total partisan has to see that Reagan turned around the falling wages created by the Carter administration. The middle class wages may have stagnated during Bush II but they certainly have taken a dive under Obama.

BS. Helped the rich a little...only tripled the debt to do it. Ant then the S+L bubble burst...look at the middle class in your graph, dolt.

 

[9aces]

Those who can't take a little cold ate south of the mason lazy line.

Which is why I live below the line. WAY below it. These old bones don't like the cold.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now, to the thread at hand. What makes America better than the Middle East is socialism. What makes Canada and Europe's middle class stronger than America's middle class is socialism.

Taxes aren't even that much higher in Canada, it's just that their government hasn't rewritten their tax code in order to help the rich whittle down what they owe, some by more than half, like the way it is here.

Even many establishment Republicans think tax loopholes that only the rich enjoy should be closed, like the one that encourages business to leave America and go overseas.

I wasn't brought up to think about what's left and right; I was brought up to think about right and wrong and that's just plain wrong and needs to be reversed. Unfortunately, Republicans don't even seem to care that their own politicians don't give a hoot about reversing that.

There should be a flat tax or a consumption tax...that is fair. You do not get a wealthy people by taxing success into poverty.

We basically ALREADY have a flat tax- ALL paying between 20-30% in all taxes and fees, so now all the new wealth goes to the richest and the country goes to hell with bad demand for product. Another 20 years of this and we're Columbia... Brilliant, brainwashed functional moron.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--December 10, 2015
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

There is no such thing as "share of income".....
As with wealth, income is not finite. It does not exist in a vacuum.
This idea of a share of wealth or income is merely democrat campaign lingo used for tyen second sound bites. And of course is works best on the uninformed and those with limited intelligence who are all easily controlled.

 

[Moonglow]

According to a New York Times report, the rich in the US are getting richer, but the poor and middle classes are falling behind some of their Western peers.

"Middle-class incomes in Canada - substantially behind in 2000 - now appear to be higher than in the United States," David Leonhardt and Kevin Quealy write. "The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans."

The UK median income is still behind that of the US, but it's catching up fast - a 19.7% increase since 2000. This is the same increase as Canada's, whereas the US number was up by only 0.3%. (It's worth noting that Germany's middle class is also stagnating - at 1.4%.)

The Times reporters based their conclusions on a survey of household incomes in about 20 countries over the course of 35 years, taking into account inflation, differences in taxes, government benefits and cost of living in different locations.

"With a big share of recent income gains in this country flowing to a relatively small slice of high-earning households, most Americans are not keeping pace with their counterparts around the world," they write.

The reporters point to three reasons why all but the wealthiest American may be falling behind:

First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs…

A second factor is that companies in the United States distribute a smaller share of the bounty to the middle class and poor than similar countries elsewhere…

Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.

The struggle for middle- and lower-class Americans is reflected in public opinion polls, the reporters write, which generally show greater dissatisfaction with their government than in other Western nations.

BBC News - Canada passes US in middle-class wealth

Could we PLEASE have the rich pay their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans? This is getting ridiculous, hater dupes. See sig pp 1...

Government does not invest in anything except increasing government employment and enlarging bureaucracy.

Hardly, but a closed mind will always jump in the first hole for a grave...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Look at actual FACTS, not Pubcrappe. The nonrich have gone to HELL under Reaganist tax rates and policy, and still are...


''The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.'


1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Researc...s/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/imag...ving_thumb.gif
3 = BEA : Page Not Found
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 6, 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...e-roost-charts''
''

This means nothing if you don't tell us the size of the pie they are getting. They can be losing in relative terms and gaining in absolute terms.

Please provide the necessary information. Otherwise this is nothing but class envy.

Look at how much people are saving-that doesn't. In fact, the pie hasn't changed that the non-rich are getting, the rich pie has... In real terms, the non-rich's wealth and income hasn't changed much in the last 30 years while the rich's wealth has gone up 280%...

So if the non-rich have not lost ground in real terms, what are you griping about ?

He's a liberal. Liberals must always have a complaint.

 

[thereisnospoon]

According to a New York Times report, the rich in the US are getting richer, but the poor and middle classes are falling behind some of their Western peers.

"Middle-class incomes in Canada - substantially behind in 2000 - now appear to be higher than in the United States," David Leonhardt and Kevin Quealy write. "The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans."

The UK median income is still behind that of the US, but it's catching up fast - a 19.7% increase since 2000. This is the same increase as Canada's, whereas the US number was up by only 0.3%. (It's worth noting that Germany's middle class is also stagnating - at 1.4%.)

The Times reporters based their conclusions on a survey of household incomes in about 20 countries over the course of 35 years, taking into account inflation, differences in taxes, government benefits and cost of living in different locations.

"With a big share of recent income gains in this country flowing to a relatively small slice of high-earning households, most Americans are not keeping pace with their counterparts around the world," they write.

The reporters point to three reasons why all but the wealthiest American may be falling behind:

First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs…

A second factor is that companies in the United States distribute a smaller share of the bounty to the middle class and poor than similar countries elsewhere…

Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.

The struggle for middle- and lower-class Americans is reflected in public opinion polls, the reporters write, which generally show greater dissatisfaction with their government than in other Western nations.

BBC News - Canada passes US in middle-class wealth

Could we PLEASE have the rich pay their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans? This is getting ridiculous, hater dupes. See sig pp 1...

Government does not invest in anything except increasing government employment and enlarging bureaucracy.

Hardly, but a closed mind will always jump in the first hole for a grave...

Gee, don't address my post. Just throw out some shitty smart ass reply.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The free market continues to tell us almost daily that Obamacare is working. I trust the economic boom in healthcare and investors over ignorant keyboard warriors who only know how to talk shit without backing any of it up.

The Two-Year Rise of U.S. Health-Care Stocks

Ok....To counter that argument.....
Biggest Insurer Threatens to Abandon Health Law
NY’s biggest Obamacare co-op goes broke, leaving hospitals holding the bag
What the hell does this have to do with the the US Middle class?

 

[Moonglow]

According to a New York Times report, the rich in the US are getting richer, but the poor and middle classes are falling behind some of their Western peers.

"Middle-class incomes in Canada - substantially behind in 2000 - now appear to be higher than in the United States," David Leonhardt and Kevin Quealy write. "The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans."

The UK median income is still behind that of the US, but it's catching up fast - a 19.7% increase since 2000. This is the same increase as Canada's, whereas the US number was up by only 0.3%. (It's worth noting that Germany's middle class is also stagnating - at 1.4%.)

The Times reporters based their conclusions on a survey of household incomes in about 20 countries over the course of 35 years, taking into account inflation, differences in taxes, government benefits and cost of living in different locations.

"With a big share of recent income gains in this country flowing to a relatively small slice of high-earning households, most Americans are not keeping pace with their counterparts around the world," they write.

The reporters point to three reasons why all but the wealthiest American may be falling behind:

First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs…

A second factor is that companies in the United States distribute a smaller share of the bounty to the middle class and poor than similar countries elsewhere…

Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.

The struggle for middle- and lower-class Americans is reflected in public opinion polls, the reporters write, which generally show greater dissatisfaction with their government than in other Western nations.

BBC News - Canada passes US in middle-class wealth

Could we PLEASE have the rich pay their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans? This is getting ridiculous, hater dupes. See sig pp 1...

Government does not invest in anything except increasing government employment and enlarging bureaucracy.

Hardly, but a closed mind will always jump in the first hole for a grave...

Gee, don't address my post. Just throw out some shitty smart ass reply.

It seems your post do not emulate anything but opinion, why can't mine?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Republicans are killing the middle class.

William Blum is a former federal employee who worked on a computer project for the Dept of State back in the 60's. He is also a critic of US Foreign policy....
He is a also a Third World traveler and writer.
I fail to see his qualifications on US Economic policy....
BTW, that is a picture from the 1930's Dust Bowl.....Now unless I have been asleep for a while and the economy went CRASH, well, you get the picture.
Such alarmist opinions are best given the attention they deserve. Get it?

 

[initforme]

The middle class in america is and always has taken it on the chin. Why should we expect anything else from a free market where morals, rules, and regulations are tossed out the window?

 

[thereisnospoon]

According to a New York Times report, the rich in the US are getting richer, but the poor and middle classes are falling behind some of their Western peers.

"Middle-class incomes in Canada - substantially behind in 2000 - now appear to be higher than in the United States," David Leonhardt and Kevin Quealy write. "The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans."

The UK median income is still behind that of the US, but it's catching up fast - a 19.7% increase since 2000. This is the same increase as Canada's, whereas the US number was up by only 0.3%. (It's worth noting that Germany's middle class is also stagnating - at 1.4%.)

The Times reporters based their conclusions on a survey of household incomes in about 20 countries over the course of 35 years, taking into account inflation, differences in taxes, government benefits and cost of living in different locations.

"With a big share of recent income gains in this country flowing to a relatively small slice of high-earning households, most Americans are not keeping pace with their counterparts around the world," they write.

The reporters point to three reasons why all but the wealthiest American may be falling behind:

First, educational attainment in the United States has risen far more slowly than in much of the industrialized world over the last three decades, making it harder for the American economy to maintain its share of highly skilled, well-paying jobs…

A second factor is that companies in the United States distribute a smaller share of the bounty to the middle class and poor than similar countries elsewhere…

Finally, governments in Canada and Western Europe take more aggressive steps to raise the take-home pay of low- and middle-income households by redistributing income.

The struggle for middle- and lower-class Americans is reflected in public opinion polls, the reporters write, which generally show greater dissatisfaction with their government than in other Western nations.

BBC News - Canada passes US in middle-class wealth

Could we PLEASE have the rich pay their fair share so we can invest in America and Americans? This is getting ridiculous, hater dupes. See sig pp 1...

Government does not invest in anything except increasing government employment and enlarging bureaucracy.

Hardly, but a closed mind will always jump in the first hole for a grave...

Gee, don't address my post. Just throw out some shitty smart ass reply.

It seems your post do not emulate anything but opinion, why can't mine?

IS there something non factual regarding my post?

 

[Kosh]

In socialism there is no middle class!

 

[francoHFW]

Now, to the thread at hand. What makes America better than the Middle East is socialism. What makes Canada and Europe's middle class stronger than America's middle class is socialism.

Taxes aren't even that much higher in Canada, it's just that their government hasn't rewritten their tax code in order to help the rich whittle down what they owe, some by more than half, like the way it is here.

Even many establishment Republicans think tax loopholes that only the rich enjoy should be closed, like the one that encourages business to leave America and go overseas.

I wasn't brought up to think about what's left and right; I was brought up to think about right and wrong and that's just plain wrong and needs to be reversed. Unfortunately, Republicans don't even seem to care that their own politicians don't give a hoot about reversing that.

There should be a flat tax or a consumption tax...that is fair. You do not get a wealthy people by taxing success into poverty.

We basically ALREADY have a flat tax- ALL paying between 20-30% in all taxes and fees, so now all the new wealth goes to the richest and the country goes to hell with bad demand for product. Another 20 years of this and we're Columbia... Brilliant, brainwashed functional moron.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--December 10, 2015
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

There is no such thing as "share of income".....
As with wealth, income is not finite. It does not exist in a vacuum.
This idea of a share of wealth or income is merely democrat campaign lingo used for tyen second sound bites. And of course is works best on the uninformed and those with limited intelligence who are all easily controlled.

Nobody said it was finite duh dupe. Just that the wealthy get too high a share. The only way to bring down ridiculous income is high top tax rates.

 

[francoHFW]

In socialism there is no middle class!

180 degrees wrong. Just fair capitalism. NOT COMMUNISM.

 

[Kosh]

In socialism there is no middle class!

180 degrees wrong. Just fair capitalism. NOT COMMUNISM.

Once again the far left shows they do not know what a middle class is!

There is no middle class in socialism!

 

[initforme]

We don't have socialism...and our middle class is going extinct. What we have is corporatism run amok where the rich control everything. I prefer to call america a plutocracy.

 

[Kosh]

We don't have socialism...and our middle class is going extinct. What we have is corporatism run amok where the rich control everything. I prefer to call america a plutocracy.

Well that is the funny thing about socialism and communism as these same rich people have the power in those atmospheres as well.