Log in

View Full Version : USA: How the middle class became the underclass



Dimmu
26th February 2011, 15:41
Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust.

Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology and globalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves and have-nots.

But there's more to the story.


One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions and other labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chief economist for the Labor Department, now a professor at Rutgers University.

Because of deals struck through collective bargaining, union workers have traditionally earned 15% to 20% more than their non-union counterparts, Rodgers said.

But union membership has declined rapidly over the past 30 years. In 1983, union workers made up about 20% of the workforce. In 2010, they represented less than 12%.

"The erosion of collective bargaining is a key factor to explain why low-wage workers and middle income workers have seen their wages not stay up with inflation," Rodgers said.

Without collective bargaining pushing up wages, especially for blue-collar work -- average incomes have stagnated.


International competition is another factor. While globalization has lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn't exactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.

Factory workers have seen many of their jobs shipped to other countries where labor is cheaper, putting more downward pressure on American wages.

"As we became more connected to China, that poses the question of whether our wages are being set in Beijing," Rodgers said.

Finding it harder to compete with cheaper manufacturing costs abroad, the U.S. has emerged as primarily a services-producing economy. That trend has created a cultural shift in the job skills American employers are looking for.

Whereas 50 years earlier, there were plenty of blue collar opportunities for workers who had only high school diploma, now employers seek "soft skills" that are typically honed in college, Rodgers said.

A boon for the rich
While average folks were losing ground in the economy, the wealthiest were capitalizing on some of those same factors, and driving an even bigger wedge between themselves and the rest of America.

For example, though globalization has been a drag on labor, it's been a major win for corporations who've used new global channels to reduce costs and boost profits. In addition, new markets around the world have created even greater demand for their products.

"With a global economy, people who have extraordinary skills... whether they be in financial services, technology, entertainment or media, have a bigger place to play and be rewarded from," said Alan Johnson, a Wall Street compensation consultant.

As a result, the disparity between the wages for college educated workers versus high school grads has widened significantly since the 1980s.

In 1980, workers with a high school diploma earned about 71% of what college-educated workers made. In 2010, that number fell to 55%.

Another driver of the rich: The stock market.

The S&P 500 has gained more than 1,300% since 1970. While that's helped the American economy grow, the benefits have been disproportionately reaped by the wealthy.

And public policy of the past few decades has only encouraged the trend.


The 1980s was a period of anti-regulation, presided over by President Reagan, who loosened rules governing banks and thrifts.

A major game changer came during the Clinton era, when barriers between commercial and investment banks, enacted during the post-Depression era, were removed.

In 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act also weakened the government's oversight of complex securities, allowing financial innovations to take off, creating unprecedented amounts of wealth both for the overall economy, and for those directly involved in the financial sector.

Tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration and extended under Obama were also a major windfall for the nation's richest.

And as then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan brought interest rates down to new lows during the decade, the housing market experienced explosive growth.

"We were all drinking the Kool-aid, Greenspan was tending bar, Bernanke and the academic establishment were supplying the liquor," Deutsche Bank managing director Ajay Kapur wrote in a research report in 2009.

But the story didn't end well. Eventually, it all came crashing down, resulting in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.

With the unemployment rate still excessively high and the real estate market showing few signs of rebounding, the American middle class is still reeling from the effects of the Great Recession.

Meanwhile, as corporate profits come roaring back and the stock market charges ahead, the wealthiest people continue to eclipse their middle-class counterparts.

"I think it's a terrible dilemma, because what we're obviously heading toward is some kind of class warfare," Johnson said.
Its from CNN(I cant post links yet)

scarletghoul
26th February 2011, 17:39
The collapse of the 'middle class' can only be properly explained with Marxist theory. The internal contradiction in capitalism lead to the decline of the empire and the routine economic crisis. The middle class only really exists because of excess imperial wealth, and when that disappears the middle class is dropped back down into the proper working class

Jimmie Higgins
26th February 2011, 21:07
The collapse of the 'middle class' can only be properly explained with Marxist theory. The internal contradiction in capitalism lead to the decline of the empire and the routine economic crisis. The middle class only really exists because of excess imperial wealth, and when that disappears the middle class is dropped back down into the proper working classWell yes, Marxist theory is important for understanding capitalism and its crises, but I think the rest of your post is incorrect.

The "middle class" or the living standards of working class people in the US has been declining over the last generation at the same time the US Empire was expanding. The US Empire is still incredibly strong, though very shaky and unraveling in some places, and was growing in the 1990s when the working class was losing ground and losing whole chunks of the welfare state.

The working class's relative position has more to do with the accumulated gains of past struggles, not necessarily the health of an empire. The dominance the US gained after WWII made it easier and gave more space to the US capitalists in allowing higher wages and unionization in exchange for domestic peace - but they wouldn't have offered if they weren't worried that people would demand and fight for it. WWII was followed by a strike wave in the US and at least one general strike, the US wanted to prevent a return of 1930s-era struggle and so allowed more reforms on the one hand, and repressed the people on the other (much like Mubarak tried to calm Egypt by quickly passing reforms while cracking down on the actual street protesters).

More decisive in the relative position of the working class in capitalism IMO is how well and effectively can it fight in and for its own interests. Real struggle has been repressed and absent in the US for a long time and that is why DESPITE unprecedented gains in both the wealth and power of US capitalism and imperialism, the US working class has seen a decline in wages, the safty-net, job security, and increases in inequality and the rate of exploitation throughout the neo-liberal era.

To me Wisconsin represents the domestic potential for workers to once again become historical actors (something that capitalist and Stalinists seem to deny) rather than just the victims - it's the US working class echo of the revolutionary mood in some of the places most effected and oppressed by US Imperialism. Far from gaining from Empire, US workers gain from movements against the US empire.

HalPhilipWalker
28th February 2011, 00:49
Well yes, Marxist theory is important for understanding capitalism and its crises, but I think the rest of your post is incorrect.

The "middle class" or the living standards of working class people in the US has been declining over the last generation at the same time the US Empire was expanding. The US Empire is still incredibly strong, though very shaky and unraveling in some places, and was growing in the 1990s when the working class was losing ground and losing whole chunks of the welfare state.

Agreed.



The working class's relative position has more to do with the accumulated gains of past struggles, not necessarily the health of an empire. The dominance the US gained after WWII made it easier and gave more space to the US capitalists in allowing higher wages and unionization in exchange for domestic peace - but they wouldn't have offered if they weren't worried that people would demand and fight for it. WWII was followed by a strike wave in the US and at least one general strike, the US wanted to prevent a return of 1930s-era struggle and so allowed more reforms on the one hand, and repressed the people on the other (much like Mubarak tried to calm Egypt by quickly passing reforms while cracking down on the actual street protesters).

The strike of 1946 was the result of previous struggles of the working class, especially socialist and communist agitation. The large rallies that the Communist Party was able to hold in New York City provided the ever-present threat of a Bolshevik revolution in the Great Depression. Indeed, if Marx is correct that all historical events occur first as a tragedy then as a farce, this current crises is indeed the farcical replay of the Great Depression. Scarletghoul was correct in saying that the internal contridictions of capitalism are to blame for this crisis. Indeed, nothing is more contradictory than the U.S. position of blaming financial markets for the crisis then shoving huge amounts of money to recapitalize them. Psychologists would describe such behavior in an individual as codependency, and this is what the current situation reflects: the codependency of the ruling American elites on both financial markets to provide prosperity in good times, such as the 1990s, and government in bad times, such as the present situation. Indeed, we would have seen the return of a crisis on par with the 1930s if it weren't for the nationalization of the private debt of investment banks.



More decisive in the relative position of the working class in capitalism IMO is how well and effectively can it fight in and for its own interests. Real struggle has been repressed and absent in the US for a long time and that is why DESPITE unprecedented gains in both the wealth and power of US capitalism and imperialism, the US working class has seen a decline in wages, the safty-net, job security, and increases in inequality and the rate of exploitation throughout the neo-liberal era.

Again, agreed.



To me Wisconsin represents the domestic potential for workers to once again become historical actors (something that capitalist and Stalinists seem to deny) rather than just the victims - it's the US working class echo of the revolutionary mood in some of the places most effected and oppressed by US Imperialism. Far from gaining from Empire, US workers gain from movements against the US empire.

Unfortunately, Wisconsin just reflects the latest advance of the bourgeoisie on the rights of the working class. But the undercutting of the unions will hopefully force them to change their strategy from legislative floor politicking to shop-floor organizing, a emphasis that has long been overdue. It is this (possible) shift which gives the left an opening to bring the unions to educate workers in socialist theory and provide a recruiting pool of socialist rank-and-file. Of course this is hypothetical, and it could be we are many setbacks and reversals away from this becoming a reality. But that is my hope for Wisconsin and Ohio.