Two studies released recently by the Pew Research Center reveal two disturbing trends: as the middle class is being hollowed out by changing economic forces, political polarization is rising.
“The Lost decade of the Middle Class” report reveals the growing economic struggle of the middle class: “Since 2000, the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some—but by no means all—of its characteristic faith in the future.”
A majority of those interviewed indicated that they believe that it is harder now than it was a decade ago to maintain the middle class standard of living.
Part of the reason for the pessimism is a decade of decline which saw, for the first time since the end of World War II, a fall in mean family incomes, and the hollowing-out of the middle. In 1971, for example, the middle income tier included 61 percent of Americans; by 2011, only 51 percent could keep up with that category.
Where has that 10 percent gone? The upper income tier rose by six percent while the lower income tier increased by four percent.
Those lucky six percent shared in the bonanza of the Bush years: the income pie grew for the upper income bracket by 17 percent. Those who were left behind fared less well: for the middle tier, the pie shrunk by 17 percent--this on top of the wealth loss of 28 percent.
Lackluster jobs numbers and the overall sluggish economy add to the pessimism. Years into the recovery, many in the middle class still feel the bite of the Great Recession. About four in ten (42 percent) reported their financial situation is worse now than it was before the recession. “Of those who say they’re in worse shape, about half (51 percent) say it will take at least five years to recover, including eight percent who predict they will never recover.” A similar percentage feel that they were better off a decade ago.
Though most respondents still believe in hard work as the ticket to a better life and hold out hopes for their children being better off then they are, few hold much hope for the nation as a whole. Only 11 percent of those polled are very optimistic about America’s economic future. The rest have only muted optimism or are outright pessimistic. And many don’t believe that they will have enough assets to last them through retirement.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Igor
Good article, Jurek. Direct and to the point: the radical right republican principles of the Bush years have made a radical re-distribution of wealth from the middle-class to the wealthy (don't even ask what it's done to the poor and the working poor).
What is truly amazing is that so many "middle-class" Americans still believe in the self-aggrandizing notions that are at the core of this massive theft. The rich and powerful are under no such illusion: they are quite happy to harvest lost wealth from the naieve and gullible of the middle who imagine (with no justice) that their fortunes are bound up with those of the predatory right.
2 - Clav
A not insignificant portion of the middle class is part of the predatory right.
Many of them are Democrats in Congress and other high government positions, sucking from the public teat.
But it's not fashionable to say so publicly.
3 - Dr. Joseph S. Maresca
The question of how to rebuild the middle class is a function of doing a lot of things. First, the United States needs to rebuild infrastructure. This task alone would produce millions of blue collar jobs throughout the United States. Support for Community Colleges would make education more affordable for millions. Next, we need to reduce substantially entanglements in overseas wars and controversies of every kind. Taxing junk food would provide billions of dollars to support government health insurance programs and reduce costs for the private sector as well. Junk food is an albatross around the heads of the health care system, as well as employers in every sector. Lastly, we need to protect pension funds by limiting investments in risky derivative transactions to preserve the stability of individual retirement accounts, as well as the Stock Market itself.
4 - Clav
Before you can do any of those things, Joseph, you need to rid Congress of all those jackals who exempt themselves from every program they force us into, and strip them of their privileges, including the excessive retirement plans they vote for themselves.
5 - Baronius
Pew's definition of the middle class bothers me. It may be handy, but it doesn't seem to have any economic significance. They call anyone earning between 2/3 and twice the national income "middle class", but what does that tell us? By most definitions, the median income is dropping - but according to Pew's system, that wouldn't affect the middle class, as long as everyone fell at the same rate. Pew reports that the middle class is shrinking - but by the looks of their data, that's because more people are moving into the upper class. There's nothing wrong with a shrinking middle class if it means that everyone's joining the upper class. But since we're using a floating definition of class, you can't even glean that from it.
I also have to note that the description of the second study appears to be wrong. It overlooks the second-largest topic of partisan division, and one with the largest change, the environment. The reason for ignoring it appears to be the claim that our political division is caused because "those who have do not want to share with those who don’t". Yet it's hard to sort out where the burden of economic regulation would fall.
Likewise, I notice that the five biggest percentage increases in partisanship were in environment, government scope, immigration, religiousity, and social conservatism. When looked at in that way, it tells a very different picture, not one driven by economics.
6 - A
Brontius,
The problem is not that everyone is joining the upper income bracket but that there is a breakdown of the middle: some people certainly move up, but others move down. This is highly undesirable for any society.
The environment measure here means that the rich don't want to pay for the various environmental projects, that corporations don't want to bear the cost of changing production to protect environment. So it does measure the class/econ divisions over who will pay for one of the most important issues of our time.
The classic measure of class division, social safety net spending have widened since the 80s.
7 - Igor
There are many middle-class people who were so vain as to believe that they had joined the upper-class who are now homeless and living in their cars.
8 - Clav
Authoritative data source for that one, Igor?
In its absence, I call bullshit...
9 - Glenn Contrarian
Igor -
As much as I like to ping on Clav, I have to join him in hoisting that peculiarly brown flag.
10 - Baronius
A - We agree that it's better when people are able to advance financially, and that unfortunately a lot of people's financial health has been declining. What I'm questioning is whether this study employs an effective tool for measuring that. Comparing people to a floating average has drawbacks, especially in our current situation, when we're seeing a widespread decline across the board. Is the distribution around a declining average even meaningful? I don't see how.
As I noted, we're seeing some people move from the middle to the upper class, as this study defines it. Are they gaining in wealth, or are they holding steady as the bottom falls out from under other people? Are there areas in the country or occupations that are seeing an increase? That's a far more important question, and this study has no way of answering it.
Likewise, it may be interesting to know what people's expectation of the future is, or who they blame for economic distress, but it doesn't shine any light on what their future really will be, or who is to blame.
On the question of the environment, you should realize how you've stacked the deck. You say that the environment is one of the biggest issues of our time, but this study suggests that not everyone sees it that way. You then make the declaration that disinterest in the environment means that "the rich don't want to pay for the various environmental projects". Well, you can believe that if you want, but it's unsupported by anything you've given. And how does immigration fall into your rich-versus-poor scenario? One would think that the rich (I assume you mean Republicans) would be in favor of increased immigration, while the poor (Dems?) fear the competition for unskilled labor. But that's the opposite of what we see. Sort of. Neither party is 100% confident around this issue. That would suggest that it also doesn't follow your framework.
11 - A
Brontius,
The study is quite clear that Republicans aren't interested in environment. "Republicans are most distinguished by their increasingly minimalist views about the role of government and lack of support for environmentalism. " Why, do you suppose that is? Why are conservatives or Republicans so concerned with size of government?
Most policy experts and climate scientists see climate change as a serious problem. The study shows that Republicans don't.
Also consider another quote from the reporst, this time on imigration "About six-in-ten Democrats (58%) favor greater restrictions on immigration, compared with 84% of Republicans â€" largely unchanged in recent years."
12 - Glenn Contrarian
A -
Republicans are indeed concerned with the size of government...as long as it's a government agency that they think doesn't concern them. Abortion concerns them greatly, so they're all about government enforcement of abortion laws. "Defense" concerns them, so they're all about shoveling more money to defense contractors. Renewable energy is a signature position of Democrats, so Republicans are all about giving as much government support (read: subsidies) to Big Oil and removing the same from any renewable-energy businesses. And have you seen the Romney campaign's "promises" that Medicare wasn't going to be cut at all?
In other words, it's not about limited government - it's about political power and the preservation thereof.
13 - Dr Dreadful
"Brontius"?
I like it.
You should pick that one up and run with it, my conservative Catholic friend. :-)
14 - Clav
...it's about political power and the preservation thereof.
As it is with the Democrats. Their enthusiasm for entitlement programs for the poor has little to do with compassion, and everything to do with buying votes and maintaining power.
15 - Clav
...and control; almost forgot the Democratic penchant for control: cf. Joseph Maresca's calls for punitive taxes on junk food.
16 - Zingzing
Just that simple, eh, clavos? Doesn't matter if those things actually provide anything. do these things exist only because they garner votes?
17 - Brontius
Republicans want immigration as long as it means lower wages and less employee rights but don't want immigration if it means the rich have to pay more for a big nanny state that takes care of newcomers.
18 - Glenn Contrarian
Clav - As it is with the Democrats. Their enthusiasm for entitlement programs for the poor has little to do with compassion, and everything to do with buying votes and maintaining power.
If that were so, then LBJ wouldn't have pushed the Civil Rights Act knowing all the while that as soon as he signed it, "we have lost the South for a generation".
Be careful of false equivalencies, Clav - while there are many Republicans and Dems out there who are just in it for the power, there's apparently more Republicans who do what's best for the party without regard to what's best for the country - see my initial reply to Dave's newest article.
19 - Clav
If that were so, then LBJ wouldn't have pushed the Civil Rights Act knowing all the while that as soon as he signed it, "we have lost the South for a generation"
Are you saying Southern Blacks vote Republican, Glenn? That would be news to the RNC.
20 - Glenn Contrarian
Clav -
Are you truly that ignorant of the demographics of the South? MS is the state with the highest proportion of blacks - it's at thirty-odd percent. You can see the county-by-county results of the last presidential election where the majority-black counties all went for Obama...yet the state as a whole went strongly for McCain.
So your reply is pretty weak, friend. LBJ knew we'd lose the South, knew that the Democratic party would lose the electoral votes of the Dixiecrats, knew that this would swing whole elections to the Republicans...and he did it anyway. So much for your "it's all about power and winning elections in the Democratic party" theory.
21 - Glenn Contrarian
And Clav -
Again, be careful of false equivalencies, of approaching political questions with the foregone conclusion that "all political parties are just as bad and corrupt as all the others"...because they're not. For instance, one party is eager for everyone to vote, whereas the other party doesn't want everyone to vote and has done their utmost over the past two years to minimize voting by those who are not traditionally part of their own electorate. A great example would be the effort by the Republicans in Ohio to continue having extended voting hours in Ohio except for in the four majority-Democratic counties...and when the Dem elections supervisors of those counties raised hell about it, the Ohio Secretary of State (also a Republican) threatened to fire them. You can read about it here...and wonder to yourself at the hell the GOP and Fox News would be raising if the Dems had tried such an egregious tactic with Republican voters.
22 - Baronius
A - You miss my point.
You're saying that (a) by your estimation, immigration and the environment would take money away from Republicans, and (b) Republicans only care about money being taken away from them. You discount about a dozen possibilities there. Rising fuel costs may hurt the poor more, competition with immigrants definitely hurts the poor more. Now, it may even be true that Republicans describe their opposition to immigration and environmental regulation in economic terms, but that doesn't mean it's their primary motivation. If Republicans are doing something that's consistent with freedom and lawfulness, you don't have to look for an ulterior motive.
If you don't mind me phrasing it this way, you're looking at everything through your narrative. That's the prerogative of an author, sure, but it doesn't mean that it's going to be convincing to someone with a different narrative, and it usually means that you're going to dismiss possibilities that lie outside your narrative. As I said, your take on these studies fit inside your narrative nicely, but there are a few points that don't, and you're ignoring them. That's the heart of my critique of your article.
To review my points, I think you're accepting what is probably a statistical artifact in the first study because it sets up your narrative. You're discounting the social issues in the second study because it dilutes your narrative, and you're casting the fiscal issues as driven by bad motives because you don't see any other reason for your opponents' position.
23 - Clav
LBJ knew we'd lose the South, knew that the Democratic party would lose the electoral votes of the Dixiecrats...
The Dems had already lost the Dixiecrats' votes by the time LBJ wrought his insanity. When they ran Harold Stassen, a liberal, in the 1948 election, they lost 947 delegates' votes. It wasn't the Great Society that created the Dixiecrats, it was the Democratic party's sharp turn to the left after WWII that did that. And you've been losing numerous elections ever since -- oughta tell ya somethin'
For instance, one party is eager for everyone to vote...
You're quite right, they are, and it's the democratic party. Why? Because they know that all those people receiving money from the government know that it came from the the democrats.
I believe they call that buying votes.
24 - Baronius
For instance, one party is eager for everyone to vote...
Except, you know, about abortion or gay marriage. Or that whole Proposition 13 thing. Good thing politicians are willing to spend money without collecting money, or Prop 13 would have been a real restriction on the size of government.
Oh, and also, soldiers. Absentee ballots are fine for people when you don't know if they exist, but the ones who are real can throw a wrench into the gears.
25 - A
Baronius,
Political scientists Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal studied the link between income and partisanship in America and found that “polarization of the electorate has increasingly taken place along economic or class lines. Unlike the patterns of the 1950s and 1960s, upper income citizens are more likely to identify with and vote for Republicans than are lower income voters.”
The idea that economic issues of sharing wealth underlie the polarization in the political sphere has been established by such research.