Another reason why Dubya's gotta go.

[dougputhoff]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006434.php

Thanks to Mark Evanier for digging this up.

[Dreadstar]

I only have but one question:

Since when did "middle class" become the "$100,000 - $200,000" range?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I only have but one question:

Since when did "middle class" become the "$100,000 - $200,000" range?
Good question. I wish I was so middle-class.

Politicians on all sides of the spectrum play fast and loose with this. When Bush wants to downplay negative aspects of his proposed social security fix, and says only the wealthy would really lose much in benefits, "wealthy" starts being defined as "making over $40,000." When he wants to talk about how heavily the middle class is taxed, middle class = people who make over $100,000. When the Dems want to talk about how rich people pay less a percentage of their incomes than do the middle class, "middle class" income gets defined upward, as you note.

Lesson: its easy for people to lie with vague terms (in this case, the diagram catches them, at least), and people on all sides of the political spectrum are all too often all too ready to play fast and loose with facts.

[dougputhoff]

Good question. I wish I was so middle-class.

Politicians on all sides of the spectrum play fast and loose with this. When Bush wants to downplay negative aspects of his proposed social security fix, and says only the wealthy would really lose much in benefits, "wealthy" starts being defined as "making over $40,000." When he wants to talk about how heavily the middle class is taxed, middle class = people who make over $100,000. When the Dems want to talk about how rich people pay less a percentage of their incomes than do the middle class, "middle class" income gets defined upward, as you note.

Lesson: its easy for people to lie with vague terms (in this case, the diagram catches them, at least), and people on all sides of the political spectrum are all too often all too ready to play fast and loose with facts.

Heck, I wish I were in the $30,000-$50,000.

That'd be twice as I made last year.

[Ray R.]

I only have but one question:

Since when did "middle class" become the "$100,000 - $200,000" range?

Depends where you live. When the average house in the D.C., San Francisco, L.A., Boston and New York markets costs $500,000-$600,000; when the cost of getting a law degree or MBA costs $150,000 - $200,000 with a huge chunk of it ending up in loans, then there's a hell of a lot of us who feel like we're firmly in the middle class, even though we married couples make $100,000 - $200,000 in combined household incomes. Add a couple of a kids or so.....

Guess I could move out to Brattleboro, VT, or Helena, MT, or any number of cities, and that might seem like a big amount of money, but I sure as heck won't make that kind of scratch there.

I think you can judge whether you're middle class on whether a month without paychecks will put you firmly behind the eight-ball. I can't speak for the majority of people in our income range, but for some, they're leveraged to the hilt, and just one fewer paycheck means big trouble. The cost of living has skyrocketed -- from gasoline to daycare to paying for your own share of health insurance to basic food items.

I'm happy to be making what I'm making, but noone will confuse me with the guy from the Monopoly game (except for the monocle I wear to special occasions.....). I don't expect any sympathy, but the silver spoon hasn't made its way to me in the mail yet.

Call it upper middle class if you want, but among the urban-commute-suburban warriors I know in metropolitan areas around the country, it definitely feels a long way from rich.....

Nice to see we're paying more than anybody else in taxes, too. Shocker.

[Dreadstar]

The article was about the US in general, therefore I'm talking about the same.

While $200,000 might still be "middle class" in L.A., for the vast majority of the U.S., it's "rich as hell."

[GremlinClr]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_06/006434.php

Thanks to Mark Evanier for digging this up.

Other than the last two bars I don't see anything wrong with that chart. The poor don't pay much at all, while starting at $30 to $50,000 it goes steadily up (as it should).

Yea, the people making more than 10mil a year don't pay as much and should be fixed, but isn't that like 1% (that numbers just a guess) or so of the American population? I'm not seeing the big deal.

[Ray R.]

The article was about the US in general, therefore I'm talking about the same.

While $200,000 might still be "middle class" in L.A., for the vast majority of the U.S., it's "rich as hell."

Well, Dread, the vast majority of people in that tax bracket probably live within 40 miles of major metropolitan areas, so I'm guessing that the middle class argument still holds water.

If you're a wage earner and almost exclusively depend on wages to maintain your home and family, then you're NOT "rich as hell." Period.

When you live off dividends, investments and/or inherited wealth and don't need wage income to maintain your home and family, then yes, you're "rich as hell."

[Motormouse]

I honestly don't think that you guys or the world actually need any more reasons to get rid of Bush but hey, you had your chance right. All those red states........it's enough to make you cry :eek:

[HomerJay]

While $200,000 might still be "middle class" in L.A., for the vast majority of the U.S., it's "rich as hell."

No kidding.
I sure wish I was "middle-class". I own my own home, have a finished basement, live in the suburbs, have a big-screen TV and computer, own 2 cars, and make $50k + a year. I hate being "lower-class".

[Ray R.]

No kidding.
I sure wish I was "middle-class". I own my own home, have a finished basement, live in the suburbs, have a big-screen TV and computer, own 2 cars, and make $50k + a year. I hate being "lower-class".

You're lower middle class, if you want to be technical, if $40,000 is the cutoff. And for the Milwaukee market, you could be upper middle class, as least from the time I've spent in Milwaukee. ;)

And your television screen is bigger than mine, and I make $120,000 a year. I'd love to have a big-screen TV and two cars and a furnished basement, but things like student loans (only 20 years left) and mortgage payments get in the way. I usually think about that big-screen when I sit in traffic for an hour and a half each way to work. Boo-fricking-hoo.

Grass is always a lot fucking greener on the other side of the fence.... and maybe when I'm rich I can get somebody to mow my lawn for me.

And I pay my taxes every year, because they take them out of my paycheck, whether I like it or not. I don't get corporate write-offs like Dick Cheney, or off-shore tax shelters, or deductions for dry oil wells like George W. They call dividends "double taxation", and taxes on inheritances after the first million "death taxes", and cut taxes on those making over $10 million because it spurs growth. But I pay a higher tax rate than those folks? Why exactly is that

I get rich, I expect to pay more because I get paid on the money I already have sitting in the bank. Otherwise you're a wage-slave whether you make $20,000 or $150,000.

It's a basic premise being played out to perfection by the powers that be: transfer the tax burden from wealth-earners (i.e., those who earn off investments or inheritance) to income-earners (i.e., those who earn off a paycheck). And the perfect foil is to point to everyone who earns more income (and therefore pays more taxes) than somebody else and scream "class warfare." Or, "isn't he doing so much better." It depends solely on where you live and how much debt you incur getting that great-looking income on paper.

Is it any wonder why people continue to vote against their own best economic self-interests. "Well, my job at GM is being outsourced to Indonesia, but the other party kills babies and lets gays get married, so I'm voting my conscience." Sad, really.

[GremlinClr]

Is it any wonder why people continue to vote against their own best economic self-interests. "Well, my job at GM is being outsourced to Indonesia, but the other party kills babies and lets gays get married, so I'm voting my conscience." Sad, really.

Excuse me, but didn't Clinton sign NAFTA? NAFTA is the reason my job moved to Mexico and I was unemployed for 2 years. Don't give me the "big bad Republican" bullshit when it comes to outsourcing.

[DarlingNikki]

Excuse me, but didn't Clinton sign NAFTA? NAFTA is the reason my job moved to Mexico and I was unemployed for 2 years. Don't give me the "big bad Republican" bullshit when it comes to outsourcing.

you're right. it's just big bad american politics in general.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Excuse me, but didn't Clinton sign NAFTA? NAFTA is the reason my job moved to Mexico and I was unemployed for 2 years. Don't give me the "big bad Republican" bullshit when it comes to outsourcing.

As is often the case, both parties are part of the problem here. As I recall, when NAFTA came up to votes, Clinton got a greater percentage of the GOP votes in the House and Senate than he did the Democrat vote, but there were people for - and against - NAFTA on both sides of the aisle. Same right now with the upcoming - and very similar - CAFTA.

I love hearing politicians try to spin how actons which cause jobs to move out of the US are good for the economy...

POLITICAL SCUMBAG: "Yes, the big corporations make more money, so they can create more jobs."

OUT-OF-WORK AMERICAN : "And they'll be creating those jobs where?"

SCUMBAG: "Uhm, ah, ..."

AMERICAN: "Not in the US, right?"

SCUMBAG: "Well, no, but the corporate and investor profits will rise, which wil be good for the overall economy."

AMERICAN: "And this translates to me - an out-of-work machinist, age 40, with a wife, two kids and a mortgage, as opposed to some brand new Harvard MBA - getting a job exactly how?"

SCUMBAG: "Uhm, ah, ..."

The above is why Bush hand-picks who is in the audience for his spin events. This makes sure they ask fuzzy bunny questions, rather than actually addressing issues.

[macul]

And your television screen is bigger than mine, and I make $120,000 a year. I'd love to have a big-screen TV and two cars and a furnished basement, but things like student loans (only 20 years left) and mortgage payments get in the way. I usually think about that big-screen when I sit in traffic for an hour and a half each way to work. Boo-fricking-hoo.

1.5 hours each way? That's insane. I was in NY last week and our instructor said the same thing. The distance between his work and home is 90 miles. 90 freaking miles! You have got to get out of there. You can make decent money and save yourself a lot of headaches. I couldn't deal with that drive. I'm fretting over having a 30 minute drive after we find a house.

[JeffreyWKramer]

1.5 hours each way? That's insane. I was in NY last week and our instructor said the same thing.

My commute is 45-60 min, and I live in Iowa. There are limited jobs in my field (and fewer all the time, due to low reimbursement rates paid by Medicaid/Medicare and lots of insurors, and the overall shitty state of the economy) and the wages suck (mental health is among the lowest-paid of all fields when you factor in the amount of training/schooling required for the field), but I commute because I can't afford not to. Even with today's gas costs, car insurance and maintenance costs, etc., it's less expensive for me to live an hour away in a small community than it is to live in Des Moines and pay Des Moines property taxes.

[Ray R.]

Excuse me, but didn't Clinton sign NAFTA? NAFTA is the reason my job moved to Mexico and I was unemployed for 2 years. Don't give me the "big bad Republican" bullshit when it comes to outsourcing.

You're in power now, so stop your crying, since you've had control of the Congress since 1996. NAFTA has screwed Mexican workers just as much as American workers, and I don't see any rush for the party controlling all three parts of government to repeal NAFTA any time soon. What a shock. If it was such a raw deal, why haven't the Republican Congress done jack-shit to get rid of it.

Clinton was a moderate Republican in centrist Democrat's clothing. I'd rather have a moderate Republican than a radical Republican, because at least I get less financially boned in the long run and we still maintain a separation of church and state. I vote for moderate Republicans, I believe in moderate Republicans LIKE Clinton or McCain or Colin Powell before he sold his soul to the neocons. But this class warfare "bullshit" is creating the biggest disparity in wealth since the Rockefellers and J.P. Morgans were running the country.

Boil it to down to partisan politics if you want, I could care less.

[Rob Allen]

If you're a wage earner and almost exclusively depend on wages to maintain your home and family, then you're NOT "rich as hell." Period.

When you live off dividends, investments and/or inherited wealth and don't need wage income to maintain your home and family, then yes, you're "rich as hell."That was exactly the distinction between the gentry and the common people in the traditional British social hierarchy (which Americans still follow, unconsciously). To be a "gentleman" meant that you did not have to work for a living. This led to some interesting permutuations. Lawyers call themselves "Esquire" to emphasize that they are gentlemen, even though their clients pay them. The rationalization was that the fee paid to a lawyer was an honorarium, not wages, which would be demeaning. Someone who worked for a living would be called a "good man", not a gentleman. So when you hear a British upper-class person say "see here, my good man", he's emphasizing the class difference.

End of digression.

[Mike Smash!]

Clinton was a moderate Republican in centrist Democrat's clothing. I'd rather have a moderate Republican than a radical Republican, because at least I get less financially boned in the long run and we still maintain a separation of church and state.This is alot like saying, "I'd rather be punched in the face than shot in the face", but personally wouldn't vote for either option.

I'd rather not have any kind of Republican, moderate or otherwise.

It's those kind of Democrats that do a lot of the right's work for them on any ground gained on worker's right, environmental protection, curbing corporate power and civil rights issues. And they do it with liberals cheering them on because he's on "their team".

I don't want an elephant in donkey's clothing. I want to vote for candidates who aren't ashamed of being called liberals.

NAFTA, membership in the WTO, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Welfare reform, lax environmental protection and the weakening of the labor movement. That's the Clinton legacy.

Well, that and the blowjob thing.

[JeffreyWKramer]

NAFTA, membership in the WTO, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Welfare reform, lax environmental protection and the weakening of the labor movement. That's the Clinton legacy.

Well, that and the blowjob thing.

Too bad he couldn't come up with any ways to legislate more blowjobs. Perhaps if he'd offered federal funding for them. Then he'd have some sort of positive legislative legacy.

[Ray R.]

1.5 hours each way? That's insane. I was in NY last week and our instructor said the same thing. The distance between his work and home is 90 miles. 90 freaking miles! You have got to get out of there. You can make decent money and save yourself a lot of headaches. I couldn't deal with that drive. I'm fretting over having a 30 minute drive after we find a house.

Not sure what Jacksonville's like, but here in the D.C. metro area, we are experiencing sprawl to the nth degree, not unlike Atlanta and other areas. People keep moving out farther and farther to get affordable homes, which jacks up the price of the homes in that county, which makes people move farther and farther. The hot counties in D.C. now are in Loudoun as far west as Front Royal which abuts the Shenandoah mountains, and south as far as Fredericksburg, which is nearly as close to Richmond as D.C. North, we get quite a few people making the reverse commute from Baltimore to D.C., and apparently West Virginia is starting to become more popular for D.C. commuters as well, because you can buy lots of land with your house.

Real problem with this is that the infrastructure wasn't built anywhere near capable to handle the vast exodus to the suburbs. I live 35 miles from D.C. but because we only have one major highway north (I-95 - which I know you're familiar with), from 5:00 AM to 10:30 AM, and 3:00 PM to 7:30 PM, it's a parking lot. And yet they keep building condos and townhouses and $400,000 "starter homes" on the corridor. Metro stops at the circular Beltway 20 miles out, and the trains are sporadic, expensive, and inconvenient, so everyone sits in their cars complaining about how shitty their commutes are. But they keep building and building and building. And the commutes get longer and longer and longer.

I know Jax has area to play with, but any area growing beyond its infrastructure is going to have problems. There is no metropolitan plan for "smart development", because we have two states and the District who cooperate like they speak different languages.

The average house on my street is appraised at $500,000 or so, and again I'm thirty five miles from downtown D.C. We bought our house four years ago for $300,000. Property taxes have gone up 17% per year EACH year.

I know San Fran is worse, people are commuting to New York from the Pennsylvania Poconos, and I can only imagine what Florida will look like in ten years.....

[Dreadstar]

Well, Dread, the vast majority of people in that tax bracket probably live within 40 miles of major metropolitan areas, so I'm guessing that the middle class argument still holds water.

See, we're arguing two different things.

You're arguing the the majority of people in that bracket can be considered middle class, and I'm arguing that the vast majority of the U.S. middle class is below that $100K watermark. I hold that the "middle class" within that range are a minority of the whole "middle class", and thus non-representative.

[GremlinClr]

You're in power now, so stop your crying, since you've had control of the Congress since 1996. NAFTA has screwed Mexican workers just as much as American workers, and I don't see any rush for the party controlling all three parts of government to repeal NAFTA any time soon. What a shock. If it was such a raw deal, why haven't the Republican Congress done jack-shit to get rid of it.

Clinton was a moderate Republican in centrist Democrat's clothing. I'd rather have a moderate Republican than a radical Republican, because at least I get less financially boned in the long run and we still maintain a separation of church and state. I vote for moderate Republicans, I believe in moderate Republicans LIKE Clinton or McCain or Colin Powell before he sold his soul to the neocons. But this class warfare "bullshit" is creating the biggest disparity in wealth since the Rockefellers and J.P. Morgans were running the country.

Boil it to down to partisan politics if you want, I could care less.

Ok no.1 I'm an Independent, not Republican. What do you get when you Ass-u-me?

No. 2, I'm not in charge of anything.

No. 3, you want me to stop crying?! Tell you what, I live on roughly $10,000 a year. I have a mortgage and a car payment and living from one paycheck to the next, if something breaks I'm screwed. You're the one acting like you're in the damn government cheese line making $120,000. Try living on $10k a year and then come tell me just how bad you've got it.

[sirgod]

Heck as a Cattle Baron, I cleared about 285k last year. Most I've made ever. I don't know where that puts me, Middle or upperclass these days though.

All I know Is I take Personal responcibility, and do what I need to keep my family fed, and a Roof over there head. Didn't rely on Bush or Clinton to do that though.

Stephen <shrugs>

[jackalope]

Excuse me, but didn't Clinton sign NAFTA? NAFTA is the reason my job moved to Mexico and I was unemployed for 2 years. Don't give me the "big bad Republican" bullshit when it comes to outsourcing.
Clinton did sign the NAFTA treaty, but it was created and negiotiated by George H.W. Bush. Clinton embraced NAFTA in hopes of "bridging the gap" and crossing partisan lines.

Republicans certainly are behind the push for globalization and outsourcing however, and attempting to pin NAFTA on Democrats when it was drafted by Republicans during a Republican administration and passed by a Republican congress is rather disingenious.

[GremlinClr]

Clinton did sign the NAFTA treaty, but it was created and negiotiated by George H.W. Bush. Clinton embraced NAFTA in hopes of "bridging the gap" and crossing partisan lines.

Republicans certainly are behind the push for globalization and outsourcing however, and attempting to pin NAFTA on Democrats when it was drafted by Republicans during a Republican administration and passed by a Republican congress is rather disingenious.

I'm not "pinning" NAFTA on Democrats, he signed it when he could have vetoed it. *SHRUG*

[Naldo]

I may have missed something, but when did the federal government become responsible for providing anyone a job?

Of course in a healthy economy unemployment is kept to a minimum.

I remember when that county by county map came out showing how people voted in the 2004 election I heard a lot of people say "well sure but most people live in the cities, so all those empty counties in the country shouldn't really count when showing republican/democrat voting"

If you live in Los Angeles, along with about 10 million other people (and remember 1 in 8 U.S. citizens live in California), or San Francisco or San Diego or Santa Barbara, the median home prices is $500,000. That's a lot of money no matter where you live.

$150,000 a year family income doesn't go a long way here, nor does it in NYC with another 8 million or D.C. or Miami or any of the other centers of population.

I find myself in this trap right now. It's why i've sold my house here in L.A. and taking every tax free cent of capital gain and starting my own business and buying a house in Cherry Hill, NJ where my dollar will go MUCH further.

You have to be able to adapt. I wish I could buy a house near where I grew up but that neighborhood is now $1million plus. Fair? Well in my opinion fair doesn't even come into it. It's a free market economy so whatever the market will bear is fair. So rather than sit and whine about it I'm maximizing my assets and moving.

It must have been nice to know you could enter a factory job at 18 and get out at 60 with a pension etc. But those times are gone, education and adaptability are key in the present and future economies.

[Mike Smash!]

Clinton did sign the NAFTA treaty, but it was created and negiotiated by George H.W. Bush. Clinton embraced NAFTA in hopes of "bridging the gap" and crossing partisan lines.

Republicans certainly are behind the push for globalization and outsourcing however, and attempting to pin NAFTA on Democrats when it was drafted by Republicans during a Republican administration and passed by a Republican congress is rather disingenious.Let's not jump on Democrat vs. Republican "us vs. them" fights without acknowledging that yeah, the Republicans are the unabashed party of big business and most of them adore agreements like NAFTA and membership in the World Trade Organization for the benefits it gives their giant corporate donors, but that there are several Democrats who do the exact same, Bill Clinton being one of them. The DLC being a whole cabal of them.

They would rather be in league with multinational corporations would would negociate with Satan if they thought they could put a McDonald's in Hell, even if it means that they're targeting the very people who make up their base and are the foundation of our economy. After all, the corporate money is just so tempting and they'll give it a fake fight, like someone arguing over who's going to take the bill at a restaurant.

"Oh no, don't pay for me.. no, it's okay...no, it's....okay, if you insist!"

And there are ways to reach across the aisle that don't involve selling your pricinples out -- and I'm just going to assume that Bill Clinton had principles.

It's sad when Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot and many conservatives get something right and the Democrats drop the ball. Clinton had the power to veto this and stop the sort of outsourcing that only benefits the very wealthy, but he championed this and alot of the corporate welfare where our tax dollars go towards McDonald's promoting Ronald McDonald in China.

For all their preaching the gospel of captialism, these corporations were the last to believe in it. They want socialism for themselves and laissez faire captialism for the rest of us. They want to capitalize their profits and socialize their losses and who picks up the bill for it? We do.

And who let them do this? The worst of the Republican and Democratic Parties with the blessing of President Clinton.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I may have missed something, but when did the federal government become responsible for providing anyone a job?


Who said they were? I certainly think it would be a good idea, though, for the government to not pursue policies which encourage companies to eliminate jobs in the US and move them overseas.

[Ray R.]

Ok no.1 I'm an Independent, not Republican. What do you get when you Ass-u-me?

No. 2, I'm not in charge of anything.

No. 3, you want me to stop crying?! Tell you what, I live on roughly $10,000 a year. I have a mortgage and a car payment and living from one paycheck to the next, if something breaks I'm screwed. You're the one acting like you're in the damn government cheese line making $120,000. Try living on $10k a year and then come tell me just how bad you've got it.

When you use the term "big bad Republicans", what do you expect. That's quite the exponential leap in logic to expect you to be an independent. But, such is the price to pay to converse on the Internet.

No. 3, you obviously don't get the point, and haven't made one lick of an attempt to do so. I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me, and I sure don't feel sorry for myself. I have busted my ass in the classroom, in interviews, and other areas to get where I am. I WILL NOT be in any cheese line, provided I keep my job. My expenses leave me in the position, where I get fired, and I'm not more than a few weeks from foreclosure or bankruptcy. Same shit, different place.

And I have lived on $10,000 a year. Didn't particularly like it too much, so I went to school and made sure I didn't make $10,000 grand a year. Looks like you're the one ASS-U-ME-ing now. Congrats to you for being a responsible person and doing the best you can, and I mean that with all sincerity. A larger income doesn't make you a better person, and it doesn't make you a worse one.

And that's my point. It's an arbitrary distinction that is little more than a way to inject class into a discussion. And whether it be Republican or Democrat, using class warfare as a rallying point is both shallow and useless.

I reiterate, there is a distinct difference between wealth and income. When you shift the burden of paying for the bloated government, the military, and every social program under the sun onto wage-slaves, and away from WEALTH-earners, then we're all getting bent over, no matter what your W-2 says at the end of the year.

[Mike Smash!]

Who said they were? I certainly think it would be a good idea, though, for the government to not pursue policies which encourage companies to eliminate jobs in the US and move them overseas.Not to mention encourage those same companies to open up shop in countries with no workers rights or laws against child and prison labor to cut costs. Not to mention all of the jobs lost and the dignity that goes with it.

And then kill small business with their inability to compete with such companies and force big name competitors with a sense of decency to keep jobs in the US to have to cut hours and benefits or adopt many of the same sleazy practices themselves to keep their heads above water.

[Ray R.]

Not to mention encourage those same companies to open up shop in countries with workers rights or laws against child and prison labor to cut costs. Not to mention all of the jobs lost and the dignity that goes with it.

And then kill small business with their inability to compete with such companies and force big name competitors with a sense of decency to keep jobs in the US to have to cut hours and benefits or adopt many of the same sleazy practices themselves to keep their heads above water.

Go figure that we have no domestic television, radio, sports equipment, and hundreds of other manufacturing companies, as well as the thousands upon thousands of salaried jobs that went with those manufacturing companies.

We have a textile industry in shambles, an automobile industry in shambles, a steel industry in shambles, and we're about to knock off the protective tariffs that keep our domestic agriculture intact once we create the "free trade zone" with indentured labor in Central America. It's no accident that the real value of Mexican wages has gone down a third since NAFTA went into effect. Less environmental and safety regulations, dirt-cheap wages, and safe harbor tax advantages.

So, we go from a manufacturing economy to a service economy.

Now, we export service jobs to the third world. Computer support, telemarketing, credit counseling, document processing, secretarial, biotech research, etc., etc., etc. And the rate is increasing, because it's so seductively cheap to outsource. Screw the H-1 visas, just open an office in Madripoor or Shanghai.

I'm told that half of all the computer code being produced now comes from Russian programmers in Novosibirsk, Minsk, and other areas. They leave little calling cards within the code so you can tell it's Russian.

Globalization - gotta love it. Fairness? Ain't no such animal.....

[Nate C.]

Speaking of the transition to a service industry, I saw the writing on the wall and am in a nursing program right now.

The boomers will all be dead within twenty-five years, and with a smaller work force following them, I should have no problem getting, keeping and succeeding in my new profession. Kind of hard to outsource hands on caregiving.

It's like evolution. To qoute Moore, from V for Vendetta, "climb down from the trees and there's the eggs. Get sucking." Change is here. Gotta change or die.


There is a bright side though. When the boomers are all dead and gone, statistically, the housing market will have to implode. Hold onto some real wealth for the next fifteen years, and the home now priced at 500,00 should be 300,000, NOT 1.5 million, what with it being a serious buyers market and all.

See? Abortion has an upside.

[Andy S.]

Who said they were? I certainly think it would be a good idea, though, for the government to not pursue policies which encourage companies to eliminate jobs in the US and move them overseas.

A common defense that I've heard from supporters of this sort of policy is that the "U.S. must remain competitive" - that U.S. competitiveness is a higher priority than keeping jobs here, essientially.

Can someone please tell me what "U.S. must remain competitive" means, exactly?

[Ray R.]

A common defense that I've heard from supporters of this sort of policy is that the "U.S. must remain competitive" - that U.S. competitiveness is a higher priority than keeping jobs here, essientially.

Can someone please tell me what "U.S. must remain competitive" means, exactly?

Executive compensation for keeping stock value constant through cost-cutting measures such as eliminating pension funds, outsourcing jobs, and cooking the books must remain competitive from company to company.

[Dreadstar]

Executive compensation for keeping stock value constant through cost-cutting measures such as eliminating pension funds, outsourcing jobs, and cooking the books must remain competitive from company to company.

You cynic, you.




I knew there was a reason I liked you.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Can someone please tell me what "U.S. must remain competitive" means, exactly?

The very richest Americans and their companies staying rich, regardless how things affect the workers or Americans in general.

[Ray R.]

You cynic, you.




I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Ditto. I keep telling you, first round's on me.

[dougputhoff]

Are we going to need another South Central to wake American up?

[Alex]

Good question. I wish I was so middle-class.

Me too, i always thought i was middle class, but since my family doesn't pull in over 150,000 grand, that dream is gone.
...
You spose if thats middle class, then is 200,001 upper class? Or is upper middle class like 200,001-750,000, and then its 750,001 is upper class.

[Nate C.]

I don't know either, but Paul McEnry thinks lower middle is "bougeoise" so look out. :evilsmile

[macul]

Tom Daschle told us $100k/year is wealthy. I'm so confused.

[dougputhoff]

Tom Daschle told us $100k/year is wealthy. I'm so confused.

Heck, most people in the world would think the $14K I'd made at my old job last year as being wealthy.

Everything is relative.

[Dennis K]

I honestly don't think that you guys or the world actually need any more reasons to get rid of Bush but hey, you had your chance right. All those red states........it's enough to make you cry :eek:


I guess we dropped the ball just like you guys did when Blair won.

[Alex]

400 people pay 17.5 Percent?
Being super rich sucks ass, if those people all left the country, we'd lose almost 18 percent of the money!

[Phrozen]

Heck, most people in the world would think the $14K I'd made at my old job last year as being wealthy.

Everything is relative.

That is because industrialized nations are the deviation from the civilized norm. For much of human history life absolutely sucked for the lower class and really today the lower class in America live in such luxary that dwarfs the Kings ane Emperors of yesteryear.