PBS Frontline: The Middle Class and the New American Economy

[brett]

The program made me appreciate what I have and the opportunities that I have had. 95 percent is attributable to my parents and my wife.

 

[GrayHare]

I tried watching this at pbs.org but the data rate was so slow as to make the video unwatchable. I don't have that problem at other sites. Is PBS routinely overloaded? Is there a better time of day?

 

[travelover]

I tried watching this at pbs.org but the data rate was so slow as to make the video unwatchable. I don't have that problem at other sites. Is PBS routinely overloaded? Is there a better time of day?

Dunno, I just watched it via a DSL line and it worked fine.

 

[Redbugdave]

Yes, I have had problems with PBS and Utube. Utube has especially gotten worse. Other streaming sites, (Vimeo, etc), are OK.

 

[Major Tom]

I tried watching this at pbs.org but the data rate was so slow as to make the video unwatchable. I don't have that problem at other sites. Is PBS routinely overloaded? Is there a better time of day?

I have basic speed DSL and had to watch 5-10 minutes at a time, allowing it to rebuffer.

 

[imoldernu]

Very interesting thread. Not sure I learned much from the documentary, but certainly learned a lot about member atttitudes and thought processes. Rare and refreshing to see discussion without the vitriol that fills our lives.

 

[Major Tom]

Oh Tom, Tom.....this is the way I used to think, as an INTJ like you (I assume). Those are very important avenues to explore. But the power of stories is evident here. Look how much interest and debate this program has generated here!

You hit the nail on the head Meadbh - I am indeed an INTJ, like you!

There were some interesting parts; I'm not disagreeing with that. As others have said, the Stanleys in particular were quite inspiring. The son who went to college and is using his education to work within his community is exemplary of good citizenship. Mr and Mrs Stanley are hard-working and dedicated parents and members of their community. Like Arifriekinel, I didn't think of Mrs Stanley as a failure at all, and I think it's a shame that she thinks of herself that way.

The way that Mrs Neumann lost her house, owing (IIRC) 96K on it, only to see the bank sell it to another couple for 38K in a foreclosure sale, was saddening. The son who has a child by one woman, is expecting another kid with another woman, and who is working a minimum wage job with no benefits was as uninspiring to me as Keith Stanley was inspiring. He's going to have trouble getting ahead in life. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong; I sure hope so.

It was quite good as a study of 2 individual families in one specific city over a 20-year time period. The name of the program suggested to me, however, that a broader viewpoint would be taken, and perhaps some attempt made at a critical analysis of what actually is happening to the American middle class. For me, the title created expectations that weren't met. That was the part that disappointed.

If this just serves to illustrate my INTJ nature then what can I say? I gotta be me

 

[Hamlet]

I think something important that no one seems to have touched on is that you don't really need many people for manufacturing anymore. Sure, some of the job losses have been companies moving overseas to tap cheap labor, but most of them are simply from automation.

A modern manufacturing plant often just needs a few people to keep the machines running well. In China, labor has been cheap enough that it hasn't been worth the expense of automation, but that may be changing as well.

Ultimately, we need fewer and fewer people each year to produce the "stuff" we use. The jobs we produce are mostly service jobs, which usually use local labor.

I don't think it will be too long before the automation of service jobs picks up.

The automation of farming freed up labor for manufacturing. The automation of manufacturing freed up labor for the service economy.

I fear that the automation of the service sector will free our labor up for standing in the unemployment line.

So, what gives? Why are businesses in the Neumanns' and Stanleys' area paying so much less? Their profitability must have been low compared to elsewhere. Why?

Or perhaps the stagnant economic condition there drags everything down, and the surplus of labor drives down the hourly rate. Fine, but why don't businesses see that as an advantage and set up shops there, instead of in other places where they had to pay a lot more for labor?

I would suggest to PBS to research into questions like the above.

 

[haha]

I fear that the automation of the service sector will free our labor up for standing in the unemployment line.

Maybe, but why be dark? We'll need more government workers for starters, to man these unemployment lines. Look how many more hands will be available for burglary, armed robbery, and peddling narcotics? Don't forget the augmented need for tattoo parlors. And then if we can figure out how to pay them, we will need more cops, more prosecutors and public defenders, more probation officers, more judges and bailiffs-it gives endless employment possibilities. I see America on the cusp of a new golden age!

Ha

 

[Al in Ohio]

We could debate median/average income increases tell the cows come home. I could literally write a novella length book on how silly it is that our government uses the same methodology to collect data on income that we relied on during the New Deal. Although census workers are now allowed to use that new fangled invention the telephone instead of in person interviews, although cellphone interviews aren't allowed. In short in world were every Walmart manager can tell your precisely how many green shirts were sold before St. Patty's day for the past decade it is crazy how crappy our economic data collection is. So when people quote stuff about income. I want to know how do you define it and how did you collect the data, cause after looking into the sausage factory. I don't really believe it.

But when people say the average family is worse off than they were in the 1970, because yes a male with a high school diploma wages have gone up minimally since 1970. We are ignoring a host of other factors, rising wages woman, rising wages for the twice as many folks with a college education. 30% increases in real household wages since 1970, smaller households meaning more spending per person.

To me if we want to measure prosperity we just you look around at what people do and own . It is far more important what that income can and does purchases so some examples. .

No way is that accurate. Most of the stuff Americans "possess" and have purchased they don't own outright at all . They buy stuff on credit. They can buy much more than they should. Tracking how much stuff we possess is a very bad indicator. Income is very accurate and the numbers come from income tax and wage reported to the IRS from employers. Plus they compare that to previous years records using the same data gathering method and parameters used decades before. You cannot say that isn't much more accurate than how many things people nowadays consume or purchase. That's only an annual barometer for how greedy we have become compared to previous generations (especially since they had no credit cards back when my grandpa was my age)!

 

[clifp]

No way is that accurate. Most of the stuff Americans "possess" and have purchased they don't own outright at all . They buy stuff on credit. They can buy much more than they should. Tracking how much stuff we possess is a very bad indicator. Income is very accurate and the numbers come from income tax and wage reported to the IRS from employers. Plus they compare that to previous years records using the same data gathering method and parameters used decades before. You cannot say that isn't much more accurate than how many things people nowadays consume or purchase. That's only an annual barometer for how greedy we have become compared to previous generations (especially since they had no credit cards back when my grandpa was my age)!

I am not sure where do to start here. Do you have a source that say most stuff American's possess they owe credit? If so care to provide a link. Obviously it is true for houses and generally true for cars that people buy them on credit. Although roughly 1/3 of all houses in the US have no mortgage In the case of cars most people pay off their car loans and they are typically 3-5 year loans, while the average car is 10+ years old.

As for income data collection being very accurate I am laughing.
I am curious could you tell me where on the tax form you report the following types of income?
o Employer match for 401K contributions or pension contributions
o Value of insurance premiums paid by your employer
o Dividends, interest, and realized capitals gains in a 401K/IRAs.
o SNAP (aka food stamps)
o School lunches
o Pell grants
o AGI including Tax free income from muni bonds
o Inheritances and gifts

If you actually read as many income studies as I have you'd realize that precious few use the IRS data because IRS fail to capture income at all accurately, especially for poor people and in some cases the very rich. The rest rely on Census bureau panels as I have described, and they are antiquated.

Now I don't claim to be an expert, although I sure I know more than the average Joe. So if you have had a career working for the Census Bureau, BLS, Federal Reserve, the economics department at top university or JP Morgan, I'd be happy to be educated.

Otherwise unless you back up your arguments with links to reputable source, I have hard time taking them very seriously.

FYI, actually unless your grandfather was over the age 75 when you were born they had credit cards when he was your age.

 

[Redbugdave]

Maybe, but why be dark? We'll need more government workers for starters, to man these unemployment lines. Look how many more hands will be available for burglary, armed robbery, and peddling narcotics? Don't forget the augmented need for tattoo parlors. And then if we can figure out how to pay them, we will need more cops, more prosecutors and public defenders, more probation officers, more judges and bailiffs-it gives endless employment possibilities. I see America on the cusp of a new golden age!

Ha

My kind of humor!

You also need to remember that all those govt employees will be faithfully paying their fair share of taxes, too. Without taxes the system would fail. Possibly an annual tattoo tax?...

 

[serie1926]

I haven't watched yet, but comments in this thread made me think of the final scene of "Killing Them Softly".

Killing Them Softly (2012) - Final Scene - YouTube

Please be warned, a bit of foul language.

 

[ERD50]

No way is that accurate. Most of the stuff Americans "possess" and have purchased they don't own outright at all . They buy stuff on credit. They can buy much more than they should. Tracking how much stuff we possess is a very bad indicator. Income is very accurate and the numbers come from income tax and wage reported to the IRS from employers. Plus they compare that to previous years records using the same data gathering method and parameters used decades before. You cannot say that isn't much more accurate than how many things people nowadays consume or purchase. That's only an annual barometer for how greedy we have become compared to previous generations (especially since they had no credit cards back when my grandpa was my age)!

I am not sure where do to start here. Do you have a source that say most stuff American's possess they owe credit? If so care to provide a link.
....

Now I don't claim to be an expert, although I sure I know more than the average Joe. So if you have had a career working for the Census Bureau, BLS, Federal Reserve, the economics department at top university or JP Morgan, I'd be happy to be educated.

Otherwise unless you back up your arguments with links to reputable source, I have hard time taking them very seriously. ....

Al in Ohio, if you look around this forum, I think you'll quickly learn that clifp is very good with numbers and big-picture economics.

So after he provided this info, and acknowledged that there would be some effect due to credit, you just say 'no, you are wrong'? As clifp says, provide some reliable links/info if you want to challenge him and educate us.

Words have meanings. When you say "Most of the stuff Americans "possess" and have purchased they don't own outright at all." - 'most' means more than half. Links?

-ERD50

 

[REWahoo]

Dang. The "factionistas" are at it again, expecting links and documentation. What a buzz-kill.

 

[ERD50]

Dang. The "factionistas" are at it again, expecting links an documentation. What a buzz-kill.

Sorry, I forgot we were just supposed to immerse ourselves in the 'narrative'.

Facts? Facts! We don't need no stinkin' facts!

-ERD50

 

[MichaelB]

Sorry, I forgot we were just supposed to immerse ourselves in the 'narrative'.

Facts? Facts! We don't need no stinkin' facts!

-ERD50

Reminds me of a boss, and good friend (not at the same time) who often said "never let facts get in the way of a good story".

 

[ERD50]

Reminds me of a boss, and good friend (not at the same time) who often said "never let facts get in the way of a good story".

I think it was Mark Twain, in the intro to one of his books, something like - ' I have a very good memory, sometimes I can recall things that never even happened!'.

-ERD50

 

[Al in Ohio]

You don't need no stinkin facts or links to know common knowledge about the extent if consumer debt. Watch the nightly news. You will get a figure at least once per week!


Sheesh!

 

[Al in Ohio]

Fyi - The first widely accepted credit card for general purpose was the Bank of Americard now known as VISA which was born in 1966. Credit card use was not widely accepted until the 70's.(well after my grandpa retired). He would not have used credit cards during his working life.

Link. www.creditcards.com

 

[pb4uski]

You don't need no stinkin facts or links to know common knowledge about the extent if consumer debt. Watch the nightly news. You will get a figure at least once per week!


Sheesh!

Thou doth protest too much methinks.

 

[Bestwifeever]

You don't need no stinkin facts or links to know common knowledge about the extent if consumer debt. Watch the nightly news. You will get a figure at least once per week!


Sheesh!

Hey, you're the one who said " Most of the stuff Americans "possess" and have purchased they don't own outright at all ."

I guess you're speaking for yourself? Everything in our house is owned outright by us.

 

[Al in Ohio]

Hey, you're the one who said " Most of the stuff Americans "possess" and have purchased they don't own outright at all ."

I guess you're speaking for yourself? Everything in our house is owned outright by us.

Okay I guess I should clarify. Instead of saying "most stuff" but instead much of the big ticket items Clifp mentioned like cars, boats, houses etc in terms of monetary value or perhaps as a ratio of the average Americans net debt to net worth, and no certainly not me included as I operate almost debt free.

 

[clifp]

You don't need no stinkin facts or links to know common knowledge about the extent if consumer debt. Watch the nightly news. You will get a figure at least once per week!


Sheesh!

Mostly true but what the media is generally horrible about is providing context.


So for instance this site nerdwallet.com provides some pretty good debt numbers,and I cross checked them with the Federal Reserve numbers. (I should add I trust Feds numbers cause in my experience banks seem to be pretty good about keep track of loan balances etc.) As opposed to a census worker spending an hour asking somebody questions like "in the last 3 months how much did you receive in dividends"

Here are some highlights.

The average US household credit card debt stands at $15,325, the result of a small number of deeply indebted households forcing up the numbers. Based on an analysis of Federal Reserve statistics and other government data, the average household owes $7,149 on their cards; looking only at indebted households, the average outstanding balance rises to $15,325. Here are statistics, trends, studies and methodology behind the average U.S. household debt.

...
in total, American consumers owe:

$11.16 trillion in debt
A decrease of 1.6% from last year
$856.5 billion in credit card debt
$7.86 trillion in mortgages
$999.3 billion in student loans
An increase of 6.1% from last year

Now 11 trillion in debt sounds huge, but not so huge in the context of 16 trillion economy.

But more importantly look at the dramatic increase of the wealth of the country $65 trillion at the peak in 2007 and with the stock and housing markets both rebounding we will almost certainly see a record in 2013.

The chart is unadjusted for inflation or population growth and according to Wiki but even after adjusting for those two factors you end up with doubling of wealth from 1970 to to day. As the wiki article illustrated while the rich clearly got much richer since 1989 (i.e the same time as the documentary) even those in the bottom 20% got richer. The only group that got poorer is those without high school diploma (like Mr. Stanley) and that it turn is a shrinking group.

But of course this type of context is never provided by the media.

 

[Gatordoc50]

Mostly true but what the media is generally horrible about is providing context.

So for instance this site nerdwallet.com provides some pretty good debt numbers,and I cross checked them with the Federal Reserve numbers. (I should add I trust Feds numbers cause in my experience banks seem to be pretty good about keep track of loan balances etc.) As opposed to a census worker spending an hour asking somebody questions like "in the last 3 months how much did you receive in dividends"

Here are some highlights.

Now 11 trillion in debt sounds huge, but not so huge in the context of 16 trillion economy.

But more importantly look at the dramatic increase of the wealth of the country $65 trillion at the peak in 2007 and with the stock and housing markets both rebounding we will almost certainly see a record in 2013.

The chart is unadjusted for inflation or population growth and according to Wiki but even after adjusting for those two factors you end up with doubling of wealth from 1970 to to day. As the wiki article illustrated while the rich clearly got much richer since 1989 (i.e the same time as the documentary) even those in the bottom 20% got richer. The only group that got poorer is those without high school diploma (like Mr. Stanley) and that it turn is a shrinking group.

But of course this type of context is never provided by the media.

Great stuff. But just as incomes may be understated, so are these debt numbers. To be fair, bad consumer debts written off by creditors should be included along with the national debt, state and local municipal debt, and unfunded liabilities including infrastructure deficiencies. IMO, therein lies the discrepancy between stagnant income and rising lifestyles. Certainly our deficit spending has been the driving force behind improved quality of life.