PBS Frontline: The Middle Class and the New American Economy

[Midpack]

I finally watched the show and it was pretty much as expected (same story as Gary, Detroit, Youngstown and many more), but interesting nonetheless to hear each family members perspectives at intervals over 20+ years.

But the most interesting observation on this thread to me is how it appears ER members respective ideology lenses remain wholly unchanged, as reflected by their reviews of the Frontline episode. As journalism, no effect at all? Like so much journalism these days...yawn...

I don't know how interesting that is, I think it would be totally expected when the journalism is presented in select anecdotes.

Even if it was a straight factual report, people are likely to differ on the causes, and that reflects what they have learned (or think they've learned) from their own experience/observation. So if we talk about lower wages, one person sees that as a greedy corporation (but why wasn't that corp greedy in the past?), another sees it as the consequence of globalization.

And if one sees bad luck as a reason, and another says it depends on how you prepare and deal with bad luck - I would expect that view to come across in any comments on this story. Why wouldn't it? It would be more 'interesting' (and perplexing) to me, if their views were somehow reversed. Now that would be interesting - what would cause that, I would wonder.

You're confirming my observation, whether you realize it or not. And it was my observation, others are welcome to their own...

 

[Mulligan]

You're confirming my observation, whether you realize it or not. And it was my observation, others are welcome to their own...

My reaction was more sympathetic than my philosophy generally is. The people within my circle who have financial difficulties are ones who have spending problems, not income problems. I have also been exposed to my fair share of bums who will milk what they can from the government and not worry so much about working for a living. This group of people definitely causes me to have a sympathetic viewpoint for them. I have no solution, but I respect the work ethic and desire to work nonetheless.

 

[steve88]

I watched this last night and had mixed feelings. I spent part of my childhood in a basement apartment in what can only be described as a ghetto (after my father lost his job). That is what led me to become interested in becoming FI. Living there made me very aware of the disparity in opportunities available (especially for children) and I can understand the struggles. My father studied hard and passed the PE exam, which led to a new career. He knew that a sustainable career was the key to changing our lives. The effects of not having that was really on display in the report.

Part of me though, was disappointed in the choices made. My wife and I put off having children when we were young. Why? Because we knew we couldn't afford them. I'm not sure when it became a right to have as many children as you want without regard to the costs of that decision. It was also pretty easy to predict the outcome of some financial moves (e.g. buying the building to start two new businesses, choosing an out-of-state school when an in-state would have been 1/2 the cost).

I wish there were more opportunities, especially in poorer areas, for life and money coaching/mentoring. That is a real gap. I have been considering joining such a program in my area and this report convinced me to go forward. Maybe I can help a future Neumann or Stanley...

Maybe he was not accepted in-state school. I know some here will say go to a junior college but its hard sometimes to convince other people when they believe that any state college is superior to a junior college. The person is doing well anyway and if he plays his cards right he can pay off his loans and build a nice nest egg.

 

[ls99]

Did not watch the documentary. I do not watch or listen to anything the Moyers has a hand in. It is always a whine about something. Meantime he makes outrageous salary etc.. Perhaps he should donate half his income to all the poor saps he profiles and makes his living off of.

For reference, I arrived 1965. Age 17. First real job, made 75 cents per hour. In a few months saved up enough to buy a bicycle, thus able to ride insetad of walk the 6 or so miles to work. Next job, $1.25 per hour. in a few more months saved enough to buy a used car. All the while paying $15/week then $25 per week to my brother and SIL for room and board. Oh and I did have to go to the local high school to get working papers. A school which I never attended.

Next job US Army. $65/month. full room and board


As you might guess I have no sympathy for the poor families.

 

[Hamlet]

It's a very rare person that updates their ideology when presented with facts that conflict with it. People are much more likely to go through pretty extreme convolutions of logic to conclude that they were right in the first place.

Most people have pretty basic models in their head about the way the world works and tend to discard any information that doesn't fit into that model.

I didn't watch the show, so I saved myself the trouble of discarding its information.

I finally watched the show and it was pretty much as expected (same story as Gary, Detroit, Youngstown and many more), but interesting nonetheless to hear each family members perspectives at intervals over 20+ years.

But the most interesting observation on this thread to me is how it appears ER members respective ideology lenses remain wholly unchanged, as reflected by their reviews of the Frontline episode. As journalism, no effect at all? Like so much journalism these days...yawn...

 

[haha]

I don't know how interesting that is, I think it would be totally expected when the journalism is presented in select anecdotes.

-ERD50

What else could possibly be expected out of Bill Moyers and NPR? Certainly not a critical analysis. They specialize I heart strings, not brain appeals.

Ha

 

[ERD50]

You're confirming my observation, whether you realize it or not. And it was my observation, others are welcome to their own...

Of course I realize it - that was my point. I don't find it particularly 'interesting' to see people react consistently with their previous posts.

To me, this is like finding it interesting that the beverage of choice for a oenophile convention dinner is wine. It fits hand in glove.

What else could possibly be expected out of Bill Moyers and NPR? Certainly not a critical analysis. They specialize I heart strings, not brain appeals.

Ha

Exactly.

-ERD50

 

[tinlizzy]

The person I felt bad for was Keith, the son who went to college. I'm guessing they had no idea that state colleges were less expensive. He was the first male in each family to graduate from High school. His mom said he had a 3.5 in high school - did he bomb the ACT's? What about financial aid, like PELL grants? 5 kids and minimum wage - surely he'd get something.

 

[Ready]

Just finished watching it off the internet. For some reason I couldn't find it on TIVO in Southern Cal on Verizon FIOS. I thought it was very well done, and certainly a reminder of how difficult life can be, and how fortunate I've been over the years to have all that I do.

I find it fascinating that this documentary was started over 20 years ago, and it made it all the way through to today and saw to being distributed. I don't think I've ever seen a documentary that someone intentionally started and kept working on for 20 years before showing it to the public. It was so sad to see so many of the kids growing up, and instead of prospering from their adversity, they ended up having their own kids at an early age and settling for low wage unskilled labor. I guess that's the way it goes sometimes, but I was hoping that there would be more Keith's in the final outcome. I guess it wasn't meant to be.

Without a doubt, relying on manufacturing or other industrialized, low skill labor to live the American dream was a tragic mistake for many Americans over the past few decades. So many things have changed in the world over the past 30 years to make these jobs undesirable that these people almost didn't have a chance. The America where you could go work for GM for 30 years and have great pay and benefits is over. Without a degree or specialized skill life can be very hard for many, as this documentary clearly illustrates.

 

[Arifriekinel]

The person I felt bad for was Keith, the son who went to college. I'm guessing they had no idea that state colleges were less expensive. He was the first male in each family to graduate from High school. His mom said he had a 3.5 in high school - did he bomb the ACT's? What about financial aid, like PELL grants? 5 kids and minimum wage - surely he'd get something.

She said the cost at Alabama State for him was only $7k. That's really cheap for out-of-state. I'd have to imagine he got a scholarship or something from them that made it about the same price as in-state, which the 7k figure seems much more on par with.

The family didn't seem to know much about high education, it doesn't seem too hard to imagine them not knowing a single thing about grants or financial aid aside from scholarships from specific schools.

 

[westcoast]

I didn't see the program, but...

Thankfully those times did not last forever and I'd like to think the circumstances described in this program will also improve given time - and the Bill Moyers of the world can focus on other gloom & doom topics.

You might have watched it before dismissing it.

 

[westcoast]

I find it fascinating that this documentary was started over 20 years ago, and it made it all the way through to today and saw to being distributed. I don't think I've ever seen a documentary that someone intentionally started and kept working on for 20 years before showing it to the public.

Some of the footage might have been shown previously - not sure.

If you like the long view, take a look at the "Up" series, which began with "7 Up" in the 1960s profiling a group of British children from various social classes. The filmmakers went back every seven years thereafter. The most recent film is "56 Up," which should be in video this month.

 

[Malcolm2]

Watched most of it, thought it was predictable for NPR. The message seems to be lamenting lack of high paid manufacturing jobs for unskilled workers. I feel for the families but noticed all seemed well fed with TV's, etc. Not the definition of poverty in the other 98 percent of the world. Having 3 kids when you are 20? Not a good decision in the U.S.

I think if Moyers/PBS was around in 1900 they would have done a piece lamenting those out of work carriage makers due to Henry Ford.

Times change. Individuals must adapt. Higher minimum wage is not the answer. Education and adding value with your job is.

 

[Gatordoc50]

Mrs Neumann made a good point when wondering why the bank would choose to sell her home in foreclosure for 30 or 40k rather than work with her. I mean if you start out paying 15% + interest and pay for 24 years, you have pretty much bought that house a few times over. She made some mistakes but I respect her a whole lot more than the investment bankers who got bailed out for their mistakes.

 

[Midpack]

Of course I realize it - that was my point. I don't find it particularly 'interesting' to see people react consistently with their previous posts.

To me, this is like finding it interesting that the beverage of choice for a oenophile convention dinner is wine. It fits hand in glove.

Then you might have asked yourself why people discuss topics at all, on anonymous forums especially...interesting? Or read/watch journalists if there's no chance we'll learn anything that might make us reconsider our views. We just like to hear ourselves talk, and find others of like mind to reinforce our already held views, with no possibility of changing our POV - sad? My views at 20, 40 and (almost) 60 have certainly changed/evolved on many issues...and I hope I never come to believe I have all the worlds answers.

 

[Willers]

Then you might have asked yourself why people discuss topics at all, on anonymous forums especially...interesting? Or read/watch journalists if there's no chance we'll learn anything that might make us reconsider our views. We just like to hear ourselves talk, and find others of like mind to reinforce our already held views, with no possibility of changing our POV - sad? My views at 20, 40 and (almost) 60 have certainly changed/evolved on many issues...and I hope I never come to believe I have all the worlds answers.

I agree with this. Maybe it is the ex-scientist in me, but I'm always looking for new info to challenge my current beliefs and ideas. That is what drew me to this forum. I'm interested in finding the gaps/errors in my thinking or my plans. The older I get the more I realize I don't know or misunderstood.

 

[REWahoo]

You might have watched it before dismissing it.

I've known Moyers work since he was LBJ's press secretary. That leopard has not changed his spots.

 

[MichaelB]

I saw a few minutes of his interview with Charlie Rose promoting the show, and decided to not watch it. I've never seen "Frontline", so I guess I don't know what I'm missing, but for analysis and learning, my preference is reading rather than watching.

 

[Texas Proud]

It's a very rare person that updates their ideology when presented with facts that conflict with it. People are much more likely to go through pretty extreme convolutions of logic to conclude that they were right in the first place.

Most people have pretty basic models in their head about the way the world works and tend to discard any information that doesn't fit into that model.

I didn't watch the show, so I saved myself the trouble of discarding its information.

I did not watch the show either.... but from what people are saying... there might not be that many 'facts' included...

 

[FUEGO]

Just watched the whole show. I guess I don't really see that much bad in it. Everyone in the show seems to be doing adequately well materially speaking. They have roofs over their heads, and food (with plenty of meat in it) on the table. The cars they were driving are all nicer than my family's cars. Other than financial difficulties due to health care, it didn't sound like access to health care was an issue for any of them. It appears existing social safety nets did an ok job keeping most dire destitution (job retraining, food stamps, presumably medicaid for child births, etc).

The house that the Neumann's grew up in looks similar in size and amenities to the houses in my neighborhood. Back in the 80's (when they bought the house) that was a pretty nice house in Milwaukee.

The Stanley's seemed to have a nicely decorated house and appeared well dressed. Maybe they are still faking it before they make it (as the matriarch suggested!). They are probably not far off from receiving social security.

Of the children of the Neumann's and the Stanley's, they all seem to be doing ok to great, given their humble beginnings. The more successful seemed to pursue something after high school (military, bachelors or associates degree), which created income, experience, and options. Those that appeared less successful aren't bad off (roofs over heads, food on table). No one seemed to lack electronics (tvs, video cameras, computers, etc).

To me this looks like the tale of the working class in America (albeit biased since it was filmed in a city that has faced economic decline). Life isn't easy, but it has never been easy for these folks (except maybe for blips of time in limited geographic areas).

But they all made it through life, raised seemingly respectable kids of varying economic success (and some are so young you can't really judge yet). They have their family and friends, and are pursuing their passions (particularly the Stanley's with their faith and Ms Stanley's volunteerism).

Overall I just don't think any of them are doing that poorly, unless you look at them through the lens of the upper middle class. In which case you are certainly entitled to think their slum dwelling bare existences are depressing.

Oddly enough the Neumann's reminded me of my aunt and uncle and my cousins and their kids. Same ages, similar struggles, similar outcome.

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Of course I realize it - that was my point. I don't find it particularly 'interesting' to see people react consistently with their previous posts.

To me, this is like finding it interesting that the beverage of choice for a oenophile convention dinner is wine. It fits hand in glove.

Then you might have asked yourself why people discuss topics at all, on anonymous forums especially...interesting? Or read/watch journalists if there's no chance we'll learn anything that might make us reconsider our views. We just like to hear ourselves talk, and find others of like mind to reinforce our already held views, with no possibility of changing our POV - sad? My views at 20, 40 and (almost) 60 have certainly changed/evolved on many issues...and I hope I never come to believe I have all the worlds answers.

I agree with this. Maybe it is the ex-scientist in me, but I'm always looking for new info to challenge my current beliefs and ideas. That is what drew me to this forum. I'm interested in finding the gaps/errors in my thinking or my plans. The older I get the more I realize I don't know or misunderstood.

You are reading far too much into the words I posted. First, I'm not trying to make a Federal Case out of this - I just thought it was perplexing that anyone would find it 'interesting' that the comments in this thread would be aligned with those posters previous comments. As I explained, I would expect that - so why is it 'interesting' in this case? So I commented on my perplexity, that is all.

It has nothing to do with why we discuss this at all - I see no connection to that from my comments. This show was another spin on a common topic, so it gets discussed anew. Just like so many recurring topics here. Again, no surprise to me.

I'm not sure where you are going with not changing anyone's mind/evolving? I've had my mind changed by discussions on this and other forums, and I think a few others have as well. I expect it to relatively uncommon though. In general, we have come to whatever views we have on a subject based on our past learning and experience. We have thought it over, and it will take some new evidence and convincing to change. Imagine waking up each morning and wanting new proof that the Sun rises in the East. Life would be difficult if we didn't trust our learned information. But we still should question it when presented with new info, and when there is reasonable doubt, we should seek out new info.

I find it fascinating that this documentary was started over 20 years ago, and it made it all the way through to today and saw to being distributed. I don't think I've ever seen a documentary that someone intentionally started and kept working on for 20 years before showing it to the public. ...

I did not watch the show either.... but from what people are saying... there might not be that many 'facts' included...

I can't say I'm familiar with Moyer's work (I know the name/show of course), I just don't follow him, but I'm getting a pretty good sense from the comments here. And that leads me to ask:

How many families did they start following 20 years ago? Generally, a journalist is going to pick out the most interesting stories (no one reports the number of planes that safely landed today), and in a show like this, I'd bet they pick out the ones that fit with a certain story line they are trying to sell. So I wonder if there were many more families (I assume they would, to assure they had something 20 years later), and did any do well, but were not presented because that didn't fit their story? Just wondering. Maybe that was covered in the program?

Kind of the reverse of 'survivorship bias'?

-ERD50

 

[Midpack]

Federal case?

 

[FUEGO]

I can't say I'm familiar with Moyer's work (I know the name/show of course), I just don't follow him, but I'm getting a pretty good sense from the comments here. And that leads me to ask:

How many families did they start following 20 years ago? Generally, a journalist is going to pick out the most interesting stories (no one reports the number of planes that safely landed today), and in a show like this, I'd bet they pick out the ones that fit with a certain story line they are trying to sell. So I wonder if there were many more families (I assume they would, to assure they had something 20 years later), and did any do well, but were not presented because that didn't fit their story? Just wondering. Maybe that was covered in the program?

Kind of the reverse of 'survivorship bias'?

My recollection is they found two families that had high paying ($18 ish per hour) jobs in the early 80's and then lost them and could only find jobs paying around half or a third that around 1990 (jobs that paid $6-8 /hr IIRC) when they started filming the families.

I don't know if they picked more than these 2 families to profile, but I imagine they intentionally selected at least these 2 families that had hit hard times due to union manufacturing jobs drying up and getting offshored or moving to the non-unionized South (of the USA). So yes, you have started your sample size of 2 with families that you know have already hit hard times versus where they were in the early 1980's.

I imagine you could fast forward your starting point of filming to 2005 and pick 2 families that had dot com or high tech (but low skill) jobs around 2000 that paid $60-80k+ per year. They of course dried up, were offshored, or there was a huge oversupply of labor by 2005 and you could get someone to patch network cables or configure PCs for $30k/yr (with no benefits). If you keep living like you're making $60-80k, and you can only make $30k, no matter how much you lament the absence of those 80k/yr jobs, you will still be earning 30k, and rapidly going broke. Which makes for great populist reportage.

 

[jollystomper]

After reviewing this thread I did not feel I could add comments without looking at the episode. Now that I have, I have some admittedly disjointed thoughts:
- It is so easy to play "Monday Morning quarterback" with specific situations. It is easy to say "they should have done this" or "they should have done that". Heck, if I had bought 100 shares of Microsoft back in the late 80's at what I recall was around $16 a share and did nothing else, I'd be a multimillionaire today just on that one stock. Yes they did make some bad choices, but everyone does.

- We need to get a lot more information to young people sooner about the importance of both financial planning, the impact of personal choices on that, and the right way to view college opportunities. I don't blame the Stanleys for sending their son out of state to college. I attribute that more to the guidance counselors in high school. It took at guidance counselor to convince me my grades were good enough to apply to Ivy League colleges.

- It is also dangerous to project one or two stories as this is what the majority of folks are experiencing, or that everyone who tries will have the same "bad luck". I know of at least 2 dozen families over the years who started out with similar income and prospects and who have done well, or their kids have done much better.

- While the amount of taxes I pay is perhaps larger than I'd like to, I'll never complain about paying them since it means I'm making a salary high enough to pay them and much higher than those portrayed in the story. I think folks who describe themselves as "suffering" due to work situations when they are making $150K or higher need to be reminded of stories like these.

- I would love to see Congressional hearing held where CEOs of companies who are lobbying for increased immigrant VISAs, or more outsourcing,or are complaining "we have good jobs but can't find enough skilled people" are brought it and made to listen to stories like these. I wish the presidents "Jobs Council" executives had been made to spend a week listening to people directly tell them these stories and have it televised.

- I am not one to dwell on the past, so from these stories I always ask "what can we do?" I do not see any easy solution and and skeptical of those who seem that we can simply return to the days of yore. Too much has changed, those days are never coming back. We also have an increased conflict as more attention is being paid to environment issues - the more you regulate against things that impact the environment, the more you eliminate well paying jobs. Someone working in a nursing home or for a government entity will never have the same income opportunity growth as a job in the fields such as energy. It is easy to increase the jobs, but increasingly jobs that can support a family from both an income and benefits view is a different matter.

- It just struck me that the Stanleys seemed better adjusted to not dwell on the past issues but always thinking and trying ways to improve, and relatively less of an "entitlement" view than the Neumanns. Of course we are only seeing a limited view into their lives, so we really do not know what other issues may have gone on that were not shown. It just seemed that when things were tough the Stanleys made more of an effort to work things through as a family, with the parents trying to set an example for their kids, and not shield these things from their kids.

While I may not have agreed with everything or all of the tones applied in the program, I'm glad I viewed it. It is always good to see other perspectives and not focus too much on oneself. The difficulty I see is that as a society we cannot have everything, and promises to that degree need to be taken with caution.

 

[Texas Proud]

- I would love to see Congressional hearing held where CEOs of companies who are lobbying for increased immigrant VISAs, or more outsourcing,or are complaining "we have good jobs but can't find enough skilled people" are brought it and made to listen to stories like these. I wish the presidents "Jobs Council" executives had been made to spend a week listening to people directly tell them these stories and have it televised.

Just wanted to comment on this...

From what I read here.... both families were made up of unskilled workers... most of the businesses that are looking for people want skilled people...

Our company hires programmers and other tech people... we almost always have a problem filling jobs.... we have gone to some specialized search firms and still cannot find people with the skills we need... we have also noticed that some people that seem to be highly skilled are not... they do not seem to be able to complete projects and when someone else looks at the code they say it is buggy....

This leads me to believe that there are a lot of people who think they are highly skilled, but are not... they are not unskilled workers mind you, just not highly skilled...