interesting lecture on income/consumption over the last 30 years

ladelfina

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
2,713
YouTube - The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class

It's about an hour long but went pretty quickly.. May dispel some of the myths about American household consumption as have been arising on the board about CPI and so forth.

Very measured and accessible presentation, I thought.. if you can screen out/get beyond her use of the words "safety net" (which we think of as a disputed gov. role; here she means more of a "safety VALVE" in practice).

P.S. Skip the first 5 minutes to get beyond the intro.
 
The 57 minute length is going to chase a lot of people away. This article has some of the same stuff in a text format The Middle Class on the Precipice**(January-February*2006)

I'm not sure what "myths" you're referring to. This is my summary of the lecture:

Median income for males has been about flat since 1970.

Two parent families have increasing incomes because many more mothers are in the paid workforce.

Much of the gain in family income is chewed up by direct costs of the second worker. This would include paid child care, higher income taxes, and a second car.

(I would add that there are other costs which she didn't mention - more meals out, more "convenience" foods at home, more expensive clothes.)

If you look at how families spend their money, spending has shifted toward mortgage payments and health care. And, they are saving less.

Spending on food and clothes has actually gone down, if you adjust by the composite CPI. (I think Warren sees families being thrifty in these areas. I tend to think that people are actually buying a little "more", it's just that these are areas where prices haven't gone up as fast as the composite.)

Warren says that spending has shifted toward items that are fixed in the short run (mortage payments, health premiums), so families have less adjustable spending that can flex down if they have some bad luck.

People feel they "have to" spend a lot more on education. In 1970, a public high school diploma was considered enough to make it into the middle class. By 2000 parents believe a college degree is a necessity, and college isn't as cheap as high school.

Based on all of this, most families on "on the edge". Any minor bump in the road can set off a bankruptcy and a drop to "below middle class" status.

------------

Okay, I've got that. Now the myths are?
 
I've seen that woman a lot on credit card documentaries, etc. She has a good and very dramatic way of talking.
 
Thanks Ladelfina for posting this lecture by Elizabeth Warren, commercial law scholar. Very very interesting. It busts a lot of stereotypes about why people are having trouble paying bills.

Summary:

She says mothers entering the work force has been the single most important economic shift in America over the past 30 years. The median family went from being a one income family to a two income family. The assumption was that families should have become very wealthy. Instead, from 1970-2006, family income went up but incomes for males actually went down, taking into account inflation. Family incomes rose only because women went into the workforce.

In 1970, the average family was saving 11% of income, but by 2006 families were saving nothing. NADA. What went up is revolving debt, which is credit card . In 1970, the median family was carrying 1.4% of family income in revolving debt, but by 2005 was carrying about 15%.

She asks, "What did they spend the money on?" She researched this and discovered that the US Government commerce (and labor) department as kept data on what American's spent their money on for the last century in quite detail. The results were very interesting!

For a family of four in 2005 they spent --32% LESS on clothing than in 1972. :eek: For food, they spent -18% LESS than in 1972!!
Appliances, -52% LESS than in 1972.

Per car cost has gone down -24% since 1972. People keep their cars longer!

Ordinary consumption costs have gone down.

But mortgage costs have gone UP 76% since 1972 in inflation adjusted dollars. Big difference! The median size house grew from 5.8 rooms to 6.1 rooms, picking up either a second bathroom or third bedroom but not both.
The average family owns a house 25 years old.

Next, health insurance. The average family with employer sponsored health insurance pays 74% more in inflation adjusted dollars than 30 years ago.

Also, families with two wage earners have to have two cars.

And, child care is a necessity. A new expense for the two wage earners.

Finally, taxes. the tax rate has gone up 25%.

Conclusion, the costs that have risen most are necessities in contrast to the expenses that have gone down, which are discretionary. In 1970, the family is spending 50% on basic expenses whereas in 2005 the family is spending 75% on these basic expenses.

If one wage earner loses his/her job today, the family is in big trouble! The risk of losing 20% of their income has greatly increased since 1972.

Health care risks have increased as well. Hospitals send home people after surgery much quicker. After cesareans, you go home after two days. The assumption is that a person goes home and a family member takes care of them. So the spouse stays home from work to take care of the sick family member.

We have "faux" health insurance now, such as the "Utah policy" which doesn't cover hospitalization, prescriptions or other necessary expenses! Many people have insurance but it doesn't cover pre-existing conditions.

One income families have increased in number but face the same expenses as two income families. They can't make it.

No wonder the middle class is in trouble!
 
and yet here we sit with our SUVs and cell phones and high speed internet
 
Good summary, Babe. I'd add:

People in the middle class can't afford to help those in poverty, and people in poverty have very little chance of migrating into the middle class. There are more rich people.
 
What is the point? Are we supposed to be worried that our middle class is shrinking? Should that be offset by the fact that developing nations have a growing middle class?

Is this a problem for which we should find a solution? If so, what is the problem exactly, and what are some solutions?

Is this thread about "oh, the humanity!" or is it about "yikes, the consumers we depend on to inflate our invested assets are in trouble!"

What is the point?
 
YouTube - The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class

It's about an hour long but went pretty quickly.. May dispel some of the myths about American household consumption as have been arising on the board about CPI and so forth.

Very measured and accessible presentation, I thought.. if you can screen out/get beyond her use of the words "safety net" (which we think of as a disputed gov. role; here she means more of a "safety VALVE" in practice).

P.S. Skip the first 5 minutes to get beyond the intro.

I watched the entire youtube presentation. Very interesting and, since I am old enough to have lived all of the period, validates a lot of what I thought. Thank you for posting it.
 
I agree with the lecturer, but I too wonder what the consequences of losing the middle class are.
 
I agree with the lecturer, but I too wonder what the consequences of losing the middle class are.

Historically, the elimination of the middle class has eventually led to societal upheaval. When almost no one has anything to lose from dramatic change, dramatic change happens. Should be fun!
 
What are the historical precedents? I've always assumed this will play out as the Europification/Japanification of America.

We'll demand more social services. Taxes will go up. Consumption will slow. Economic growth will slow. Investment returns will be reduced. Saving will increase.
 
I agree with the lecturer, but I too wonder what the consequences of losing the middle class are.

I suspect that just about every poster on this board would qualify as "middle class" under most definitions of middle class. Suppose we lost every poster on this board because of the loss of the middle class. Other than the fact that the board would be kind of boring, would would be the consequences?

"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee." -- John Donne
 
What is the point? Are we supposed to be worried that our middle class is shrinking? Should that be offset by the fact that developing nations have a growing middle class?

Is this a problem for which we should find a solution? If so, what is the problem exactly, and what are some solutions?

Is this thread about "oh, the humanity!" or is it about "yikes, the consumers we depend on to inflate our invested assets are in trouble!"

What is the point?

The point is whatever conclusion you wish to draw from it.
For me, I appreciate the lecture for the information, to gain understanding of what's happening in our society. If people understand, then there will be more support for legislation that can alleviate the burdens, such as universal health insurance.

If there's a solution then it is likely to be a more progressive tax structure, elimination of the Bush tax cuts, increase in the capital gains tax (going back to the tax rates of the Clinton era when we were more prosperous and able to pay down the debt). Also, in order to reduce government expenditures, I would suggest a halt to the Iraq war, and a focus (through tax deductions) on developing sustainable energy technology to reduce dependence on foreign oil sources.

One of the repeating themes of Warren's lecture is that the risk burden, which was shared widely by society in 1972 through pensions and health insurance funded by companies, higher education funded through tax dollars, etc. is now borne by the individual and families. This individual "responsibility" now causes families to stretch themselves in order to maintain middle class status and, more importantly, to launch their children into the middle class through a college education. There's nothing left to save for retirement.

It's clear from this lecture presentation that most families are one accident, layoff, or illness away from bankruptcy. This situation is not sustainable especially as we are heading into difficult economic times with social security and medicare expenses.

There are some hard decisions to be made about what kind of society we want to live in. Solutions will be difficult and will come about through patient, incremental changes. The same ole same ole presented by McCain, et al, will not help, will, IMHO, hurt our society.
 
The point is whatever conclusion you wish to draw from it.
For me, I appreciate the lecture for the information, to gain understanding of what's happening in our society. If people understand, then there will be more support for legislation that can alleviate the burdens, such as universal health insurance.

If there's a solution then it is likely to be a more progressive tax structure, elimination of the Bush tax cuts, increase in the capital gains tax (going back to the tax rates of the Clinton era when we were more prosperous and able to pay down the debt). Also, in order to reduce government expenditures, I would suggest a halt to the Iraq war, and a focus (through tax deductions) on developing sustainable energy technology to reduce dependence on foreign oil sources.

One of the repeating themes of Warren's lecture is that the risk burden, which was shared widely by society in 1972 through pensions and health insurance funded by companies, higher education funded through tax dollars, etc. is now borne by the individual and families. This individual "responsibility" now causes families to stretch themselves in order to maintain middle class status and, more importantly, to launch their children into the middle class through a college education. There's nothing left to save for retirement.

It's clear from this lecture presentation that most families are one accident, layoff, or illness away from bankruptcy. This situation is not sustainable especially as we are heading into difficult economic times with social security and medicare expenses.

There are some hard decisions to be made about what kind of society we want to live in. Solutions will be difficult and will come about through patient, incremental changes. The same ole same ole presented by McCain, et al, will not help, will, IMHO, hurt our society.

Heck ya a vote for Obama is a vote for wealth re-distribution! Change is good!
 
OK, let's say the answer is to become just like France. I could actually get into that. Wine, women, food, and art! And free nannies for all of the oppressed middle class families!

All we have to do is agree to a 48% tax rate. And sucky investment returns. Who's with me?!
 
OK, let's say the answer is to become just like France. I could actually get into that. Wine, women, food, and art! And free nannies for all of the oppressed middle class families!

All we have to do is agree to a 48% tax rate. And sucky investment returns. Who's with me?!

Ya then we get invaded by Mexico and Canada. :cool: Well maybe Canada..since Mexico has already started.
 
OK, let's say the answer is to become just like France. I could actually get into that. Wine, women, food, and art! And free nannies for all of the oppressed middle class families!

All we have to do is agree to a 48% tax rate. And sucky investment returns. Who's with me?!

I would like a petite maid in a scimpy outfit, but you lost me when you got to a 48% tax rate.
 
OK, let's say the answer is to become just like France. I could actually get into that. Wine, women, food, and art! And free nannies for all of the oppressed middle class families!

All we have to do is agree to a 48% tax rate. And sucky investment returns. Who's with me?!

It's really not to your advantage to take an extreme either/or position on such an important topic. There's no reason why going back to the tax rates we had during the Clinton admin. will result in a social system like France, with a 48% tax.

In addition, to respond to NotMuchLonger, we already have redistribution of wealth. And much of it is redistributed to corporations, farmers, and others who are not poor.

Also, the best employee benefit programs are enjoyed by the military. This is a long standing American redistribution of wealth through taxes. Is that wrong as well?

And why does a more equitable tax structure necessarily result in a lower returns in the stock market? It seems to me that we have a big mess in the markets at the moment, partially as a result of the conservative policies of the Bush administration. Can't blame it all on them because captains of finance had a hand in it, and all down the line to mortgage borrowers.
 
It's really not to your advantage to take an extreme either/or position on such an important topic. There's no reason why going back to the tax rates we had during the Clinton admin. will result in a social system like France, with a 48% tax.

There's no reason to believe that Clinton-era tax rates will "fix the problem."

Are the problems with the low savings rate, required double income earners, cost of child care, etc a post-Clinton phenomenon?

I can believe that some portion of the middle class is in trouble. I like the idea of a safety net for those who don't have the financial means to access essential services, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

And why does a more equitable tax structure necessarily result in a lower returns in the stock market?

Taxes are a drag on the economy, but I was thinking mostly about reduced consumption. Our middle class isn't saving. If they want to move back from the "precipice" then they need to reduce consumption and increase saving.

That's exactly what the Japanese did when their bubble popped and reduced the net worth of everybody in the country. They got in trouble, so they cut their consumption and increased their savings rate.

The result was a dismal local economy and poor investment returns for almost 20 years now.

FWIW, I bring up France and their high tax rate just to see where your threshold for pain is to "fix the problem." And I use quotes there because I'm not really convinced that there is a problem that needs fixing for the middle class.

Someday, there may be a real problem. Someday, we may decide that everybody needs a serious safety net in this country. If that day comes, I don't see any way around the issue of *much* higher taxes and a much higher drag on the economy.
 
There's no reason to believe that Clinton-era tax rates will "fix the problem."

Are the problems with the low savings rate, required double income earners, cost of child care, etc a post-Clinton phenomenon?

I can believe that some portion of the middle class is in trouble. I like the idea of a safety net for those who don't have the financial means to access essential services, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.



Taxes are a drag on the economy, but I was thinking mostly about reduced consumption. Our middle class isn't saving. If they want to move back from the "precipice" then they need to reduce consumption and increase saving.

That's exactly what the Japanese did when their bubble popped and reduced the net worth of everybody in the country. They got in trouble, so they cut their consumption and increased their savings rate.

The result was a dismal local economy and poor investment returns for almost 20 years now.

FWIW, I bring up France and their high tax rate just to see where your threshold for pain is to "fix the problem." And I use quotes there because I'm not really convinced that there is a problem that needs fixing for the middle class.

Someday, there may be a real problem. Someday, we may decide that everybody needs a serious safety net in this country. If that day comes, I don't see any way around the issue of *much* higher taxes and a much higher drag on the economy.

Thanks for the interesting reply. I agree with your assessment of the effect on the economy of middle class reduction of consumption. Unfortunately, that will likely happen once the fog of denial rises. It's rising now with the housing crisis.

I think we need a few serious safety nets, such as universal health insurance and viable social security. To create/protect these safety nets will require more taxes, and drastically less government spending. I wonder if our society is willing to make the sacrifices. I doubt it at this point. None of the presidential candidates have addressed social security viability in a serious manner.

I think the fog is probably still too thick. Once people see their formerly middle-class grandma and grandpa living hand to mouth they might start demanding that government keep its promises.
 
Last edited:
Good summary, Babe. I'd add:

People in the middle class can't afford to help those in poverty, and people in poverty have very little chance of migrating into the middle class. There are more rich people.

I would disagree with what you say. Although my wife and I are comfortable in retirement (although definitely middle class), we continue to contribute to charities which suport folks less well off. Always have and (hopefully) always will. From what I read about the percentage of incomes people contribute to charities (although I admit not are all to those in poverty) the rate of charity has remained steady.
 
I would disagree with what you say. Although my wife and I are comfortable in retirement (although definitely middle class), we continue to contribute to charities which suport folks less well off. Always have and (hopefully) always will. From what I read about the percentage of incomes people contribute to charities (although I admit not are all to those in poverty) the rate of charity has remained steady.

The point made in the lecture was that because middle class families are strapped now with just their necessary expenses they are not anxious or willing to support legislation that would , for example, tax more to support financial aid to low income college students. This is the main way that poor people rise up into the middle class --through higher ed. That avenue is closing off to them as higher education has become increasingly more expensive, even too expensive for the middle class now!

The lecture was not about giving to charity. It's about how the middle class is under financial pressure, so much so that it is crumbling. When the middle class crumbles, the reprecussions will crush those in poverty.

I really recommend that people listen to the lecture. It's very well done and quite enlightening.
 
Back
Top Bottom