# The Middle Class



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

Is the middle class a product of social engineering or does it naturally occur in a capitalist system?


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Economically, it is clearly the result of a industrial capitalism. As for the "social" aspects of the class, that is a bit harder to determine. Perhaps the economic position of the middle class dictates many of their social aspects? Or perhaps there is more to it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

IMHO, temporary membership in the middle class naturally occurs in a capitalist system. Permanent membership is social engineering.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Many would hold it is the creation of a middle class in a capitalistic society that eventually runs monarchy out of power. History does seem to be full of examples of this.

Another interesting question to ask of today's America would be, "What is 'middle class'?" I know people earning 25k a year that think they are middle class and I know people that make 200k a year that think they are middle class.

This could well develop into a good thread. Here's hoping.

Warmest regards


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> Many would hold it is the creation of a middle class in a capitalistic society that eventually runs monarchy out of power. History does seem to be full of examples of this.
> 
> ...


I remember being told once that if you asked an American what class he belonged to he would most likely say "middle class". If you asked a Brit the same question, you would get a very carefully graded reply on the lines of "upper working class" or "lower upper middle class", which is how George Orwell described himself.

In France people don't really think in terms of class (except right at the top), but rather in terms of level of educational attainment.


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

Thanks for the replies. I guess my question deals mostly with that segment of the middle class that is most concerned with not returning to the underclass. I suppose that the middle class that runs monarchy out of power would be the wealthy non-aristocracy.

Wayfarer: I'm neither an economist nor a sociologist, but I think of middle class as anyone who needs to work to maintain a decent standard of living. I think this definition would include the two extreems you specify. Each member of the middle class gets to define "decent standard of living" for himself.

VB: would you still consider us industrial? post-industrial?

ksinc: Does temporary membership = small middle class? Does permanent membership = large middle class?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:Wayfarer: I'm neither an economist nor a sociologist, but I think of middle class as anyone who needs to work to maintain a decent standard of living. I think this definition would include the two extreems you specify. Each member of the middle class gets to define "decent standard of living" for himself.


I tend to agree here. I always define "wealthy" as having good cash flow but "rich" as not having to work to maintain my standard of living. Not a fancy standard mind you, just a nice and elegant one.

Warmest regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> In France people don't really think in terms of class (except right at the top), but rather in terms of level of educational attainment.


Interesting Rich. So does level of education directly and proportionally indicate income level in France? As in, I have a Ph.D., therefore I can be assured of earning X number of francs? Or is it just a status thing, what level of education one has? If so, is there a hierarchy in that, i.e. MBA more prestigous than an MA is sociology? Ph.D. in electrical engineering superior to one in early folk lore?

Warmest regards


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> I tend to agree here. I always define "wealthy" as having good cash flow but "rich" as not having to work to maintain my standard of living. Not a fancy standard mind you, just a nice and elegant one.


Hmm, I've always heard it defined the opposite. As in people who have a good cash flow are "rich" but people who do not have to work to maintain a standard of living are "wealthy."

In the words of Chris Rock: "Shaq is rich, the guy who writes his check is wealthy."

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the order is arbitrary, the important thing is a distinction has been made. I would argue with Chris though, Shaq no longer has to work!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Longwing, 

I'm saying that only via social engineering does middle class become a destination. By natural occurence in a capitalist society the middle class status would a frictional designation and people rise and fall with their access to education, skills and capital. People do not themselves aspire to maintain their permanent middle class status.

To your point, yes, a small permanent middle class would be a natural occurence, while a large permanent middle class would be social engineering. 

Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> I think the order is arbitrary, the important thing is a distinction has been made. I would argue with Chris though, Shaq no longer has to work!


If you've been watching the NBA Playoffs at all it would be quite obvious that Shaq also believes that he doesn't have to work anymore. [}]

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL, good one. I would remind you he did have Kareem for a mentor 

Warmest regards


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Longwing,
> 
> ...


ksinc - What is the alternative to people aspiring to maintain their permanent middle class status? I guess without Social Security most people would be resigned to an impoverished old age. Is this what you mean?


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Isn't it true that in a free society that there will always be a middle class, by definition?

If not, the society is like Lake Woebegone where all of the women are strong, the men are good looking, and the children are all above average.

In a totalatarian society, a person's needs are cared for, after a fashion, but there is zero class mobility.

In a free society, according to the census data, the classes in our society are totally fluid.
Most progress economically from the bottom rungs economically as far as our efforts and talents will allow. Most people have faith that they can better thier lot through their own effort without having restraints placed on them by the system of resource allocation.

Carpe Diem


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Just wait until the revolution comes...

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by LongWing_
> What is the alternative to people aspiring to maintain their permanent middle class status? I guess without Social Security most people would be resigned to an impoverished old age.


First, living on Social Security is poverty. Second, even FDR, socialistic as he was, firmly stated Social Security was *not* meant to be one's sole income in retirement. Do not drink the kool aide.

As an aside, I am in my 30s. I plan to retire from full time employment at 50 and none of my retirement scenarios include receiving any money from Social Security. How many people here feel the same way?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> First, living on Social Security is poverty. Second, even FDR, socialistic as he was, firmly stated Social Security was *not* meant to be one's sole income in retirement. Do not drink the kool aide.
> 
> As an aside, I am in my 30s. I plan to retire from full time employment at 50 and none of my retirement scenarios include receiving any money from Social Security. How many people here feel the same way?


I feel exactly the same way. I also plan on retiring at 50 (though I am currently in my 20s, not my 30s [] ) and am not relying on Social Security for any part of my retirement.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by LongWing_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I mean that people aspire to reach the upper class and that social engineering keeps them middle class by playing on their fear of falling into lower class/impoverished.

SS is a great example. The so-called saftey nets of social engineering SS and unemployement benefits trap them in the middle classes. People trade the risk of reaching their aspirations for so-called social stability.

An analogy from golf: It is often said "never up, never in". Bobby Jones once said, "while it is true a putt that rolls three feet short of the hole doesn't go in, neither does a putt that rolls three feet by." Sports psychologist Bob Rotella has told us that by attempting to ensure their putts roll past the hole when they miss, most golfers 'forget' to try to make the putt.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> 
> Isn't it true that in a free society that there will always be a middle class, by definition?


Yes, in theory that's true. But, that theory also assumes people move in and out of that class as demand for their skills rises and falls. Social engineering is what tells people they are better off hoping to maintain middle class status.

This is similar to the false paradigm of 'job security'. Recently people have accepted that things have changed from working at one company for 30 years and getting a pension. However, what people that search for 'job security' never find is 'market security'. We have a 'free market economy' not a 'free job economy'. Yet, our liberal politicians (and now even conservative ones thanks to W) speak in terms of jobs instead of markets. Pretty soon you have whole generations of people who are brainwashed into thinking their primary goal is to have moderate economic stability by finding and keeping a job. And that the role of government is to make that easy (or easier) for them to do.

Thus is born - the permanent middle class.

And the elites and the rich, maintain their wealth and position by eloquently stating how valiantly they fight for you to ensure you can stay middle class.

And both groups stay happy, but only one group is dumb and happy. [}]


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

There is no such thing as a 'middle class.' If you depend on another party for a paycheck you are WORKING CLASS. I don't care if you hold a shovel or a fountain pen, thats what you are. Class distinctions on degree of comfort or capital worth are divisive tools of THE RULING CLASS. One of the first purchases of any working man should be a rifle and 60 rounds of ammunition."Society is a stew, if you don't stir things up now and then the scum rises to the top."


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Kav_
> 
> There is no such thing as a 'middle class.' If you depend on another party for a paycheck you are WORKING CLASS. I don't care if you hold a shovel or a fountain pen, thats what you are. Class distinctions on degree of comfort or capital worth are divisive tools of THE RULING CLASS. One of the first purchases of any working man should be a rifle and 60 rounds of ammunition."Society is a stew, if you don't stir things up now and then the scum rises to the top."


Hear, hear!!!!!!!

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## kenz (Jul 25, 2005)

It's easy to define where one sits on the economic/social scale with this sophisticated checklist I just devised:

Lower-----------Middle-----------Upper

1 car------------2 cars-----------Range Rover
No garden-------Garden-----------Gardener
16" TV----------Bigscreen TV-------No TV
Magazines-------Bookcases-----------Private library
Work------------Job-business--------Independent income
Sink------------Dishwasher----------Staff
No driveway-----Concrete drive------Gravel driveway
New furniture----Imported furniture--Handed-down furniture
Fast food---------Fast food-----------Estate food
Frugal-----------Spendthrift----------Frugal
Bad teeth---------Perfect teeth-------Bad teeth
Never travel------World travel---------Rarely travel
Jeans--------------Slacks-------------Corduroys
Polyester----------Wool---------------Tweed
No manners--------Excell manners------No manners

Add to it!


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

ksinc: I must be dumb then, because I have never considered my desire to remain middle class to be particularly misguided. In my younger days I did take some risks, none of which worked out particularly well, so now I'm content with my lot, no doubt motivated by a desire to hold on to what I've still got.

I do find it hard to believe that in the absence of any social engineering that every single person is going to be striving to reach the upper classes. With the lack of decent public education wouldn't the upper class be even more out of reach for the vast majority of people?

My original question relates to the fact that I have come to think that one engine of the US economy has been our large, vibrant middle class. As the middle class becomes smaller and less affluent, it seems that there is great risk for the future of our economy. I would think that policies that seek to maintain the prosperity of the middle class would be beneficial to the overall economy.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by kenz_
> 
> It's easy to define where one sits on the economic/social scale with this sophisticated checklist I just devised:
> 
> ...


Hilarious!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by kenz_
> 
> It's easy to define where one sits on the economic/social scale with this sophisticated checklist I just devised:
> 
> ...


 Very accurate...though I'd say something more generic and less conspicuous than a Range Rover. But isn't it funny how 'extremes meet'? And I'd also say that the Lower and Upper classes do have manners...just a more peculiar sort. Both are rather more antisocial than the middle classes.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by LongWing_
> 
> ksinc: I must be dumb then, because I have never considered my desire to remain middle class to be particularly misguided. In my younger days I did take some risks, none of which worked out particularly well, so now I'm content with my lot, no doubt motivated by a desire to hold on to what I've still got.
> 
> ...


I certainly did not mean you were dumb. People make choices. Some rise to middle class and that is enough in their generation. The next one gains new access and opportunity and does even more. I did not say 'every single person'. I said 'smaller permanent middle class'. Permanent middle class would be like 'working class' generation after generation.

Regarding education, I think the system we have is what you get when one makes policy seeking only to maintain. That is why our system is so poor at teaching marketable skills that empower people to change classes and training lifetime learners that thus aquire 'market security'. It's how we end up with 100,000 unemployed textile workers complaining about 'job security' in an information age.

It's not unusual for people to rise one or two classes in one generation, much less several.

I speak as a person who has an immigrant Great GrandFather, a GrandFather with an 8th grade education, but a Father with a Ph.D.. I have an MBA-Finance. I'm only 38, but have owned my own firm for a while now.

You should have heard the discussion in our family about my $160 Robert Talbott custom shirt and that's the most inexpensive one.

IMHO, life is what you make of it. YMMV.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 What one makes of it, yes...though much moreso what circumstances make of it.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> What one makes of it, yes...though much moreso what circumstances make of it.


Over a lifetime, character overcomes circumtance.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by LongWing_
> 
> As the middle class becomes smaller and less affluent,


LongWing,
Completely agree with the rest of your assessment, but this statement is 180* inaccuarate. The wealth curve has become much less concave over the last 30 years, leading to a larger, more affluent middle class. Companies such as P&G have made a fortune exploiting this. One small example is the Swiffer. Who needs a tool that doesn't quite replace a $5 broom, but costs $15 anyway? It's a product that wouldn't have had a place in the '60s, when poorer families would have been content with a broom and richer families would have had a maid.



> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> That is why our system is so poor at teaching marketable skills that empower people to change classes and training lifetime learners that thus aquire 'market security'. It's how we end up with 100,000 unemployed textile workers complaining about 'job security' in an information age.


Our system actually does it pretty well, through private entities like ITT and DeVry. They may make cheesy commercials, but they also allow starving artists (like my dad in the '80s) to build solid technical skills. For the second half, I agree. There's nothing like an overpaid, underskilled union member crying about outsourcing to ruin your day.

Tom

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I want to attribute this to P.J. O'Rourke but I am not sure. Anyway the saying goes - if your father comes home from work at 4:30 PM you are lower middle class. If he comes home at 5:30 PM you are middle class. If he comes come at 6:30 PM you are upper middle class and if he never comes home you are either very rich or very poor. From my own experience with the uber wealthy I think great wealth, strangely enough, can be just as debiltating to personal growth as great poverty. I certainly don't advocate oppressive taxation but there does come a level of wealth were most people, not all mind you, begin to lose touch with reality. Too often we equate wealth with virtue. My God I am beginning to sound like Gmac! Caviar and champagne, quickly!

Karl


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, level of education does not correlate with income, it's more a social status thing - it determines to some extent what friends you have, whom you marry, what tennis club you belong to, etc. (though not necessarily where you live). A good plumber can earn more than a PhD in early folklore, but his tastes,interests and lifestyle will be quite different. On the other hand, a PhD in electrical engineering who may earn 5 times more than a PhD in early folklore,will probably watch the same TV channel, listen to the same radio stations, read the same books, etc. as him (and they will be different from the plumber's). His house and car will be bigger and his holidays more expensive, but basically the PhDs will speak the same language.

The idea of belonging to a social "class" is rather alien to the modern French mentality - it sounds "ancien rÃ©gime".

Of course, subtle social stratification based on family and wealth, etc. does exist, but in the background, and mostly at the top.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> No, level of education does not correlate with income, it's more a social status thing - it determines to some extent what friends you have, whom you marry, what tennis club you belong to, etc. (though not necessarily where you live). A good plumber can earn more than a PhD in early folklore, but his tastes,interests and lifestyle will be quite different. On the other hand, a PhD in electrical engineering who may earn 5 times more than a PhD in early folklore,will probably watch the same TV channel, listen to the same radio stations, read the same books, etc. as him (and they will be different from the plumber's). His house and car will be bigger and his holidays more expensive, but basically the PhDs will speak the same language.


Rich, there are some things about the French social system that I find admirable, but this is just depressing.

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suppose every society finds a way to stratify itself. The Americans have an "official" stratification based on wealth - though other powerful "unofficial" stratifications exist, based on family background, ethnicity, region, occupation, University attended, manners, etc. The French have an overt stratification based on education, and a secret stratification based on wealth and background. The Brits have or had a complex class system that only they understand, which is part aristocratic, part meritocratic, part regional, part occupational and many other things besides.

I've noticed when talking to Americans that the "unofficial" stratification is very strongly felt, but not readily spoken about.

In France too the "unofficial" stratification has some weight, but not so much as in the US I think.

The French stratification is weak in that upward mobility is possible for everyone through the education system, and because the French have a fairly egalitarian outlook and are not deferential.

What about Germany?


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

I couldn't really tell you about Germany, I'm an American in Kuwait who's only going to be "in Germany" for another 8-10 months [:I]

As for the American situation, it's really hard for me to tell. I've spent a lot of time in close contact to every level of society--grew up in the middle middle class suburbs, top level school, military. I've never seen evidence of an "official" stratification, unless you're talking about the common upper-middle-lower class designations; unofficial ones usually relate more to an individual's chosen identification than anything else. Can also be referred to as the social tribe model. As a small example...

I was dating a girl whose parents did quite well for themselves, around $300k per year. She considered herself a member of the middle class, jeans-and-tshirt, aluminum siding set. She was shocked when I showed her the numbers putting them in the top 2% of American families. All the indicators you listed--"family background, ethnicity, region, occupation, University attended, manners, etc." would also have put them in the priviledged upper crust, but they chose to identify with the everyman instead.

I think some of the attittudes prevalent on this board regarding social stratification, and a desire for more of it, are not representative of the country as a whole.

Tom



> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> I suppose every society finds a way to stratify itself. The Americans have an "official" stratification based on wealth - though other powerful "unofficial" stratifications exist, based on family background, ethnicity, region, occupation, University attended, manners, etc. The French have an overt stratification based on education, and a secret stratification based on wealth and background. The Brits have or had a complex class system that only they understand, which is part aristocratic, part meritocratic, part regional, part occupational and many other things besides.
> 
> I've noticed when talking to Americans that the "unofficial" stratification is very strongly felt, but not readily spoken about.
> ...


--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tiger02_
> 
> As for the American situation, it's really hard for me to tell. I've spent a lot of time in close contact to every level of society--grew up in the middle middle class suburbs, top level school, military. I've never seen evidence of an "official" stratification, unless you're talking about the common upper-middle-lower class designations; unofficial ones usually relate more to an individual's chosen identification than anything else. Can also be referred to as the social tribe model. As a small example...
> 
> ...


Of course, any generalisation on social groups is always gainsaid by individual cases. Perhaps "official" was not a good term. What I meant was that social advancement in the US is associated with increased wealth - this is at the heart of the American dream. In actual fact things are much more complex, both generally and in individual cases. I get the impression that claiming you're "middle class" in the US is uncontroversial - it implies you're like eveybody else.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> Interesting Rich. So does level of education directly and proportionally indicate income level in France? As in, I have a Ph.D., therefore I can be assured of earning X number of francs? Or is it just a status thing, what level of education one has? If so, is there a hierarchy in that, i.e. MBA more prestigous than an MA is sociology? Ph.D. in electrical engineering superior to one in early folk lore?


I quite agree with Rich. Education, in France, gives your status in some sort of unformal (but overt and very well known) scale. And there is definetly a hierarchy. At the very top, the alumni from some of the elite and selective _grandes Ã©coles_ (ENA, ENS, Polytechnique). Below that, the less prestigious _grandes Ã©coles_. Far, far below that usually (and rather sadly) any kind of university education, including PhD.

That's a little caricatural, but I would say that if you were really really astounding at the age of 20, enough, say, to get in Polytechnique and get out with a good rank, you will never be allowed to fail in your entire carreer. You can reap benefits from that even at 50.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

As an anthropologist, I'm in the business of making sweeping generalizations based on small sample sizes  It's an interesting question, "what is social advancement?" There are many things which will gain one greater esteem, that do not require large salaries. Joining the military, volunteering your time, taking up 'causes.' Granted the latter rely on having enough income to give you leisure time, but that does not necessarily have to be a huge income.

To touch on stratifications being felt, but not discussed--I think there is a strong tendency in America to define the self as _opposed_ to an other, rather than as a set of qualities. Defining yourself against the upper class allows you to cast yourself as the underdog; defining yourself against the uncouth allows you to look down your nose at the rest of jeans-wearing society. These are internal to the individual or the tribe, and are not discussed outside of that. I would guess that most AAAC members do not confront the vast unwashed majority about being unwashed; but they do feel the separation very strongly. An individual might look with distaste at his neighbor's conspicuous consumption, affirming his own choice of car or clothes; but he will keep the criticism as an internal motivator.

In some ways, I envy the status that comes with that French education. My strong reaction was to the watching the same TV channels, etc comments.

Tom



> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> Of course, any generalisation on social groups is always gainsaid by individual cases. Perhaps "official" was not a good term. What I meant was that social advancement in the US is associated with increased wealth - this is at the heart of the American dream. In actual fact things are much more complex, both generally and in individual cases. I get the impression that claiming you're "middle class" in the US is uncontroversial - it implies you're like eveybody else.


--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

ksinc - Thanks for clarifying that by permanent you mean across generations. I didn't get that. Did you ever go for the Burberry MTM?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Tiger, I agree that flexibility is the key to our success and these private entities do a great job meeting this need. However, I would say they are the perfect opposite of social engineering which is what I was trying to say. Thanks for your post!


----------



## Lord Foppington (Feb 1, 2005)

New-Deal social engineering.

As the New Deal has faded, and we've veered further and further into plutocracy and the worship of wealth as the sole standard for determining "success" in life, the middle class has felt increasingly pressed. 

I think this is the way to read the growing hysteria surrounding higher education in the US. Not having lots of money themselves to pass on, really the only way middle-class parents can feel their kids will retain or improve class status is through education, especially in an increasingly service-sector-based economy. So they ply their kids from infancy with "Baby Einstein" tapes, drill them from age 7 to take the SAT, and have them apply to two dozen colleges, with ample help with their application essays from consultants. They at least believe that the place in the rankings of the colleges they get into will have a lot to do with their place in life. (Maybe this pertains to the discussion about social standing in France and the US, I don't know.)

Stap my vitals!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by LongWing_
> 
> ksinc - Thanks for clarifying that by permanent you mean across generations. I didn't get that. Did you ever go for the Burberry MTM?


You are very welcome. 'Tis a great topic you brought up. 

Re: Burberry MTM - I snuck down there, looked around, and left. I had never been in there. It's sort of 'different'. Sometimes, I'm not sure whether I am 38 going on 25 or 55


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Lord Foppington_
> 
> New-Deal social engineering.
> 
> ...


Lord Fopp, you are dead on correct. Education is seen as the new gateway to greater social standing.

This was one of the points that David Brooks touched on in Bobos in Paradise.

Fine by me if you want to favor education over other class indicators. Will certainly help my wife and me.  (4 higher edu degrees between the two of us)

Plus is a nice reward for all the hard work one does in school. [8D]

Can't say I have much sympathy for the high school dropout who expects a good salary.

Cheers,

JRR


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rich:

So could a Canadian with two graduate degrees for good schools find a good job in France? I occassionally indulge in fantasies of moving to Europe.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> Rich:
> 
> So could a Canadian with two graduate degrees for good schools find a good job in France? I occassionally indulge in fantasies of moving to Europe.


Well, you can be bullied into an apology easy enough. I think you would fit right it! [}]

Okay, I freely admit that was so wrong.  I'm Sorry Wayfarer!

Clearly a sign I should quit playing hide-and-seek and answer some phone calls. Ciao for now!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 LOL....sorry, I still feel cultural angst that my country unleashed her on the world.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> Rich:
> 
> So could a Canadian with two graduate degrees for good schools find a good job in France? I occassionally indulge in fantasies of moving to Europe.


If you speak French (which the French mistakenly assume all Canadians do) and your degrees are in science, engineering, business or finance, then yes. But I read recently that there's a severe shortage of manpower in Canada - not the case in France right now.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JRR_
> 
> Fine by me if you want to favor education over other class indicators. Will certainly *help my wife and I*.  (4 higher edu degrees between the two of us)
> 
> Plus is a nice reward for all the hard work one does in school. [8D]


 Shouldn't that be 'my wife and me'?


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stand corrected.

Don't have an English degree.

Cheers,

JRR


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

The middle class was established in earnest after World War II. It was at that juncture that veterans were able to become educated based almost solely on military service. The dual income was established as a result of men being in the service, and women working in defense industries.

Higher education was very much limited to the "upper" class prior to World War II. In fact, a person could make a good living based on an education of no higher than the eighth grade.

Working backwards in time, a great deal of upward mobility pressure was exerted when Henry Ford more than doubled wages to his employees. It really helped the working class to afford items which they produced, and for far less in wages. This phenomenom has continued, interrupted by the Great Depression, to the current era.

In the 1920's, there was social engineering which helped create the middle class. This was in addition to the upsurge based on economic improvement.

We've also seen a sharp decrease in agriculture as a vocation, based on huge improvements in technology. The same holds true for industry in general.

The middle class, *in my opinion*, was created by the uplift of the working class, and their improvement in social and educational standing. I don't believe there can ever be a single answer, or set of conditions which creates or eliminates a particular class of people.

By the way, this is a phenomenal discussion!

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, he didn't say that they were English degrees.


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

The British Class system is not monetary based an impoverished aristocrat would stiil be upper class.

A manual worker winning the national lottery would still be working class.

A miners son who became a wealthy entrepeneur would still be working class, as would be his son even if he was educated at one of Britains top public schools such as Eton or Harrow although he would be regarded as "someone who had done well for themselves"

the class system is not intrinsicly mobile in the uk which is perhaps why the "middle class" is the most disliked.

the Upper class dislike them because they do not know their station in life and have ideas of grandeur.

the working class dislike them because they feel they have ideas above their station.

this is why for consumer research reasons the A1,A2,B1,B2, system came into place so that socioeconomic levels could be judged rather than upper, middle and lower class.

It used to be claimed that the British used to be class Obsesed and to some extent still are.

for a very tounge in cheek look at the British class system (although tremendously accurate) read Julian Fellowes book Class.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Wonderful discussion.
Gurdon


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I'm stunned that there hasn't been much talk about the Marxist class system on this thread. The proleteriat are the class that produce and the bourgeoisie own all of the capital.

The problem is that in our service economy this model is not really relevant anymore. For example, if one works as a lawyer in a law firm one is not a proletarian because one is not producing anything with one's labor but one is not a bourgeoisie because one does not necessarily own any capital.

I think that in America any class differentials are mostly academic and the lines are very blurry and irrelevant. There is no class struggle in this country because people are mobile enough to move between the classes and the classes are welcoming enough to accept them.

If what my friend said about Britain is correct, then I can see the development of class struggle in that country.

By the way, just as an interesting addendum, I never refer to anybody as "Sir" because I think that it is a remnant of classism that needs to be forgotten.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

Just two personal observations in regard to the middle class:

1) In the last 10-20 years, the middle class shrinked considerably. Some people went up and now belong to the high income segments of population. Many others however, went down and became part of the poor, low income classes.
2) There is no stable democracy in the world, without a solid middle class. No country on earth with huge gaps between upper/ lower classes (and weeak or non influential middle class) maintains a stable democracy. Therefore, engineered or not, we need a strong middle class to preserve democracy.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

The Marxist class system divisions were flawed from the start in terms of the conclusions that Marx and Engels reached. But to an extent you could say there still is that division today. 

Working class people generally own little or no stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Whereas the higher up you go on the class ranking, the more likely you are to find such ownership. Thus a lawyer who may not own any "real" capital in terms of machinery or factories may own interests in companies who own such real capital. 

The guy working paycheck to paycheck cashing them at the 7-11 is unlikely to own any such interests however.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> The Marxist class system divisions were flawed from the start in terms of the conclusions that Marx and Engels reached. But to an extent you could say there still is that division today.
> 
> ...


That's probably true, but since it's not necessarily true it's unlikely that we're going to see some kind of proletarian revolution in the US.

I remember a professor telling us once about how Marxism failed in Russia because it was an agrarian and not an industrial society when the Bolsheviks took over and how Leninism was created to try to adapt Marxism to an agrarian society, but the theory did not jive anymore. Anyway, Marx assumed that the revolution was inevitable but he didn't foresee the creation of service economies and service jobs where people can make a lot of money without owning any capital.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

The thing is, the people who make a lot of money in the service economy are people with lots of capital. It just isn't physical capital. People like doctors and lawyers have intellectual capital which is most necessary for their job. Marxism never really understood this concept, they discounted the important of mental capital and mental work for obvious reasons.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> The thing is, the people who make a lot of money in the service economy are people with lots of capital. It just isn't physical capital. People like doctors and lawyers have intellectual capital which is most necessary for their job. Marxism never really understood this concept, they discounted the important of mental capital and mental work for obvious reasons.


I agree with you completely. The only thing is that this type of capital is much easier to acquire for the average person then the type of capital that Marx/Engels/Lenin considered. The reason they thought that the proletariat would rise is because that would be the only way for the proletariat to take control of the capital. But nowadays, you don't need an uprising to take control of the type of capital you speak of (e.g., intellectual capital, stocks, bonds, etc.). So, why should I risk my life in a revolution when I can just go to school (which the government helps me pay for) earn a degree (intellectual capital), get a good job and then buy stocks and bonds and whatever. Revolution has become more or less unnecessary.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

In a discussion such as this has turned into, one must remember it takes capital to produce. Creation of capital is a form of production also, IMO. In business school one of the things they drill into you is "the cost of capital = K" in various and sundry formulas. No capital, no production. Financing and financial instruments allow people with good intellectual capital to have access to physical capital, that is the power of capitalism. 

Just the musings of a salaryman, TLA or not 

Warmest regards


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Great thread!

A couple of other observations:

"Social engineering" is usually a code for income redistribution. The liberals never tire of feeling that if they could just take more from the productive areas of society and give it to the nonproductive areas, all would be well.

The reason that it never works is because it destroys incentive.

The French Revolution was fought so that the rich would become poor, and the poor would become rich. As it turned out, the rich became poor, but the poor never became rich.

Marxism was attractive to many of us until we got to be about 18, and realized that it sounded good, but had an uninterrupted record of failure. 

In the former Soviet Union, the saying was that "all were allowed to share the poverty equally".

Carpe Diem


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Good points. 

FTR, it has been documented in the 'secret history' of the 'ruling class' how that even in the very first days of the new government they were already issuing double and triple script to themselves.

I've been told by Russian professors that have studied the cold war and how they could be so wrong and over-committed to a failure, that one of the major reasons Russians could believe they were superior and indeed could beat the United States was because of the existence of American liberals which they see as 'American Socialists'. 

A Russian knew he was handicapped by his economic and political system, but thought that he re-gained the advantage by the fact that we had "free people" dumb enough to actually buy into that crap.

If you think about it, after observing the USA and the circumstances before and after Vietnam only through the eyes of Pravda, that would be a very hard viewpoint to debate. 

Seeing how they live under relative freedom, I would believe it too.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Intrepid_
> "Social engineering" is usually a code for income redistribution.


Really? I've always associated the term with calling someone at a phone switching complex and saying "This is Tim from corporate, the system is screwed up, what's your user name and password?"

Then, you redistribute free phone calls and advanced dialing features. I guess it depends on what your background is 

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


There's only three types of people in the world. Those that can program computers and those that can't. [}]


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Good points.
> 
> ...


Good point, that I had forgotten. Bresnefiz (sp inc) referred to American liberals, as "useful idiots".

Carpe Diem


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

In the original post, what I meant by social engineering was any impediment to completely free markets designed to help the middle class.

This has been an interesting thread, don't understand why it should turn to liberal bashing at this point. Well, I know the conservatives currently have a lot to be proud of.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by LongWing_
> 
> In the original post, what I meant by social engineering was any impediment to completely free markets designed to help the middle class.


Longwing,

I don't think anyone is trying to bash. Particularly you. This has been a good open discussion. I thank and respect you for instigating it. I think both sides of any debate grow by hearing the sincere views of the other side.

I think simply relaying the 'lessons learned' and comments and perspective of the players in the largest social engineering experiment ever tried are important. And if it's bashing, remember it's their bashing not ours.

Quick points: Are not conservatives bashed for being close-minded and ignoring science, history, and the opinions of those in the trenches of social reform? Would not former-Commuinists opinions be important in a truly intellectual search for truth and equality?

IMHO, part of the problem for conservatives (like myself) is the paradigm required before someone designs impediments to help. Not only does it seem illogical at face value (impediments hurt, not help) our paradigm believes in incentives, not impediments. In the science of system design, while impediments (negative controls) are used for internal control, positive controls are vastly preferred where available.

In practice, while both have certainly proven to have unintended consequences (and I share a desire to limit those), only incentives have also achieved their intended consequences.

I read that part of your own belief was that the middle class was in peril and that was not a good thing for our way of life. Certainly, social engineering impediments have been the prevailing mechanism used for the last 60 years. Why hasn't it worked?

Where incentive, when tried, has worked. IE Kennedy, Reagan, W. Bush. Would it surprise you to know (or are you already aware) that Kennedy and Reagan were both students of economics? Kennedy of the LSE - Laski. His most famous words "Ask not what your Country can do for you" disavow the social engineering school of thought.

Reagan's 'nine most dangerous words' are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Certainly economics helped form the simple truths and parables these wise and respected leaders frequently told us.

W. Bush is the first (or one of) President to have an MBA and while he has been president the economy is doing well and participation in employment, home ownership, and equity markets are at all time highs. I think these are good measures of middle class health. Particularly so, among those NEVER ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE FULLY IN THE MIDDLE CLASS. This was mostly because of the unintended consequences of social engineering impediments to the rich (which is really what we mean when we say completely free markets) designed to help the poor - welfare, social security, and unemployment benefits. The sadder point is that these have not only failed economically, but they have failed even more drastically socially. Which I think would be a big problem for something called "social" engineering.

This is my view. I consider myself a staunch conservative in the truest sense - a libertarian. But, I am definitely not a Republican. My personal view is that political parties themselves are designed to replace individual critical thought with group think.

I look forward to hearing views of those that disagree and also those that agree (as well as whatever names gmac will think up to call us).[}]


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

This is a cool thread... I'll have more to say when I read the whole thing. 

Honesty pays, but it doesn't seem to pay enough to suit some people. - F. M. Hubbard


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Professional athletes have definitely skewed the perception of wealth and being "rich." These guys make horrendous amounts of money in relation to the work they do. The advantages to them making so much money is they put a lot of emphasis on appearance, so they spend as much as they make. This is good for the economy.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Trenditional_
> 
> Professional athletes have definitely skewed the perception of wealth and being "rich." These guys make horrendous amounts of money in relation to the work they do. The advantages to them making so much money is they put a lot of emphasis on appearance, so they spend as much as they make. This is good for the economy.


I just heard an interesting article recently about why pro athletes deserve the salaries that they earn. The basic gisf of it is that they expose themselves to a level of ridicule and embarassment that most peole would not be willing to expose themselves to. For example, when you have a bad day on the court your friends might rib you for a couple of minutes, but that'll be the end of it, whereas when a pro athlete has a bad day on the court his face will be all over the papers and the internet with headlines like "Shaq really chokes today" or "Rodriguez disappoints team." His face might appear on espn.com's "Today's Worst" list, etc. (you get where I'm going with this). They are also a public spectacle and have to endure being jeered at on away games with people yelling insulting things at them about themselves or their families or whoever, and people booing them when they miss plays. Basically, they are under a ton of pressure and they are duly compensated for having to endure that pressure.

_I fought the law and the law won._​


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by odoreater_
> I just heard an interesting article recently about why pro athletes deserve the salaries that they earn. The basic gisf of it is that they expose themselves to a level of ridicule and embarassment that most peole would not be willing to expose themselves to. For example, when you have a bad day on the court your friends might rib you for a couple of minutes, but that'll be the end of it, whereas when a pro athlete has a bad day on the court his face will be all over the papers and the internet with headlines like "Shaq really chokes today" or "Rodriguez disappoints team." His face might appear on espn.com's "Today's Worst" list, etc. (you get where I'm going with this). They are also a public spectacle and have to endure being jeered at on away games with people yelling insulting things at them about themselves or their families or whoever, and people booing them when they miss plays. Basically, they are under a ton of pressure and they are duly compensated for having to endure that pressure.
> 
> _I fought the law and the law won._​


Interesting point, that. Even entertainment-industry celebrities who make horrible movies are still fawned over by the general public, for the most part.

In the case of athletes, though, I think they deserve their salaries because the world of pro sports pulls in a huge amount of revenue. If they don't get paid, who does? The owners. Hey, it's the athletes who do all the work and pull in the fans.


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

ksinc,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It's going to take me a while to digest it. I have not studied any of these issues at great length. Nonetheless I have concerns, the main one being a fear that if left unregulated, free market capitalism would ultimately lead to some neo-feudalsistic society. Secondly, it always seems that people put as much faith in free markets as they would in any of the laws of physics. Personally, I have a lot more faith in the laws of thermodynamics than than I do in the people who obtain enormous amounts of power. 

Finally, I'm not so convinced that SS has been unsuccessful. Didn't it solve the problem of too many destitute old people. I just wish that when the gov borrowed money from SS it would count in the overall reported deficit. As it is, when the SS begins to draw on the trust and deficits shoot through the roof, SS will get blamed when it has been overspending in the general fund all along that is the real problem.

Re the middle class: wages are stagnant, debt is skyrocketing, health insurance is unbearable for many. I worry.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by LongWing_
> 
> ksinc,
> 
> ...


The real problem is it was a bad idea that was poorly designed. It was based on bad assumptions.

First, that other people will take better care of you than you will take care of yourself.

Second, that there would always be many times more younger workers than old folks because of the life expectations at the time.

What I don't get from you is, if you don't trust the rich and powerful (and I'm not saying you're wrong not to) why would you want to be dependent on them in your old age? Or wish it on anyone else?

Are the mere projections that SS will go bankrupt not enough evidence to declare it a failure? Do you we really need it to go bankrupt to make this claim? If No and If yes. Then let's apply the same standard of evidence to say global warming. When the glaciers actually melt, call me. 

One of the proper economic roles for government is to maximize stability and minimize uncertainty and doubt. How is SS doing that? People my age and younger believe they will never see a dime of SS money.

I have an MBA-Finance. Why can't I get a SS waiver or something if I want it? What if I promise not to go around begging and bothering people if I end up 65 and broke?

If I'm not supposed to care how people raise their children, why does everyone care how I invest for my retirement? Which has a bigger impact on society?


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

Social Security has been probably the most successful government program of all time. It has done an excellent job keeping older Americans out of poverty, a huge problem before SS was passed. Even today, without SS 47% of the elderly would be in poverty, with SS it is down to 9%. Not to mention the benefits it gives as an insurance scheme. Beyond the problems of taking money from it, the main problem has been increasing benefits without increaseing payment. Even with that there really isn't much of a problem in SS, it can easily be solved by raising the minimum retirement age slightly. Or they could do like they do with everything and deficit spend. I mean when you're borrowing money so you can give 3 million to the forage animal research labratory just becuase it's based in McConnel's state, it is weird to have this double standard for social security which actually gives some proven benefit.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by MER_
> 
> Social Security has been probably the most successful government program of all time. It has done an excellent job keeping older Americans out of poverty, a huge problem before SS was passed. Even today, without SS 47% of the elderly would be in poverty, with SS it is down to 9%. Not to mention the benefits it gives as an insurance scheme. Beyond the problems of taking money from it, the main problem has been increasing benefits without increaseing payment. Even with that there really isn't much of a problem in SS, it can easily be solved by raising the minimum retirement age slightly. Or they could do like they do with everything and deficit spend. I mean when you're borrowing money so you can give 3 million to the forage animal research labratory just becuase it's based in McConnel's state, it is weird to have this double standard for social security which actually gives some proven benefit.


$1,100/month is poverty.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> I have an MBA-Finance. Why can't I get a SS waiver or something if I want it? What if I promise not to go around begging and bothering people if I end up 65 and broke?


You cannot exempt people from the Ponsy scheme or it ceases to work. Be ready, the bastards are not only going to increase the amount deducted, they are also going to abolish or at least raise the income cap. I will then have that much less to save for my self-funded retirement 

Warmest regards


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> $1,100/month is poverty.


I agree with you and so does the Federal Government as that is the poverty line. If it weren't for Social Security 47% of seniors would be below that figure. Thanks to Social Security it is down to 9%. An amazing feat for a government program, especially one that pays for itself with the occasional small changes we have made.

Do you have something better to suggest?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by MER_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They are living at the poverty line because they planned to live at the poverty line.


----------



## longwing (Mar 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> They are living at the poverty line because they planned to live at the poverty line.


Well, maybe. It seems to me that people are incredibly short sighted. Not just poor people but corporate boards, presidents, you name it. Short sightedness may be our greatest flaw.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am sorry, but Social Security is merely another welfare plan, except this one is set up as a classic Ponsy scheme. It is designed for those that pay in the least, to receive the most relative benefit. Please do not take my word for it.



> quote:Adequacy
> The key measure of adequacy is the â€œIncome Replacement Rate.â€ Social Security is designed to
> favor the lower-wage worker


from page four at https://www.aarp.org/money/social_security/social_security_a_background_briefing.html and click the "Social Security Background" link.

AARP is pro-Social Security and rather left leaning, so please do not say the above statement is right wing in orientation. If you read the article you will see that AARP is actually lobbying to remove the link between *paying into Social Security* and *receiving Social Security benefits*, meaning there will be an even further disconnect between contributions and distributions. What a wonderful thought.

Warmest regards


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Social Security is indeed a joke. At 23, even more so for myself. By the time I could ever collect it, Social Security will be almost certainly be either bust or dissolved. Yet I have to pay for the stupid thing. 

I am sure there are some seniors who need SS income, but in general I have little sympathy with most people who have not enough money for retirement. It is not as if Americans are scrimping and saving every penny and putting it away for a rainy day, or wisely investing it in income-producing ways. Americans don't save, and they seldom invest. 

For example I know a guy who, although having to pay high lawyer fees for a divorce and with multiple kids and no job, bought a 60" HDTV on credit.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> Social Security is indeed a joke. At 23, even more so for myself. By the time I could ever collect it, Social Security will be almost certainly be either bust or dissolved. Yet I have to pay for the stupid thing.
> 
> ...


 Yes, how dare the Greatest Generation have the temerity to ask you, as a 23 year old, to contribute a small portion of your pay-cheque to their retirement. After having pulled the Western World through the Depression, and defeated Hitler and the Soviet Union, they would be so selfish as to ask something of you. The elderly sure are a rapacious and unproductive bunch. Let natural selection take care of them.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Well, if they are indeed the "greatest generation" they wouldn't need to tap into my salary for their retirement, now, would they?

How I can owe people money for things they did before I was even born I can't even comprehend.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by LongWing_
> 
> Short sightedness may be our greatest flaw.


This is the most inciteful post in what promises to be a long, useless, tired debate about SS. The thread can only go down from here.

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Oh, come on. 

We just got MER to proclaim a program designed to grow the middle class, but keeps people at the poverty level a whopping success. How could not be more motivated?


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> Oh, come on.
> 
> We just got MER to proclaim a program designed to grow the middle class, but keeps people at the poverty level a whopping success. How could not be more motivated?


Where was that? If you read my post I said that thanks to social security, only 9% of seniors are at the poverty level, and without it 47% would be. So it helps 13 million seniors a year stay above the poverty level. How is that not a success?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by MER_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


#1 it doesn't keep them ABOVE the poverty level it keeps them AT poverty level. ($1,100x12=$13,200=2006 Poverty Level)

#2 poverty level is not middle class is it?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by LongWing_
> Re the middle class: *wages are stagnant*, debt is skyrocketing, health insurance is unbearable for many. I worry.


LongWing,

Did you see the April 2006 Jobs Report numbers issued today? Another month over month increase in wages! And unemployment stayed under 5% (4.7%) or so-called 'Full Natural Employment' in economic terms.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

$16.61 per hour = $35,548/year (not a lot, but better than $13,200)


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


JLP,

Yes they are a great generation. However, my frustration exists that now they and the boomers are turning their back on any rational debate on fixing the system for future generations. Anyone can figure out that the system is going broke in the future.

Don't they love their grandkids? 

To me, too many older people are buying into the AARP propanganda.

What we need is a serious discussion regarding the future of Social Security. Right now only one party has made any attempt at such a matter.  I know I won't vote for the other party, unless they step up to the plate, instead of merely using "scare" tactics.

Cheers,

JRR


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by ksinc_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


#1, again, look at the numbers, only 9% of seniors are AT or below that level, 91% are ABOVE that level. Without social security 47% would be AT or below that level.

#2, the purpose of social security is to help eliminate elderly poverty, which it obviously has been incredibly successful at.

Again, what is your alternative? You keep criticizing social security and saying it doesn't pay out enough, yet at the same time you criticize the system for occasionally running into funding problems, well what is your alternative? What can you come up with that would do a better job at combatting elderly poverty?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The 'greatest generation' is not bankrupting social security. In fact, the 'greatest generation' is shrinking at an incredible rate. 

Perhaps you are confusing the 'greatest generation', with the 'grooviest generaton'?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Alternative: Get rid of it. Pay SS to anyone born before a certain age then stop for everyone else. Removing the uncertainty would be the best thing. 

Then remove the caps on 401k and IRA accounts. Or at least lower the age for 'catch up' payments for those that are paying SS, but outside the age to get benefits. IE I don't want all that money BACK. OK great, Trillions of dollars under the bridge. Just STOP stealing from me now. 

I would anticipate that we would get a good solid number on what we owe those people. Sure, my SS taxes might go up for a while, then they will start coming down and eventually go to zero. We could start a big national PAY DOWN clock, like the deficit clock. It'd be very inspiring. We could even give incentives to get people to pay extra instead of giving to private charities and pay it off early and save some interest payments!

FTR, over 40% of households have an IRA. IRAs were only started in 1974 and the average median salary for people with an IRA is only $24,000. Yet, Americans have over $13 Trillion in IRAs.

Many people above that level have access to 401k through their employer.

I can go on, but it's probably pointless.

Oh, and exempt IRA and 401k accounts from estate taxes. So, people aren't thinking why save all that money. What if I die before I get to spend it all? And dis-incentizing savings. Which is what the estate tax does. The Kennedys and Rockefellars are not feeling the estate tax no matter how many times we say that's who it taxes.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

Look, here's the problem with social security. Or at least, my problem with it. We b**ch and complain that Americans don't save anything, and then we tell them that they don't have to because the government is going to pay for them to be old. So why save for retirement? That 49% of the elderly did *something* with all their money that would now be putting them in poverty. Why should I pay for their earlier profligacy? Especially when a huge amount of my paycheck is going into savings for myself, since I'm not going to benefit from the system?

Like I said, this thread is on its way into the cellar anyway.



> quote:_Originally posted by MER_
> 
> #1 it doesn't keep them ABOVE the poverty level it keeps them AT poverty level. ($1,100x12=$13,200=2006 Poverty Level)
> 
> #2 poverty level is not middle class is it?


edit-whoah, that was some bad formatting.
--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

"los campos de eduacion" must be paying off!
MER is finally seeing it my way! [}]


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am afraid this is going to be just like the other thread, namely we all believe what we believe already, and no matter the facts and figures presented, no minds will be changed. At least no one attempted to counter my posting on SS above.

I would just ask two things: remove restrictions, or at least vastly increase the amount, that can be contributed to one's 401(k) or 403(b), and remove income restrictions on IRA and ROTH eligibility. I find it totally illogical that at a mere 160k for a married couple, one cannot contribute to a ROTH and garners zero tax benefit from using a traditional IRA. I would say it does seem almost designed to keep one from saving for one's retirement.

Retiring as a millionaire is so simple, 15k per year, for 20 years, under GARP (growth at reasonable price), and you will be a millionaire. Granted a million is not what is used to be, but if you have other assets, a house and vacation house paid for, one should be able to live quite comfortably for an indefinite amount of time.

Warmest regards


----------



## Where Eagles Dare (Feb 14, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Vladimir Berkov_
> 
> Well, if they are indeed the "greatest generation" they wouldn't need to tap into my salary for their retirement, now, would they?
> 
> How I can owe people money for things they did before I was even born I can't even comprehend.


It's a social contract. You agree to help pay for the current generation of retirees. For this, the future generations pays for yours.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Where Eagles Dare_
> It's a social contract. You agree to help pay for the current generation of retirees. For this, the future generations pays for yours.


Well first, I think it is a bit of a stretch to cover SS under social contract theory. Second, sometimes facts get in the way of even the best theories. Namely, what do you do when there are so many retirees that the working people cannot support them? I think almost everyone is aware of the coming change in the shape of the population "pyramid".

Warmest regards


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The "social contract" system is the one used in France. Until now the system has worked well, but there is now some concern about whether the younger generation are going to want to support a growing population of retired inactives. This is the big argument for extending the legal retirement age - not very popular either, of course.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yes, as in all nations which have state-funded pension schemes. Surely the system could improved by re-examining the ages at which various demographics begin receiving benefits. Life expectancy can vary widely due to gender, ethnicity, and occupation, and so retirement/pension ages should be periodically calibrated to this reality. Also, of course, it makes no sense for for the richest members of a society to receive these sort of pensions. They were intended to prevent the poor elderly from being forced to eat dog food, rather than to provide windfall disposable income.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This would mean that women, who have a longer life expectancy than men, should have to wait a few years longer to get a pension. The opposite is the case at the moment - women are allowed to retire at an earlier age, I suppose historically on the grounds that they were exhausted by child-raising and house-keeping (though they still lived longer even then) - it would be interesting to know precisely why women's retirement age was set earlier.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Since most here seem to be specifically discussing America's Social Security scheme, I investigated a few key facts. For those born in 1935, when the programme was started, the life expectancy of various groups was thus:

White Females: 65
White Males: 61
Black Females: 55
Black Males: 51

and the minimum age to receive full old-age benefits was (rather conveniently) set at age 65, when the vast majority of potential recipients (and contributors) would be safely dead and burried. And of course, those born in 1935 would not themselves qualify until the year 2000, and so logically everyone who collected a SS pension before that date had been born _before_ 1935, when their expected life span had (in turn) been even _lower_ than the above figures suggest.

Therefore, it seems the system was set up to grant a supplemental income for old folks (or at least white women) who had overshot their life expectancy. But from its start it was biased on the basis of race and gender; in effect, black males were working their entire lives contributing to the pensions of white females, whilst themselves dying without any retirement at all.

This condition has not changed much, since the average life expectancy of Black Males did not even reach 65 until 1995* (!), when the average life expectancy of other groups was:

White Females: 80
White Males: 73
Black Females: 74

(*ie, life expectancies for those born in 1995)

which means that 2060 would be the first year black males will not be, as a group, outlived by their benefits. Just in time for the Centennial (!) celebration of the Civil Rights Act (!), and 200th anniversary of the Empancipation Proclamation.

And so we see that SS pension money is still more or less flowing from the underclasses to the middle and upper classes. This would seem to be a more salient social issue than whether or not Generation Xers ought to be able to gamble their SS deductions on Etrade.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> Since most here seem to be specifically discussing America's Social Security scheme, I investigated a few key facts. For those born in 1935, when the programme was started, the life expectancy of various groups was thus:
> 
> ...


I've been looking for flaws in your argument.

If the life expectancies are average values, then about half the pensioners will be dead and buried rather than the vast majority, I think, since the distribution of ages at death will be normal. If they were nearly all dead it would mean that pension payouts were tiny in 1935 - it would be interesting to have the curve for the cost of pensions from 1935 to now.

The figures are (by default) life expectancy at birth. Life expectancy at age 65 will be higher, but I'm not sure if this is relevant.

Rich people pay proportionately more to the pension fund than poor people (in France anyway - in the US I don't know)

Still, your overall conclusion seems right. I wonder what the original arguments were for setting retirement age at 65? This seems to be a fairly universal threshold throughout the developed world Were they based on statistics? Was there any discussion about it?


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Well, in reference to 'vast majority', obviously I am right because only half the women would be alive (over 65), and yet much larger majorities of every other group would have been dead by that time, since their life expectancies were well below that threshold (such as in the case of black males, fourteen years below it), and every year after one's life expectancy one's liklihood of death increases geometrically, not arithmetically.

Granted, many on the 'dead' side of the average may include infant mortality, but in any case the racial and gender disparities remain.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Also, for those interested, I found a good site:

'Social Security: Bush's Lies vs Reality'

with several good graphs.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, that sounds right.



> quote:
> 
> Granted, many on the 'dead' side of the average may include infant mortality, but in any case the racial and gender disparities remain.


Yes. The racial disparities have often been criticised, but I don't recall ever seeing a criticism of the gender disparities.

Of course, in practical terms it would be impossible to devise a fair system that would allow for the mortality differentials, because of the statistical (stochastic?) nature of those differentials.

Similar problem with insurance premiums based on health or accident statistics.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Rich_
> Yes. The racial disparities have often been criticised, but I don't recall ever seeing a criticism of the gender disparities.
> 
> Of course, in practical terms it would be impossible to devise a fair system that would allow for the mortality differentials, because of the statistical (stochastic?) nature of those differentials.
> ...


 Perfection, no, of course. Though it doesn't seem unreasonable to set retirement dates adjusted for race and gender, since these are criteria I would suppose that every state pension scheme records anyway. Even so, there will obviously still be those who die at age 20, or age 120, but at least it would be more fair overall.


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLPWCXIII_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, adjustment for race would be difficult in France because race is not recognised as a social identifier and is not recorded in public statistics (except in some health statistics on disease prevalence and even then only for research purposes).

Since life expectency is correlated to income, setting retirement dates on the basis of "life earnings" would be easy enough and would achieve the same ends. The less you've earned the earlier you retire.

This would work against the gender differential (lower earnings of women not being correlated with lower life expectancy but rather the opposite). Unless the longer life expectancy of women can be proved to be genetic. Now that would be politically difficult - like arguing for single-sex schools.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I will not bother repeating myself, but will point the interested reader back to AARP for information and policy. I do not like the AARP, I feel they are left leaning, big government folks, however they have a lengthy history and are influential in policy formation. I would place their information above that of little known web sources. 

Just wait unitl they lift the 90k cap and put means testing in place. At that point, enough people might have their oxes gored to drown out the AARP lobby.

Warmest regards


----------

