The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class

[Javaman]

What would happen if you compared a middle-class family in 1970 with a middle class family in 2009?

Distinguished Harvard law scholar, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, and one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2009, Elizabeth Warren, has crunched the numbers and here’s what she finds:

In 1970, the average husband-wife-and-two-kids family had one wage earner, and in 2009 the average family has two wage earners. And although today’s families spend much less ( in adjusted dollars) on clothing, food, appliances, and electronics, they have much less disposable income, and zero savings.

So, what’s up? Where does today’s second wage earner’s extra income get swallowed up?

For starters, in 1970, the average family’s kids followed their parents into the middle class by going through 12 years of free K-12 education. Today, those kids won’t likely enter the middle class without also going through 2 years of preschool and 4 years of college. Who pays for the preschool and college? The family does.


more, plus video at link...
http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/2009/10/17/the-coming-collapse-of-the-middle-class/

[Liberal_in_LA]

1. "The coming collapse"? It's already happened.

[closeupready]

50. This. Instead, we should be doing a post-mortem, shouldn't we?

There is no middle-class anymore.

[DesertFlower]

2. there is so much disparity between the rich and poor.

i like to watch HGTV. they have a new series called "selling new york". people are buying condos that cost 10 million with HOA fees of $7,000 a month. they are also renting these apartments for as much as $25,000 a month.

one guy looked at a 4 floor walkup. the rent was $7,500 a month.

[Walk away]

4. The apartment on 57th street that I sublet in the '70 for $550 per month is now...

(drum roll please)..over $5000.00 a month. I couldn't believe it when I saw the listing last year.

[DesertFlower]

6. we had a nice apartment in queens.

when we moved to arizona in late '89 our rent was $505 with free gas and electric. hubby and i were just talking about it the other day and wondering how much that rent is now.

[Walk away]

23. There are probably six twenty somethings sharing it and each paying twice what you did.

[marmar]

3. It's well underway.....

nt

[HughBeaumont]

5. Yet every ass-dumb know-nothing is so quick to bring up "BIG SCREEN TEEVEES!"

.. .. as the cause of our financial woes.

Bigger picture would be the simple and general fact that for 30-40 years, wages have not kept up with the cost of living. It's the necessities that are killing us, not luxuries.

[MilesColtrane]

56. delete

Changed my post to respond to the OP.

[dmallind]

7. These kind of comparisons always miss one thing

How much would a current middle class family spend to live like a 1970 middle class family (not a 2010 middle class family).

To live in a smaller house with fewer and more labor-intensive amenities.

To drive a bare bones single car with more user-supplied maintenance and almost no safety features

To take driving vacations in neighboring states sharing single motel rooms instead of flying globally

To have far fewer choices (and higher costs) in food and clothing


I frankly have no idea, but it is silly to comapre cost of living without also comparing standard of living. The 1970 family may have been better off or may not have been, but the 2010 family undeniably has more options available to them.

The single to double income switch is also a double edged sword. Single incomes were more common not just because an adequate lifestyle on one was more possible (questionably true - see above) but also because of two undeniably true negatives - greater and more entrnched sexism in the workplace, and the greater need for home-based labor to provide basic necessities such as food, clean clothes and a reasonably clean home.

[FirstLight]

9. Exactly!

You cant compare apples to oranges, I agree....

It's like people telling me I am not poor because I have a TV and food in the fridge...but I beg to differ. Just because I am 'rich' compared to poverty nations, doesn;t mean I don;t struggle to put gas in the car or food on the table or pay the electric bill...

As I recall, life in the 70's was much easier, we didn't take vacations at all...but went away for weekends to another property my dad had bought in the sticks...because he *could*.
My mom didn't *have* to work, but chose to work once me & sister were older. My dad worked for the Phone Co, as an installer and supervisor off & on...but he had a pension and real coverage of healthcare, etc...AND he SAVED. Even by 1970 standards, we didn't have a LOT...I got generic dolls and we shopped at Montgomery Wards basement for clothes, he rarely took us out to dinner or even fast food, and we never had cable or Atari - even when it was easier to get and cheaper by the 80's

so what happened? Where did all the wealth go? (uh, in banker's pockets?)

My generation is approaching the mid 40's and some of us are STILL trying to find a career or a way to make ends meet. I have a 40 yr old friend who may have a job, but still had to move back into the parent's basement 2 years ago, after losing his rent controlled apt. I guarantee he is single because he knows he can't afford a family.
...
My teen is screwn, we have nothing to offer his college education. And honestly, he sems pretty lethargic to DO anything anyway, he is so depressed by the future he has already given up on lots of levels...

[Dappleganger]

31. Hey, my dad was a telephone man too!

Bell Atlantic (C&P, now Verizon) for 35 years. He began working for them after he got out of the Navy. He was an installer and did some supervising stints but hated the latter, remained an installer. They tried to get him to retire for YEARS but he refused, finally they had a massive buyout and he jumped ship. He was union all the way but they are still chipping away at his benefits.

We were very poor at the beginning (rented an apt. until we girls were in middle school) but when overtime really kicked in so did our lifestyle. We had a boat, decent house w/one acre in the city, two cars and a truck (to pull the boat), a small trailer in NC to enjoy on weekends, private school (my mom worked part-time at the school, later becoming a nurse). We didn't buy a bunch of clothes, I was expected to get my own because I had several jobs (and that was ok w/me). We had no tv until I was a senior in high school. We did grow many of our veggies and can them, too.

By my family's standards we are definitely less well-off, however! My parents had a lot more savings than we do because we had to use it during dh's layoff.

[Greyhound]

10. The false comparisons abound.

The OP is talking about the standard of living and you're talking about gadgets, and very selective gadgets at that.

The issue is quality of life, not how much crap you store in your garage.

[dmallind]

11. Really? I mentioned a gadget? Where?

I mentioned housing and labor saving appliances that mean a full time home-based adult is not necessary. I mentioned cars that had no airbags and crumple zones and needed extensive maintenance. Don't see a mention of an IPad or a cell phone.

[Kalun D]

29. Incorrect

""I mentioned housing and labor saving appliances that mean a full time home-based adult is not necessary.""

we have basically the same appliances as the 70's, just more bells and whistles.

to pay for basic needs now requires 2 wage earners per household

a full time adult at home was never necessary since the 50's, merely desired in order to raise the kids. Without that the TV and daycare raises them and THAT'S what's wrong with America

[dmallind]

39. Washing machines are gadgets now? To whom?

And no they are not the same. Dishwashers are far more common and affordable. A microwave was a rare luxury item 40 years ago and a small time purchase today. Automatic washing machines are far superior and require less labor to dry and fold when paired with far superior dryers too (my memory is a bit suspect here but I don't even remember tumble dryers being normal 40 years ago either - I remember spin dryers and drying racks). We have wrinkle-free clothing to reduce ironing needs (at the same cost as any comparable item). We have delayed timers so laundry and dishwashers can run at night without disrupting the day or water supply/heat.


And of course you failed to mention how much more cheaply you can live in a typical 1970 home over a typical 2010 home if you are willing to do so.

It is not impossible to live like it's 1970. It's just not that attractive to many real people, no matter how much the sanctimonious would like to tell them it was a simpler and better time.

[Kalun D]

61. You Missed the Main Point

the diff in tech from 1970 is negligible, certainly not enough to require the full time labor of an adult

the point is it takes two people to achieve what one person did before, and it results in a breakdown of the family

[FirstLight]

13. I wasn't talking about gadgets

I was using examples of clothing entertainment and vacations to say we didn't have the exorbitant living standards we see today...

not just in terms of tv's vacations and toys...

In the 70's it was rare for us to go to McD's, and today it is a weekly thing for many families...just because of the busy factor.

So times have changed in that way as well. 2 parents working, kids in sports to keep them from being depressed or doing drugs, etc...it is much more of a struggle to do the things my parents did. That way of life no longer exists...unless you make well over comfortable wages. But by then, your life is more 'stuff filled' than ever...because we have become a 'stuff' society too.
how many dad's go to bowling or elk's meetings or such today?
- very few cuz they are working longer hours and doing more work for less money than ever before, and they are tired.
how many mom's are able to be the girlscout troop leader or can attend their kid's spelling bee?
- very few cuz they are having to work late too and the kids go to childcare or boys & girls club after school till 6...

so to fill the space, those with any expendable income shop...if they need to or not.

so perhaps gadgets aren't so far off base in comparison...?

[starroute]

12. It didn't quite work that way

When I was a kid in the 50's we weren't well off. We lived in a small rent-controlled apartment in New York. I got one or two new outfits each fall -- plus a lot of hand-me-downs from my cousin. My father bought a second-hand car from my uncle around 1950 and then a bottom-of-the-line Plymouth in 1955. When we got a tv, that was also second-hand because a friend of my parents was trading up. And I didn't have access to a lot of the small luxuries that some of my friends did whose fathers were doctors or professors.

But my mother had a cleaning woman who came in every week. We ate out for Sunday dinner every week so she wouldn't have to cook. We went away to the mountains for four weeks every summer. When my mother needed surgery for an overactive thyroid, my parents paid for it out of savings. And when I went off to college in the 60's, my parents paid for that too without any scholarship aid, though my father grumbled about it a bit.

So yeah, some things like food and clothing were relatively more expensive and took some scrimping. But there were other things that my parents paid for easily on a modest middle-class income that would be unimaginable to anybody at an equivalent level today.

And that was in the 50's. By 1970, when almost everybody was relatively better off, my parents were enjoying a scale of living that I've never come close to.

[laughingliberal]

22. Nope. Live in a house the same size as my parents house in the 70's

but much further from town (cause the rural backwater where we bought was the only place around where we hadn't been priced out). I have no more labor saving amenities than my parents did. Haven't left town for a vacation in 8 years. In fact, the last time either of us left town was when my husband had to go to Vegas (about 450 miles) for a family funeral. He drove and stayed with family and I stayed home as we could not afford for both of us to take off work. We have 2 used cars as did my parents and our cars use less gas. We have one 1990 truck for my husband's business and we drive it only when we have to pick up or deliver a piece.

This same, tired argument comes up every time-that our parents lived more simply than we do. Well, not in my family. My mother had a washer and dryer, a dishwasher, a newer stove and refrigerator, the same size house I do in a more desirable location, comparable vehicles, and about the same level of wardrobe I have. My father supported us (wife and 4 kids) on a blue collar job (had about a year of college) and sent us to parochial schools. He also retired from the company he worked for at 65 with a defined benefit pension (non-union shop, mind you). And they were able to take us on vacation about every other year. I graduated with a degree in nursing, made well over the median income for every state I've lived in and my husband did, too. We still had no where near the lifestyle of my parents and we have nothing on which to retire.

Wages have declined, and the cost of necessities has gone up. They seek to hide this from us by using the ridiculous CPI's which don't count housing, transportation, or the cost of health care so they can pretend wages have kept up with inflation. The only way wages have kept up is if you live under a bush, walk everywhere, and never get sick.

[Kalun D]

30. ^^^^^+++++1000

good post

""The only way wages have kept up is if you live under a bush, walk everywhere, and never get sick.""

LOLZ!!

[fishwax]

37. I can relate to a lot of that

Good post. :thumbsup:

[dmallind]

43. And of course your experience is statistically valid?

Call me nuts but I prefer to use official data

http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf

So the fact that YOU did not increase your house size does not mean that the median house size did not increase very very significantly.

When will people learn anecdotes cannot refute data?

[Javaman]

45. So the medium size house increases, but it's made from much more inferior quality material.

I know I worked in housing construction, during the "boom" of the early 2000's.

I can go into specific detail if you wish.

size doesn't matter, didn't any tell you that?

[Javaman]

46. Very similar upbrining. Thanks for posting. :)

Some people believe life just falls from the sky.

We folks of a certain age still remember how is once was.

Sometimes I wonder if this is still a Democratic site. The concpets put forth by some members here, just leave me wondering.

Cheers! :)

[ipaint]

25. You need to get a hold of Elizabeth Warren and tell her how "silly" she is.

The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class

Distinguished law scholar Elizabeth Warren teaches contract law, bankruptcy, and commercial law at Harvard Law School. She is an outspoken critic of America's credit economy, which she has linked to the continuing rise in bankruptcy among the middle-class. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

[dmallind]

40. I suspect she already knows it's a silly comparison

I also of course suspect whe can tell the difference between herself and the comparison.

Since it's obvious to anyone half as well educated that you must hold one variable constant (or correct for it) when studying another in comparison to it I have a feeling this piece was designed intentionally for its intended audience and purpose as seen here.

[Javaman]

47. wow, just wow.

yeah, she's a crazy propagandist! You, apparently, have no idea of her background on this issue.

That's some interesting logic there to fit your concept of reality.

[dmallind]

59. So you agree with ALL professors regardless of the study's quaklity

Intersting to know. Personally I judge opinions by their merit rather than their author.

Something about logical fallacies you may find interesting there. Argument from authority and all that.

[Javaman]

60. don't delude yourself. nt

[OHdem10]

8. No Middle Class=No Democracy!!!

[cutlassmama]

14. Going back to the 70's would be marvelous! No police state, better

standard of living, simple times. America will never be what it once was.

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. Cell phones, Starbucks, fast internet, bottled water, iTunes, sports drinks

...my guess is that the median monthly spend on all of the above averages $250-300/mo., which in 1970s dollars was like $1000.

Cut all that shit out, and you get a lot closer to parity.

[Cetacea]

16. Cut that stuff out and two people still have to work

to be able to afford the basics. It's much worse than it was in the 1970s.

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. The point is that people consume way more convenience items now than then nt

[laughingliberal]

27. Your point is wrong. Even people who do not can not have the same standard of living on 2 incomes

that our parents had on one income. It is the cost of necessities like housing, transportation, and health care that has gone up.

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. I wasn't arguing that point nt

[laughingliberal]

24. None of the above

We have one cell phone but no land line. An all inclusive plan with unlimited calls and texts for $80 per month which serves as our personal and my husband's business phone. Internet connection is $40/month. Tap water only. No Starbucks, no sports drinks, no sodas.

It does not add up in my life. My parents lived a lot better than my husband and I and neither of them had as much education as I do. My father supported my mother and the 4 of us kids on his one job and retired with a defined pension.

Not sure why people argue about this. It must be the ones who have all these luxuries they keep mentioning as being the problem. But necessities like housing and transportation, not to mention healthcare, have gone up way faster than wages. There is no denying it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

32. Man do you people like arguing.

All I said was that those items that people view as essentials NOW didn't exist THEN, yet in 1970 dollars it would probably have accounted for around $1000/month.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

[laughingliberal]

35. It's not hard to comprehend but even those of us living without all that stuff find it hard to have

the same standard of living on 2 incomes that our parents had on 1 income. Not trying to be contentious but the facts are that the cost of the things we really need has skyrocketed while our wages have not. It's just a grind trying to make it in America today.

[Javaman]

48. yeah, there were no gadget freaks back then.

:eyes:

You must have not lived during those times.

It appears as if you don't really like people disagreeing with your odd sense of reality.

[Dreamer Tatum]

53. I was alive and well back then, thanks

And would LOVE for you to share with me what the 1970 equivalents of Starbucks, bottled water, fast internet, cell phones, iTunes, Blockbuster, Netflix were.

Most people in the 70's were living in style if they had a couple of color TVs and a hi-fi, or at least a console. Nowadays some people will buy every piece of shit that Apple slings out there, no matter how often.

What was the 1970 equivalent of having the following:

A DVD player
An iPod
A laptop and/or a PC
At least one flatscreen TV
A cell phone
A Netflix account
An iTunes account
High-speed internet
Cable TV or a dish

Ummmm, yeah. A lot of people had transistor radios, and that was about it until the CB craze kicked in around 1976.


Sure there were gadget freaks back then. But EVERYONE is a gadget freak now in comparison (and for the usual people who come along and brag about how LITTLE you have, spare me your tedious bullshit. You at least have a computer and internet access.)

[Javaman]

62. You seem really bent on trying to equate "things" with quality of life.

that's really sad.

[tabbycat31]

18. coming collapse

I just did a paper-- the collapse started in 1981.

[branders seine]

19. "coming"?

when was this written? 1980?

[lunatica]

20. One cause that people mostly miss is the mortgage companies

realized that as more women wanted careers they now had two incomes for those mortgages, so they started raising the price of homes because families could pay twice as much. Then that forced all other housing to go up which in turn forced women who didn't have careers to go to work to make ends meet. It became a vicious cycle and now everyone has to work. It's no longer a real choice for women.

Single people are finding it hard to make ends meet also because everything is geared towards a two earner family now.

[TwilightGardener]

21. I wonder about this, too. Seems that while many households added income

over the last 40 or so years, the cost of living went up accordingly, and wages also stagnated. I imagine a two-earner household in 1965 must have been a very secure, comfortable place to be. Now it's almost required for entry into the middle class.

[proudohioan]

41. That's a very good point. nt

[newportdadde]

42. Supply and demand. A doubling up of the workforce means half the pay.

[Javaman]

49. That doesn't even make sense.

people are hired as industry requires the need. They don't put more people on the payroll just to create work.

The US economy boomed during the post war years, thus more people were required to fit the need of demand.

As demand goes down, people get laid off.

That economics 101.

[Dreamer Tatum]

54. Silly post of the millenium nominee nt

[Taverner]

26. It's been happening since the 70's

The increase of credit, instead of wages

Gave the illusion nothing was wrong, while everything was VERY wrong

[laughingliberal]

28. +1000 nt

[Javaman]

51. Nail on head.

With the increase in the use of credit, the illusion of making more money takes hold.

"I can just charge it!" became the new mantra.

As costs went up, as services went down, the credit bill went up.

As the services went down, we as a nation had to pay more for something that only a few years before cost less.

When money is deferred, it's money lost. But the financial gain is found in the lenders.

The explosion of credit in the mid to late 90's let to higher interest rates and the targeting of younger people with no credit other than their parents co-sign.

Now credit controls everything.

Bankruptcy increases as prices increase and salaries aren't able to keep up, thus forcing people to use credit for the basic necessities of life.

The choice become food or medical aid.

Drugs are the new credit for health. Can't afford to go to the doc? take a pill!

People delay going to the doctor out of financial stress, so the rise of various drugs to "offset" the fear of major surgery takes hold.

Credit like a drug, provides the same sense of false security. Both will eventually catch you in the end.

[Dappleganger]

34. It's collapsing because of HEALTH CARE COSTS!

Why isn't anyone discussing this? Everything costs MORE especially electric/gas/water/sewage/food/healthcare/medicine, etc.

Did our parents pay make payments to Blue Cross & Blue Shield equal to their MORTGAGE on a monthly basis?

Hell, NO!

Did they make co-payments and deductibles equal to a car payment on a monthly basis?

Hell, NO!

[laughingliberal]

36. That's certainly one of the big factors. nt

[Javaman]

52. Health care cost is one of the major pillars of the problem.

an eroding manufacturing base and the outsourcing of jobs are the other two.

if you don't have manufacturing, you don't have jobs.

If you outsource the jobs you have unemployment.

If you don't have health care you have a health impoverished population.

A jobless, unhealthy workforce who has no opportunities.

[Art_from_Ark]

38. If it was K-12 education

then it would have been at least 13 years. At any rate, back in the '60s, in my hometown at least, K wasn't free.

[Bigmack]

44. Liz... (I call her Liz because she's my fantasy woman)..

wrote a book called "The Two Income Trap" in 2003. It detailed the three causes of family disaster... none of which are spending on frivolous items. Her stats are irrefutable, and she was waaaay ahead of most pundits in pointing out the disasters of the last 10 years.

She's my fantasy woman because pretty, mature, and brilliant women turn me on.

From Publishers Weekly
Warren, a law professor at Harvard (The Fragile Middle Class) and her daughter Tyagi, a former McKinsey consultant, have joined forces here to argue here that the two-parent middle-class working family is on the brink of financial disaster. The number of families declaring bankruptcy or receiving a foreclosure against their house has shot up dramatically. Presenting carefully researched economic data to support their arguments, the authors contend that, contrary to popular myth, families aren't in trouble because they're squandering their second income on luxuries. On the contrary, both incomes are almost entirely committed to necessities, such as home and car payments, health insurance and children's education costs. When an unforeseen event such as serious illness, job loss or divorce occurs, families have no discretionary income to fall back on. The authors recommend a number of useful societal solutions to get families out of this trap, such as legally prohibiting credit card companies from charging grossly unfair interest rates and exposing banks that employ a loan-to-own strategy that steers minority customers to higher mortgage rates with an eye to future foreclosures. Warren and Tyagi point out that families buy homes they cannot afford in order to live in a neighborhood with better schools. Overall, however, this is a needed examination of an emerging social problem.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

[blindpig]

55. In a sense there is no middle class,

just workers and owners, the 'middle class' being that strata of workers who are specialist and facilitators of capitalist society.

Seems like the illusion of 'America the middle class society' is being allowed to dissipate, back to business as usual, 1890 style.

[MilesColtrane]

57. Unions

In 1945 almost 34% of the non-farm work force was unionized.

The numbers stayed strong until the Reagan 80's when union busting policies were encouraged by the government. And later, NAFTA drove the final stake into organized labor.

Now only 7.6% of the private sector workforce belongs to a union.

[greencharlie]

58. k&r great thread. nt