Why is the U.S. way behind many other countries in terms of a vibrant middle class?

[bullwinkle428]

"Countries like Australia, Sweden, Canada and Switzerland all have stronger middle classes than the U.S. What makes the differences?


Who is the middle class?
Jeremy Hobson: Perhaps one of the reasons the Occupy Wall Street protests have picked up so much steam is that the middle class is being squeezed in this country. So is there a country that's doing a good job when it comes to building a strong middle class?

We asked Marketplace economics correspondent Chris Farrell to look into that, and he joins us now. Good morning.

Chris Farrell: Good morning Jeremy.

Hobson: So is anybody getting it right when it comes to fostering a strong middle class?

Farrell: Oh I think there are a number of countries that are truly getting it right. The northern European countries -- Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany -- they're doing it right, have a healthy middle class. And then there's Canada, Australia, New Zealand -- they also have a much more vibrant middle class compared to the U.S."

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/10/20/am-which-countries-have-strong-middle-classes/

[Lint Head]

1. Simple and to the point. This 'is' the solution.

Right wing bigots read this and say, 'Well, if you like it so much why don't you just move there'.

I 'am' considering moving to these places if the grinding negative impact of Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys is not
put to a halt by social upheaval soon.

[closeupready]

3. One problem with this solution is that anywhere you go, you'd also be an immigrant.

There's nothing wrong with that, but you'd have to deal with all the same issues that immigrants everywhere have to deal with. If you're fully prepared for that, go for it, but if you are middle-aged, that's easier said than done.

[Lint Head]

4. I am aware of quite a few folks that have actually retired or moved to other

countries because those countries care more about the average person than this country. It is sad because these people are not rich but just needed to go to a place that cares more about human beings than greed and power. It's amazing that people in other countries still believe in what America 'use to be' and have actually developed into the very thing we should have become long ago if it were not for bigoted politics.

[Firebrand Gary]

2. Because the 1% decided that our middle class should create other middle classes. Overseas.

[pampango]

5. "They have stronger social safety nets, every citizen has health care, tend to have strong unions.."

These are all liberal economies, these are all capitalist economies, but they have a much stronger social safety net. Big difference, for example -- every citizen has health care. These are all liberal economies, these are all capitalist economies, but they have a much stronger social safety net. Big difference, for example -- every citizen has health care.

They tend to have strong unions. So in strong unions, low income folks tend to be paid better; middle managers tend to be paid less.

[indepat]

6. Concentration of wealth among a relative few, exacerbated by an inequitable tax code and burgeoning

income inequality does not a vibrant middle class make. :patriot:

[FarCenter]

7. None of those countries are the sole superpower leader of the free world

With a huge military budget to support.

[hifiguy]

9. There is no sane reason why this country has to

police the world while enriching the MIC beyond any conceivable measure. :eyes:

[polly7]

10. Where exactly does the idea that the U.S. leads any of us, come from?

We have our own gov'ts, military, resources, membership in world organizations, trade partners from all over the world .... how exactly are we being lead? I've never understood this and find it slightly insulting. Seriously. People of all nations fight for their own economies, social programs, values ... we've accomplished what we've got on our own, sometimes with great struggle, and we certainly didn't depend on anyone else to do it for us. Sorry, but I don't get it ... and I don't mean this in a disrespectful way.

As to the OP, I believe it is health-care and other social programs keep our middle class from sinking as quickly in the event of sudden unemployment or loss.

[FarCenter]

11. From the Cold War, from the neo-cons, and from the needs of the military industrial complex

At the start of the first Bush administration in 1989, America had a choice. It could be:
- a large and influential nation with normal military, diplomatic and trade relations with the rest of the world, or
- the sole superpower, possessed of overwhelming military might and able to dictate diplomatic relations and economic policies for the rest of the world.

We chose the latter.

From then on, instead of shrinking our military and promoting normal relations we:
- lured Saadam Hussein into attacking Kuwait, making the First Gulf War possible,
- intervened in the former Yugoslavia,
- pushed NATO forward into as many former Warsaw Pact countries as possible,
- fomented Islamic radicalism in the trans-Caucasus and Central Asian former Soviet Union,
- supported Tibetan and Uighur separatist movements,
- worked to impose the AngloAmerican financial system worldwide through the World Bank, IMF, BIS, and other bodies,
- intervened in Somalia,
- maintained a fly-over zone in Iraq,
- invaded Afghanistan,
- invaded Iraq,

need I go on.

And there is also the Project for a New American Century:

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

William Kristol, Chairman

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[raccoon]

12. "We chose the latter. " We? nt

[eridani]

14. Bingo. I always say "Whatchu mean WE, Kemosabe?"

The neocons and neolibs are not "America". The corporate ruling elite is not "America". The rest of the people who just live here have a better claim on the designation "America," and we would likely not approve of all the elite shenanigans aimed at dominating the rest of the world and its resources, and making it safe for dollar a day labor. That is, if large numbers of us knew about stuff like that--but the general population doesn't. Thatmight just be changing, though.

[Starry Messenger]

17. +1

I don't remember voting for imperialism.

[saras]

8. The US isn't behind, it's ahead - in the looting. Once we're powerless, the next ones are easier.

[county worker]

13. Because we have an electorate that lacks critical thinking skills.

[Tsiyu]

15. I put it together day before yesterday

Driving, heard an interview with an author who found what he calls the "happiest countries on each continent."

He mentioned Denmark for Western Europe. Even though they have a 70% tax rate, as the author said, part of happiness is freedom from worry.

In Denmark, you earn a salary while attending your free college classes. You have free health care. You have no worries in retirement. And there is not the disparity in income as here, so that he met a garbage hauler who lived next to a doctor and a professor.

I'm thinking, "I pay 150% (counting what I owe) and I don't have any of those things!"

No free college education for me or most of my kids

No health care

No retirement except social security

Hell, with 30% of my income remaining, and all that above covered I'd be one fricking happy camper.

But then I'd be a soshulist, so I suppose I should be happy to pay out all I owe for nothing....in this broken Land of Broken Dreams

[pampango]

16. Here's a graph from the OECD study that conclusion was based on.

The report finds that well-being has increased on average over the past fifteen years: people are richer and more likely to be employed; they enjoy better housing conditions and are exposed to lower air pollution; they live longer and are more educated; they are also exposed to fewer crimes. But differences across countries are large. Furthermore, some groups of the population, particularly less educated and low-income people, tend to fare systematically worse in all dimensions of well-being considered in this report. For instance they live shorter lives and report greater health problems; their children obtain worse school results; they participate less in political activities; they can rely on lower social networks in case of needs; they are more exposed to crime and pollution; they tend to be less satisfied with their life as a whole than more educated and higher-income people.

http://www.oecd.org/document/10/0,3746,en_2649_201185_48791306_1_1_1_1,00.html

[Tsiyu]

18. Interesting

Thanks for the graph and link

[moondust]

19. Extended families

tend to care about their "clan." Predatory behavior not tolerated.

[Fire Walk With Me]

20. Because since and including Reagan they've been systematically destroying the middle class so they

can live like kings and queens over a disposable, abusable serf class. Forever without rules and without accountability.

They are monsters.

[spin]

21. The people we elect are bought and owned by the Big Corporations and the rich ...

and the owners want low paid workers to increase their profit margin. Consequently the middle class disappears.

If the big corporations can't find cheap labor in the United States they just go to another country.