12 Jan '10 19:07>1 edit
As a first pass I checked out the census bureau's income inequality data. They report the income level of the 20th percentile and the 80th percentile which I figured formed a decent band for middle class. Here are the growth rates in income.
1980-1988:
20th percentile: 7%
80th percentile: 13%
1992-2000:
20th percentile 17.2%
80th percentile 18.3%
It would appear from these figures that the middle class did better in the 90's than in the 80's.
This is consistent with the general story I read all the time. The 90's were a time of strong economic growth and, under clinton mote redistribution to the middle and lower class. The 80's had decent growth though not as marked and tax reforms which favored the rich made those gains partiularly strong among the upper class.
Note that unlike the author I am assigning neither credit nor blame to either President for the extent of growth during their tenure nor to the changes in income inequality. This is about fact checking the article, and frankly at a first pass it seems to be little more than a partisan revision of economic history.
1980-1988:
20th percentile: 7%
80th percentile: 13%
1992-2000:
20th percentile 17.2%
80th percentile 18.3%
It would appear from these figures that the middle class did better in the 90's than in the 80's.
This is consistent with the general story I read all the time. The 90's were a time of strong economic growth and, under clinton mote redistribution to the middle and lower class. The 80's had decent growth though not as marked and tax reforms which favored the rich made those gains partiularly strong among the upper class.
Note that unlike the author I am assigning neither credit nor blame to either President for the extent of growth during their tenure nor to the changes in income inequality. This is about fact checking the article, and frankly at a first pass it seems to be little more than a partisan revision of economic history.