Originally posted by TeinosukeThe Reagan expansion years marked a period of economic progress for middle class Americans. Middle class income increased 11 percent after adjustment for inflation, while nearly 20 million new jobs were created. Nonetheless, there are those, such as Secretary Reich, who have attempted to portray the 1980s as a period of economic hardship and decline for most Americans.
Yeah, it's been shrinking since about the day of Reagan's inauguration.
This paper will rely on data from the Census Bureau to analyze the income growth of the 1980s. The evidence shows that the percentage of households in the low income category declined during the 1980s, while the proportion of high income households increased. Furthermore, while the middle class shrank as a share of all households, the reason for this is upward, not downward, mobility.
Middle Class "Shrinking" Upward
The graph below shows the percentage of all households in low, middle, and high income categories. During economic decline, household income tends to fall, while during economic progress, household incomes tend to increase. The 1982-89 expansion conforms to the expected pattern of income growth during an economic upturn.
Click here to see Figure 1.
The percentage of households in the low income category dropped during the 1980s. This group comprised 27.5 percent of all households in 1980, 28.5 percent in 1982, and only 25.3 percent by 1989. As a share of all households, the proportion of those with low incomes became less prominent by the end of the 1980s.
Meanwhile, the percentage of households with incomes over $50,000 jumped from 17.6 percent in 1980 and 1982, to 23.5 percent in 1989. This remarkable increase in the proportion of high income households is another sign of solid income growth.
Notice how the strong upward mobility has affected the middle category. This group comprised 55 percent of all households in 1980, 53.8 percent in 1982, and 51.1 percent by 1989. In this one sense, the middle class did indeed shrink during the 1980s. Is this good or bad?
If the middle class shrinkage had resulted from massive income losses resulting in expansion of the low income group, it would clearly signal that something was seriously wrong. However, a review of the data shows that the reverse was happening. Income gains were pushing a greater proportion of middle class households into the high income category. Of the 4 percentage point reduction in the middle class percentage between 1980 and 1989, all of it is accounted for by net upward movement into the high income category.
Conclusion
Liberal critics of the 1980s who argue that the middle class withered are half right for the wrong reasons. The proportion of middle class Americans did indeed decline, but this reflected an upward movement of households into the high income category. Meanwhile, the proportion of low income households declined, as more became middle class. The income growth of the Reagan years boosted the fortunes of Americans at all income levels.
Christopher Frenze
Chief Economist to the Vice Chairman
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/prosper/prosper.htm
Originally posted by utherpendragonNo, he's quite serious and has said the same thing in other threads."1.Our military is hideously overpaid. We need to freeze their pay increases until they fall back to reasonable levels.
2. Privates in basic training make an obscene amount of money, their pay and benefits equal over 30,000 dollars a year on the outside."- sam the sham
[b]E-1 pay grade = $17,366 per year. ( Pay for Private (E1) ...[text shortened]... too little.[/b]
http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/money/basic-pay-active-duty-soldiers.html[/b]
And he's right; what qualifications does an E-1 require? What other job gives you 30K right out of high school? A lot of recruits go right from flipping burgers or the unemployment line to generous wage (given that have limited housing or food costs) and a benefit package second to none. Sure it's dangerous and unpleasant and that should be factored in, but pay levels have increased sharply since the draft was abandoned and in real terms privates are far better off than they were in the 60's. Most people aren't.
Originally posted by utherpendragonYes, we can expect some fair and balanced analysis of Reagan's legacy from a Republican.
The Reagan expansion years marked a period of economic progress for middle class Americans. Middle class income increased 11 percent after adjustment for inflation, while nearly 20 million new jobs were created. Nonetheless, there are those, such as Secretary Reich, who have attempted to portray the 1980s as a period of economic hardship and decline f ...[text shortened]... e
Chief Economist to the Vice Chairman
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/prosper/prosper.htm
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonWages were stagnant or falling during the 80's; the only reason household income rose at all is because wives, often with small children, had to enter the work force for economic reasons:
The Reagan expansion years marked a period of economic progress for middle class Americans. Middle class income increased 11 percent after adjustment for inflation, while nearly 20 million new jobs were created. Nonetheless, there are those, such as Secretary Reich, who have attempted to portray the 1980s as a period of economic hardship and decline f e
Chief Economist to the Vice Chairman
http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/prosper/prosper.htm
On average the number of hours that wives worked was 32 percent higher in 1989 than in 1979. Without the increased hours and wages of wives, incomes for 60 percent of families would have been lower in 1989 than in 1979.
Adjusting for increased hours of work and for costs of additional work, living standards for 80 percent of families failed to rise over the period.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/49More.htm
For the period you referenced, average weekly earnings fell:
Average weekly earnings of nonsupervisory workers, total private industry, 1982 dollars4
1980 274
1981 271
1982 267
1983 272
1984 274
1985 271
1986 271
1987 269
1988 266
1989 263
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/4Inequality.htm
Originally posted by no1marauderThe privates in the 60's during the draft are not the same caliber as the privates of the 21st centuries all volunteer force. Also, they are not making 30k right out of high school. 17k is not 30k. Their living conditions are not the same so you really cant compare the housing to private sector of a person making 30k. Its not like they are living in a bachelor pad like a kid making 30k would be. They are living in barraks, sharing showers and toilets.
No, he's quite serious and has said the same thing in other threads.
And he's right; what qualifications does an E-1 require? What other job gives you 30K right out of high school? A lot of recruits go right from flipping burgers or the unemployment line to generous wage (given that have limited housing or food costs) and a benefit package ...[text shortened]... d in real terms privates are far better off than they were in the 60's. Most people aren't.
Their day is far from being a 8 hour day like in the private sector.
5:45 a.m. First formation. Now, lets go off on a 6-8 mile run. Get back, chit, shower shave, eat, and next formation 8am. Now go to work until 1700-1730 if you're lucky . I often times worked well into 2200 hrs.
I am not talking basic training days either. This is permanent party.
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe Taliban pay about $300 a month. http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/09/taliban-pay-vs-afghan-forces-pay/
The privates in the 60's during the draft are not the same caliber as the privates of the 21st centuries all volunteer force. Also, they are not making 30k right out of high school. 17k is not 30k. Their living conditions are not the same so you really cant compare the housing to private sector of a person making 30k. Its not like they are living in a ked well into 2200 hrs.
I am not talking basic training days either. This is permanent party.
They don't seem to have much of a problem recruiting and I'd say their day is a bit more difficult than an E-1 in basic training.
Our "not the same caliber" draft army of the 1940's was good enough on D-Day.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe current US army is much better trained than the 1940's army and would have most likely steamrolled over any opposing army of that era.
The Taliban pay about $300 a month. http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/09/taliban-pay-vs-afghan-forces-pay/
They don't seem to have much of a problem recruiting and I'd say their day is a bit more difficult than an E-1 in basic training.
Our "not the same caliber" draft army of the 1940's was good enough on D-Day.
I guess that if they'd reduce the salary of privates there would be a massive shortage of army personnel, though it could be possible if they greatly reduced overseas presence.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe men of the 1940's were a different breed and draft or no draft were more than willing to join. My comparison was w/the Vietnam era.
The Taliban pay about $300 a month. http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/09/taliban-pay-vs-afghan-forces-pay/
They don't seem to have much of a problem recruiting and I'd say their day is a bit more difficult than an E-1 in basic training.
Our "not the same caliber" draft army of the 1940's was good enough on D-Day.
For you to make a comparison with the taliban rag heads making 300 a month to OUR troops as if they are some how equals speaks volumes.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe troops now a days can steam roll over any force if politics are not involved ( as they could have and basically did in vietnam and korea)
The current US army is much better trained than the 1940's army and would have most likely steamrolled over any opposing army of that era.
I guess that if they'd reduce the salary of privates there would be a massive shortage of army personnel, though it could be possible if they greatly reduced overseas presence.
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe Taliban "rag heads" are still in the field fighting (pretty successfully) against overwhelming odds. You don't have to like their ideology to admire their fighting qualities; the Army of Northern Virginia and the SS were fighting for odious ideological reasons, but any non-biased observer has to grant that they had great professional competence.
The men of the 1940's were a different breed and draft or no draft were more than willing to join. My comparison was w/the Vietnam era.
For you to make a comparison with the taliban rag heads making 300 a month to OUR troops as if they are some how equals speaks volumes.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSam's post proposed both a "greatly reduced overseas presence" and re-institution of the draft (if needed).
The current US army is much better trained than the 1940's army and would have most likely steamrolled over any opposing army of that era.
I guess that if they'd reduce the salary of privates there would be a massive shortage of army personnel, though it could be possible if they greatly reduced overseas presence.