Pew Research report: Middle class had "worst decade in modern history"

Those actual households that were in the top 1% at the start of that time period? Or the statistical profile of a 1% household over that time period? Because those can be very different questions.

 

I don't think the 1% stays static. I read somewhere where the 1% of now is very different than the 1% of a decade ago.

 

How about both? And how about measured in the same way as the Pew study, by both worth and income?

 

There are studies. I'll look them up and PM you (I don't want to get much closer to a political angle). There's a lot of churn in the uppermost percentiles, I know that. I don't think the 1 percenters of 2000 are on welfare today, though. Similarly, I don't think today's 1 percenters were on welfare back then.

 

I've tried to make this point about 100 times here.

Cy Young award winners all have good records the year they won? Huh. Odd. You'd think there'd be some clunkers in there. How do they stay so consistent, the year they win.

 

Again avoiding the political angles I think part of issue has to do with changing demographics.

 

As I said to dq, measure it however you like. I understand that 'class' is permeable in America and that there's movement from one group to another to another.

All things being equal and using the same yardsticks, it's not an unfair question to ask how other groups - including the 'rich' and the 'poor' - have done over the same decade we're talking about here.

 

This link is very interesting. Previously on here, we've had posters saying that the middle class has more than ever when adjusted for inflation, only that people were jealous because rich folk have more "more" than they themselves do. Based on that link it looks like median income is lower now than it was 15-17 years ago.

Also I am not sure exactly how net worth is calculated in this study, but worth is often a number that excludes home equity. At least, that's how it's done when you're filling out "how much do I need to retire" worksheets and such.

 

I am not sure about the top 1 percent, but I do know that in 20 percent increments the U.S. does not have much economic mobility at all when compared with the rest of the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?pagewanted=all

“It’s becoming conventional wisdom that the U.S. does not have as much mobility as most other advanced countries,” said Isabel V. Sawhill, an economist at the Brookings Institution. “I don’t think you’ll find too many people who will argue with that.”

She should hang out here.

 

Not sure about the earlier point, because there could be some judgement in play in how to calibrate median income for inflation (i.e., you index it one way you get one value, you index it another way and you get another value). But net worth is net worth is net worth. As regards your home, net worth and retirement, it makes sense to exclude your home because you've gotta have somewhere to live. If you're like me, though, you might factor it in to some degree. I have three kids, so the house I "need" now is way different from the house I'd be just fine with when I reach retirement age.

Finally, even if the actual numbers are lower, one could be richer in real terms. It's awfully squishy, but in lots of ways one could be "richer" without a change in salary or net worth. Your dollar may go farther in many areas today than it did yesterday (the converse is also true, of course). I won't take the idea any further because I don't want to open up a political angle. I am just talking about/intrigued by the numbers, which is my area.

 

dq, I've often thought inflation as it's currently used is inadequate in showing the rise in the cost of living. Education and health care are the two areas that count very little as percentages in the indexes but have taken on a whole lot more weight as a percentage of incomes in the past two decades.

So I guess what I'm saying is that if those formulas (which are behind the times) are showing that income isn't going up, it's a bad indicator in any light and might actually be worse than it looks.