MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Middle Class Is Shrinking! Because They’re Getting Rich!

Success is seen as a disaster when you care more about income inequality than mobility.

Um. Isn't this good news?"The American Middle Class is Losing Ground," is the title of Pew Research Center's new report on income inequality. That headline informed the headlines that other media outlets have settled on as well. The Los Angeles Times states "Middle-Class families, pillar of the American dream, are no longer in the majority, study finds." The Washington Post declares "Income inequality has squeezed the middle class of the majority."

The headlines all appear to be accurate, but in that specialized newspaper way that attempts to reinforce an existing narrative and ignore some relevant information. It is true that Pew's analysis shows that the number of households that fit within their categorization of middle class has shrunk by 11 percentage points since 1971. It is true that the proportion of households that are classified as lower class has increased from 25 percent to 29 percent. But it is also true that the proportion of households that are classified as upper class has increased from 14 percent to 21 percent.

That is to say, part of the reason that the middle class is disappearing is that they are succeeding and jumping to the next bracket. And a greater number of them are moving up than moving down. Be wary of the assumption that the drop in the middle class is a sign of a crisis.

To be fair to Pew, their report in the very second paragraph points out this reality. It also points out that the increase in aggregate incomes to the highest tier of Americans is partly explained by the fact that there are more of them. Nevertheless there is the assumption that we are in some sort of a crisis because of inequality, even though the report notes an increase in incomes in all groups during this time.

The problem, not necessarily with the report but how we talk about it, is that there is very little consideration of income mobility. People look at that chart and assume that the people that are in each group remain in each group. Yes, it acknowledges that some in the middle class must be getting richer, but then some in the middle class must also be getting poorer, too. After all, the number of poor have increased as well.

BUT EVIL CORPORATIONS!!!But a look at the actual demographics of who is winning and losing from this shift gives a good sense of the reality of income mobility (and again, due credit, Pew doesn't shy away from examining it). Who are the demographic groups who have benefited the most from income inequality? Hint: It's not those Wall Street fat cats everybody is going on about. The top three beneficiaries of this income shift are: one, elderly people; two, married couples with no kids; and three, African Americans.

Yes, that's right, this decline in the middle class has actually helped some minorities. Blacks saw a net 11.2 percent increase in their aggregate participation in the upper class. In fact, whites, Asians, women, and men, all, as demographic groups, have seen positive economic mobility.

The big losers are Hispanics, millennials, and people with only high school diplomas (or none at all). For Hispanics, Pew notes the increase in lower-earning immigrants in the U.S. population. But we shouldn't perceive their situations as static. That they're coming to America poor shouldn't come as a surprise. Pew notes that when considered separately, both immigrant Hispanics and those born within the U.S. are also making gains.

As for those poor millennials, we know what's happening to them, and it's not the cruel vagaries of capitalism. It's the government! Note that the biggest beneficiaries of income inequality are the elderly. Pew notes "Evidence shows that rising Social Security benefits have played a key role in improving the economic status of older adults." But this comes at the expense of younger working class Americans, whose wages are being raided to bankroll the retirements of some of the wealthiest members of our citizenry.

If anything this report is not just an indictment of our entitlement system, but the way our rapidly increasing regulatory system robs the lower class citizenry opportunities for advancement and entrepreneurship. Those without college degrees getting left behind?  Look at the spread of unnecessary occupational licensing, where the government itself is creating barriers for lower class employment by requiring unneeded fees and extensive training. It's gotten so bad even the White House has noticed. And when this current administration acknowledges that there is actually a problem with government regulation, it's worth noting.

But instead, we will likely see even more calls that the minimum wage be increased, even though that will probably actually lock out the folks who are at the bottom end of this totem pole even further. Given who is actually benefiting from these income shifts, maybe that's even the point.

Photo Credit: Reason

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Pew notes "Evidence shows that rising Social Security benefits have played a key role in improving the economic status of older adults." But this comes at the expense of younger working class Americans, whose wages are being raided to bankroll the retirements of some of the wealthiest members of our citizenry.

    Stupid senior citizens.

    Seriously though, I want my 15% back.

  • Win Bear||

    Seems to me those senior citizens are pretty smart...

  • Deli-bro||

    "And when this current administration acknowledges that there is actually a problem with government regulation, it's worth nothing."

    This might be the best typo I've ever seen. And I've been lurking long enough to see John's work.

  • Scott S.||

    That is indeed my best typo ever. It is a shame to fix it, but I guess I have to.

  • Sirius Slayton||

    Hahahhaha!

  • Just say Nikki||

    Hmm. I would have been interested to see how this also lined up with changes in household size over the same time period.

  • robc||

    It mentioned married no kids benefiting, so I think its partly explained.

  • Just say Nikki||

    There's way more to it than that. I'm wondering how average household size has changed over time, for example, for lower-income households vs. upper-income households. Both have increased the percentage of all adults in such households, but is that because more adults are living together? Or are fewer adults living together on one or both sides of that spectrum?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Previous studies show all families generally decreasing in size. Upper income households tend to have more family members working, which they frequently do not adjust for in their headline statements. And the impact of mate selection, i.e. professionals marrying is certainly a factor in the slightly rising inequality.

  • ||

    bingo.
    how about they just show us median income and its change over time. also show percentage of women working changing over time.

  • robc||

    Page 25 of 36. I still havent got to the wealth part.

  • commodious spittoon||

    So the percentage in the affluent demographics increases by 7% while those on the lower end increases by 4%, and this is pitched as the tragedy of the American dream.

  • Loki||

    Apparently the "American Dream" was to have enough to get by, but not so much as to be considered one of those EVUL Scrooge McDuck type richers, swimming in their money vaults filled with their ill gotten gains. Something something... KKKORPORASHUNZ... mumble mumble... KOCHTOPUSS!!11!!!!!

  • Just say Nikki||

    7 percentage points and 4 percentage points, respectively, but yeah. In fact those are much larger changes as a percentage.

  • UnCivilServant||

    My problem is one of metrics. They base this on income, but I see no sign of adjustment for cost of living. On a purely income based metric, I am in the second quintile of individual and household incomes, but I can't afford more than lower middle lifestyle because several key elements (housing) are absurdly overpriced where I live.

  • robc||

    I bet Greyhound exists where you live.

    And being in the 2nd quintile, you can afford better options than that.

  • UnCivilServant||

    You missed the point of the statement - that falling into this range:

    Household $75,000 to $79,999 67.53%
    Individual $75,000 to $77,499 88.10%

    Doesn't buy a middle class lifestyle in large areas. I avoid those money pits which are overpriced where my job is, but that is also irrelevent.

    Answering "so move" to a statement of "their methodology is flawed" is just a non-sequiteur.

  • robc||

    It is relevant, in that you are buying some quality of life via the higher prices. Like socal weather or manhattan douchebaggery or whatever.

    There isnt a need to adjust, as the adjustment has already taken place via perceived quality of life. If you arent experiencing that, move and have your money go further.

  • UnCivilServant||

    It is relevant, in that you are buying some quality of life via the higher prices. Like socal weather or manhattan douchebaggery or whatever.

    No, I had to move here for the job. I didn't 'buy' anything with the higher prices, most of which come in the form of government. The only improvement in my quality of life was that I stopped being unemployed.

  • ajkelly451@gmail.com||

    So what you're saying is that you went from bringing in 0/ year and spending, I don't know, let's say 40k/ year, i.e. a net income of -40k a year to bringing in 60k/ year and spending 50k/ year, with a net increase of +50k a year from prior to getting a job. That's quite the substantial increase in quality of life if you ask me, regardless of what numbers you substitute for my hypotheticals.

  • Win Bear||

    No, I had to move here for the job.

    No, you didn't. You could have chosen a different job in a different location.

    In addition, high cost of living areas are not a new thing and urbanization has not increased substantially since the 1970's, so there is no obvious reason why your situation today should be any different from the situation of comparable people a few decades ago.

  • Rhywun||

    move and have your money go further

    Except for most people, lower cost of living comes with lower income too.

  • robc||

    Except on the extremes it probably balances out. But for places with insane high housing costs, like CA or NYC, the wage difference isnt enough to make up for it.

    Yes, the NYC job pays more, but not THAT much more. A few specific industries excepted.

  • Rhywun||

    To be fair, I have no idea what my current profession pays in cheaper places. I do recall entry-level jobs paying double in NYC but that's surely skewed by being at the lower end.

  • Zeb||

    Isn't middle class relative?

    How much does housing cost that $75k doesn't buy an individual a middle class lifestyle?

    Maybe I'm just not sufficiently aspirational.

  • UnCivilServant||

    How much does housing cost that $75k doesn't buy an individual a middle class lifestyle?

    A shitty run-down junker of a house around here clocks in at $100K with $2.5K-$4K/yr in taxes. Prices go up from there.

    A house without massive structural issues or criminal neighbors easily gets into the $0.5Mil range.

    Of course, these prices are propped up by government regs making it hard to build, and the aftereffects of the bubble. The actual value of these properties as a measure of their marginal utility is much lower.

    Then you calculate that the $75k is gross income and taxes/manditory witholdings take 40% of that before it reaches my bank account...

  • Mr. Flanders||

    I'm in the exact same boat as you my friend. I make $70-$80K a year and can only afford a 2-bedroom apartment where I live. But since I have student loans to repay, I'm living in a 500 sq. ft. 1-bedroom apartment.

    I MIGHT be able to afford a condo in a few years, but those are so hard to resell that I'm not sure if I want to deal with that... not to mention the condo fees.

  • Win Bear||

    Answering "so move" to a statement of "their methodology is flawed" is just a non-sequiteur.

    There is nothing per se wrong with their methodology. It should be obvious that when they look at income distributions over time, cost of living is irrelevant. That is, their observations are methodologically correct.

    Cost of living may matter in the interpretation of their observations. For example, I suspect a big part of the increase in inequality in their data is related to an increase in the inequality of cost of living between different areas and an increase in urbanization. Perhaps that is what you are trying to get at.

    The "so move" statement is not (just) snark, it reflects the reality that you made a choice to live and work where you do. You could take a lower paying job in a lower cost part of the country and probably have a big house and a higher quality of life.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Especially if you cut back on the monocle portion of your budget.

  • Win Bear||

    My problem is one of metrics. They base this on income, but I see no sign of adjustment for cost of living.

    It's not based on income, it's based on relative income, meaning that cost of living doesn't enter the picture.

    If you're asking whether you're actually better off after cost of living adjustments, yes you are. Everybody across the income distribution has improved.

    On a purely income based metric, I am in the second quintile of individual and household incomes, but I can't afford more than lower middle lifestyle because several key elements (housing) are absurdly overpriced where I live.

    Then move. Seriously, if you take up residence in a region for wealthy folks, don't complain if you can't keep up with your neighbors. And when choosing a job and location, you need to balance salaries against cost of living in your decision making process.

  • Suicidy||

    It's bullshit. The long term devaluation of our currency renders this analysis spurious at best.

  • Drake||

    The problem is that the Pew article definitions for income tiers are absurdly low for anyone living in the Northeast or California. A family living on $41k? That's poverty level in NJ.

    $125k isn't upper income for a family here - it's where middle class starts.

  • Just say Nikki||

    Yeahhhhhhhhhh national shit like this seems pretty dumb.

  • robc||

    See above.

  • Win Bear||

    They don't claim that everybody making $125k live an upper class lifestyle, but simply that the are in the (national) upper income bracket. It's a measure of inequality for the national income distribution, nothing more.

    Now, you could argue that some of that inequality is caused not by differences in economic success, but simply by differences in the local cost of living. You'd be right, too. It's not clear whether it matters, though. After all, there were been big cost of living differences in 1970 as well. If you want to pick apart this data, there really are far bigger problems with the data than that, starting with the fact that it probably doesn't measure income correctly.

    I think the point is that, even taken at face value, even if they say exactly what their creators believe they say, even then, it's not clear that they are bad news.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Why live in a shit hole where 125k per year forces you into near poverty? Plenty of small to medium sized cities in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest where 125k gets you into a 2400 sqft house in a restricted neighborhood.

    Boo fucking who.

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    * 125k per year....

  • Win Bear||

    Plenty of small to medium sized cities in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest where 125k gets you into a 2400 sqft house in a restricted neighborhood.

    If you're a plumber or an accountant, that may work. People in other professions have fewer choices.

    Boo fucking who.

    Why are you telling me?

  • Suicidy||

    Where I live, in eastern WA state, $125k for a family income is nothing special. Amd that is for an area that does not have particularly high cost of living.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The middle class is just like school on Saturday.

  • robc||

    The middle 3 quintiles still contain 60% of households.

  • robc||

    Also, shouldnt class be measured by wealth, not income?

  • Scott S.||

    The full report does look at wealth trends as well.

  • robc||

    So, ummm, why did you focus on income instead?

  • Loki||

    Maybe because all the mouth breathers who are using this to push their class warfare horseshit are focused on income instead of wealth? Just guessing.

  • robc||

    Who is the target audience? Me or them?

  • Jordan||

    The target audience should be neither.

  • Loki||

    Anyone with internet access?

  • robc||

    Then he should use wealth, as that is the correct metric for class.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I'm not really sure that wealth is necessarily a terrific metric for class. You can have a lot of wealth but very, very, little liquidity. Is an old couple who lives in their house that they bought 50 years ago and seen the neighborhood sprout up around them rich? Sure the house might now be worth a lot of money. The only way they're going to access it is moving out of their house. Or a contractor might have a lot of money tied up in his business. It might be really valuable. If he wants to access that money, he's out of a job.

  • Citizen X||

    Your mom?

    Epi's mom?

  • Zeb||

    Probably not you since you are capable of doing the analysis yourself and already know why the class warfare and inequality stuff is bullshit.

  • robc||

    But I have no idea how levels of wealth are changing.

  • Zeb||

    I would actually like to see that article as well. A lot of people do seem to think that income works as a stand-in for wealth, which is clearly not accurate.

  • robc||

    The broke ass doctors prove that.

    Ditto the millionaire farmers and plumbers.

  • Trshmnstr, terror of the trash||

    Yes! However, generating wealth is a dark art to most, so they don't understand that sort of thing.

  • robc||

    1. Earn money
    2. Spend less than that
    3. Profit.

    I realize both dteps 1 and 2 are as baffling as underpants gnomes.

  • Win Bear||

    Shhh, don't tell them! It's a zero sum game! /Scrooge McDuck

  • toolkien||

    The middle class is shrinking because people are being DEFINED as rich. The middle class (lower, middle, upper) is still there, certainly put upon by the three parasitical classes (the debasers, the indigent, and the apparatus) to be sure, but it's still there. It's simply the definition of INCOME now defining "rich" that is the problem. By the new definitions, my wife and I (and two kids) are defined as lower end "rich". But, while was have savings both for retirement and college (state school caliber), we have to WORK to live. Anyone who has to WORK to live is not rich. We have no trust funds behind us, no inheritances in the offing, we have no land interests, we have no tangible productive assets being worked on our behalf. We have a 1900 square foot house in a middle-middle class neighborhood, no boats, no snow mobiles, no wave runners, no cabin up north, nothing. Just our house and two cars (one bought used eight years ago).

    We pay 50% of our income in ALL taxes and fees, and we aren't even near Obama's 2007 definition if "rich" income figure ($250,000). Any further dollar we make will face 50% income tax (fed and state) alone. My wife just got a payout from some options that would have gone far to paying for our kid's college education, one of which was basically taxed away.

  • toolkien||

    cont.

    And if we get sick, or need long term care? We'll be broke at the rates out there today. Paying for our kids college will likely be 25% of our savings FOR A STATE SCHOOL caliber education that will prepare them for wet toilet paper drills (but what if don't get the sheet of paper, what's the consequence?).

    And, FURTHER, that which we CAN buy are market WITHOUT ENDLESS REGULATION is diminishing. What good is it save for your future if what you can buy is pre-defined for you? That you are ALLOCATED and RATIONED what you will get?

  • toolkien||

    cont.

    In a tertiary stage corpora-fascistic economy, "rich" apparently is simply the monetization of your labor and if you "make" over a certain amount, you're "rich", while what you're going to be able to do with what you save, that isn't debased away, and isn't regulated away, isn't even a question. In the end, the accrual basis debt of this country is estimated to be north of $400,000 per household. That's per capita. Pro-rated, my wife and my share of the accrual basis debt (our current AND future LABOR) is probably 2.5 times that amount, or $1M. So how "rich" am I again?

    Anyone who has to WORK to live, and is under water relative to their portion of the ACCRUAL BASIS debt of this country is not "rich". I'd define someone as rich who will survive the inevitable economic bubble burst with assets, and won't have to work those assets even after the collapse as rich. Empty paper assets and 50% slavery relative to my labor, and perhaps a few years longer from the street doesn't make me rich.

  • Win Bear||

    In a tertiary stage corpora-fascistic economy

    I'm not sure why you think the qualifier "corpora[te]" belongs there. If "corporations" excessively benefited from this system, then stockholders would see those excessive benefits. But, in fact, one of the major points of fascism is to keep "unearned income" down.

  • Brochettaward||

    Has anyone ever mapped the growth of immigration, particularly illegal, and that of that whole income inequality thing? It seems rather odd that immigration never comes up in the conversation. I mean, not really odd because progs are liars and the whole thing is a joke, anyway. But you'd think if someone were really worried about income inequality in this country, they wouldn't be for importing a bunch of people from the third world (this is not an anti-immigrant post).

    Then we get into the whole stagnant wages bit which is its own special kind of lie. It relies upon focusing exclusively on hourly wages - driven down by progressive policies - and ignores total compensation which has only continued to rise and outsripped the growth in wages. It has risen right with productivity. These people are just lairs.

    No credit should go to PEW here because they intentionally created an alarmist headline which will now be picked up by every left leaning rag internet wide. It's what most people will see. Shrinking middle class.

    Income inequality is a political sham.

  • Zeb||

    The fact that poor immigrants who are undoubtedly improving their lives add to the absolute inequality of wealth or income in the country is often ignored. I also still have yet to hear any kind of explanation of why inequality, in and of itself, is a bad thing.

    People just love to believe that everything is terrible and getting worse for some reason. Libertarians are certainly not immune.

  • EscherEnigma||

    " I also still have yet to hear any kind of explanation of why inequality, in and of itself, is a bad thing."
    I find that hard to believe.

    Not hearing an explanation you agree with? Sure. I can believe that. But not hearing any explanation at all? That's quite a bit harder.

    But on the off-chance you've somehow managed to avoid all explanations, here's a handful.

    History and stability. Historically, our current levels of income and wealth inequality more closely resemble the 20s then then 50s. And we all know what happened next.

    The economy. The "poor" spend more of what they earn, while the "rich" sock more of it away. So if you want to stimulate the economy, you give ten bucks to a poor person, not a rich person.

    Mobility. Class mobility, that is, the ability of a kid to wind up in a different social/economic class then their parents, is on the decline. That means that the American Dream (tm) of working hard and getting that two-car garage, white picket fence, and optionally a wife and kids, is becoming increasingly difficult. This lack of class upward mobility is tied to income/wealth inequality.

    Werewolves. They like to eat the rich, and determine "rich" based on relativistic comparisons of a CEO to the janitor. So by decreasing income/wealth inequality the CEO will be safer from werewolves.

    Like I said, you don't have to be persuaded by explanations. You can even think they have fatal flaws. But that isn't the same as not hearing them at all.

  • GregMax||

    None of your examples argue why "inequality, IN AND OF ITSELF, is a bad thing."

    That is not the same thing as explaining why a state of differential incomes is bad.

  • PigeonCider||

    Strictly speaking, all of your examples are hypotheses - which is just a fancy word for guess. Explanation = hypothesis + supporting data. And that's where all your guesses are going to brake down, because the underlying idea is horse crap.

  • Win Bear||

    History and stability. Historically, our current levels of income and wealth inequality more closely resemble the 20s then then 50s. And we all know what happened next.

    So what? Hemlines are back at 1920's levels as well. How is that relevant to anything?

    What you are really saying is that you believe that high income inequality causes political instability, but that is merely a belief (or superstition) on your part.

    As a libertarian, I would argue that income inequality has multiple causes. One cause of income inequality is free markets, but free markets stabilize a society. Another cause of income inequality is progressive politics, and progressive politics destabilizes a society. Worse yet, progressive policies intended to reduce income inequality tend to increase it. In different words, your beliefs about inequality and political stability aren't even wrong, they are entirely missing what's going on.

    This lack of class upward mobility is tied to income/wealth inequality.

    Yes, it is, in the sense that if you make everybody poor, you get excellent (relative) mobility. But, again, that is utterly irrelevant.

    Like I said, you don't have to be persuaded by explanations. You can even think they have fatal flaws. But that isn't the same as not hearing them at all.

    You haven't given any "explanations". You have simply observed some vague correlations and made unwarranted inferences.

  • Leigh||

    What I find interesting is that the ladder of success often starts with the first rung, i.e. minimum wage. And what it looks like I'm seeing, is that the bottom of the barrel people (Ages 18-29, with little education) aren't even getting to that first rung because they don't provide the value that an employer needs to justify employing the person.

  • Certified Public Asshat||

    Gawker Quote (no link this time, get over it)

    "Now, the middle class constitutes a statistical minority compared to the aggregate of the rich and poor."

  • UnCivilServant||

    It's gawker, did you expect anything other than refined stupid and comepletely missing the point while hiding behind a banner of "but we're technically correct"?

  • Certified Public Asshat||

    Are they even technically correct? Looking at Scott's chart it appears to be 50/50.

  • UnCivilServant||

    What's the margin for error?

  • UnCivilServant||

    *of error.

  • Glide||

    "Now, the Republican Party membership constitutes a statistical minority compared to the aggregate of American children and Toyota vehicles."

  • Ken Shultz||

    There have to be some demographics at work, here. We've got baby boomer retiring, which generally means that a large generation of people have passed their peak earning years, and you've got Millennials entering the job force, which means they haven't gotten close to their peak earnings years either.

    Also, expanding the welfare state means more people are getting by without being productive. Why would we expect having more people engaged in unproductive activity to make them wealthier? Welfare, in all its guises, traps young people, especially, in poverty. How do you get out when no entry level position pays you more than you can make living off of subsidized housing, food, healthcare, etc.?

  • ||

    Theoretically that sounds right, but it's not. net job growth since 2008 is down for most age groups. The exception are those over 55 who have now delayed retirement and are in turn clogging the conveyor belt of young employees joining.
    Combine this with the fact that most jobs gained since 2008 are also foreigners.
    In reality native born millennials are stuck, especially now that most of them have a $400 bill a month that goes back to sallie mae/naviente.

    I can cite both of those net job growth points via zerohedge with charts and all that good stuff if those points are not believed.

    Want to fix this issue? cut off .gov funding for any non-stem degree. Kill the current healthcare system and just start over. And kill nimbyism/land speculation.

  • Win Bear||

    Worse yet, a lot of welfare benefits in the US aren't even counted as income, thereby inflating income inequality numbers and the percentage of poor.

  • robc||

    I finally got the wealth part and its broken down by income tiers. Sigh.

    I wanted the first part of the report broken down by wealth, not wealth by income.

  • Foo_dd||

    while i appreciate the point they are trying to make... but the conclusion seems flawed.

    the root article also includes share of income by group.
    while a greater percentage of people are in the lower category, they have slightly less of a share of household income. (more people for the same size pie)
    and while 7% of people made it into the upper class, they took 20% of the income with them. (more people, but a bigger pie.

    this leaves the middle class with less people, but even less pie. while the middle class used to get about 1% of total household income per 1% of the population.. they now get 0.86%

    now, I think that there might be more to it. maybe those who moved to upper class were getting more than their share of the pie when they were still called middle class. maybe what we are calling upper class isn't accurate, and they are still closer to middle class.... but that does not really fit the conclusion trying to be drawn either.

  • Nick W B||

    The bigger reason millennial are poorer is because they are new to the labor force. Someone fresh out of college will usually make less than someone with ten years of experience. That's perfectly normal and not something to get your panties in a knot for.

  • EscherEnigma||

    You're misreading the data. When the study says that 18-29 year olds are down 5.4% they are comparing the income of current 18-29 year olds to the income of 1971 18-29 year olds (adjusted for inflation and so-on, etc.)

  • Win Bear||

    No, you are misreading the data. They are not "comparing the income", they are comparing where these groups are within the income distribution relative to where they used to be on the income distribution. Even in constant dollars, their income probably has not decreased significantly.

  • biljay||

    The poor women also have a higher birth rate than rich women.

  • JSpey||

    Instead of leaving, they're staying in droves!

  • Rockabilly||

    The socialist crybabies have an endless list of complaints and will never be satisfied.

    They cry about a system that has given them hand held computers that can stream almost every movie ever made, buy their Che t-shirts made in China, and lodge complaints about the evil Koch bros on puffingtonpost.

    Boo hoo hoo.

    This week it's the evilness of Zealander 2

    After the trailer for "Zoolander 2" dropped, a protest had sparked against one of the film's particularly controversial gags. The joke, involving an androgynous model named All, has been labeled as a mockery of LGBT concerns in a petition that's over 20,000 signatures strong. Naturally, the writer of "Zoolander 2," Justin Theroux, has commented on the controversy himself, and above all else he feels a bit hurt.

    http://www.businessinsider.com.....m=referral

  • Glide||

    You have to remember, more people getting rich is a bug, not a feature, to "inequality" crusaders. They'd still be trumpeting doom and gloom if the lower class was shrinking, because look at all the new fat cats! That can't be fair, right?

    Also, apparently my entry-level engineering job makes me "upper-income" for a single person (and, I've been told by the internet before, in the top 2 percent for millennials). Nice ego boost, although how much of that actually betters my life after the government is done buying bombers with it and giving it to rich old people is debatable.

  • JFree||

    This report - and your points about it - are indicators of only one thing.

    In the social sciences today, there is not one single example of anyone actually using statistical analysis correctly. Only of being sloppy and deceitful in order to push an agenda with the intention of having an appearance of quantitative truthiness to support that agenda.

    Everyone reading this article and the report is now dumber for having done so. May God have mercy on your soul.

  • GregMax||

    Glad I skipped it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online