You can still have a middle class and have globalism.
Norway has the strongest middle class in the world maybe we should look at how they did it.
Could be. Tough row to hoe.
First off we are not Europe.
Secondly Norway has a good balance between import trade and export…also same for services plus or minus.
Meanwhile American trade imbalance had increase almost 8 folds since 1991 to 800 billion dollars a year.
Now overlay that lost to declining middle class and you see it is that lost for change of wealth.
Those .1 percents who was able to take advantage of globalization came at the lost of the middle class in America.
It is not that trade isn’t good…it’s imbalance of trade that isn’t sustainable.
The rich pay too much in taxes. We need tk help the rich.
and every time they change their software.
it used to be the evil 1%. Now this article talks about the 10%. It won’t be long before it’s the top 25% and then when Democrats blow the horn, their felons and illegals will lead America’s poor up the hills to the “rich” houses to take what the Democrats say they are entitled to.
Yep that is totally what is going to happen.
Yeah. I think Trump understand this.
I remember about year or so ago you told forum libs wait until Trump learn how to govern. I think he’s learning.
So will see.
If you are looking at net worth alone as wealth, 1.2M doesn’t do it. First of all, the article talks about leaving wealth to the next generation. That precludes living off of the base amount, as after a while there would be little to leave. So you would have to live off of the income generated by 1.2M in a manner that would leave the base there plus an upkeep with inflation. Therefore, we are talking of between 20k and 30k a year in income. Not even close to upper middle class.
Now, it would be nice to have that IF you had it as a supplement to other income
Plus someone could have an income of $200k per year and live in a luxurious fashion and spend it all. He would not make it into the top 10 percent of wealth.
This article resonated with me as I recognize that I am where I am (as is my husband and now our son) by accident of birth. I’ve pretty much known this since I was a young teen and recognized that most people did not live as I did, as most Americans still don’t live as I do and will never live like my kid will be able to.
Wealth begets wealth.
Understand. the Atlantic article, not I, chose to describe the top 9.9% as anyone with that net worth.
Yes. I am fully aware that is not much, and most people who have that “not much” will run through it in the course of an average retirement.
Rather than describing such persons cas aristocracy, and sounding an alarm of sorts, the article SHOULD have pointed to 80 years of anti-savings economic policies and described the fact that they have led to Americans saving too little, so little that only 9.9% have $1.2 million in net worth, and only 5% have $2.4 million.
These people we are demonizing are a NY cop married to a teacher, with house paid off and a 401k.
Not exactly Caligula and Marie Antoinette.
Most people in this country cannot come up with $400 in an emergency.
1 Like
Thanks to very strong unions and great pensions when they retire.
They are still earning.
The vast majority of people in this country are living far beyond their means.
Only when properly managed.
Imagine this:
(Using my best recollection) 40% of Americans enter college,
30% graduate
half of those her divorced and liveol on a single income,
a large portion of those go too deep into debt and do not save enough for retirement.
A cop married to a teacher, house paid off, and full pension IS the top 10%.
The often demonized top 10% is not living like the Romamovs. They are people we consider middle class, (like a cop married to a teacher.)
Most people don’t have “means”, period.
That’s not true.
