Originally posted by stevewig One of the most used terms in American politics is the "Middle Class".
This term is usually used with a kind of reverence and the term is never challenged or used to cast any negative connotation. Therefor I pickup on the fact that it is a desirable "class" to belong to and that it is a class that all electioneering politicians need to speak to, must speak to and do speak to.
What is more it is a class that everyone appears to think that they are a member of?
Broadly speaking and from my old European roots, the Upper-class were the Aristocrats/Royalty, the Middle-class were the owners of business and the Working Class provided the labor.
This also became ambiguous when Bank Managers and factory Supervisors, for example, promoted themselves without justification to the middle-class (because they didn't consider themselves working class any more) and then it was the engineers etc., etc., until the term becomes virtually meaningless. You tend to end up with only union workers considering themselves to be working class.
So, to get back to my original question who is the Middle Class in the USA and, just as important, who is NOT a member of this esteemed group (example: Joe the Plumber)?
Finally, who is the working-class?
Wiki muddles it best...........
American middle class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Class warfare.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States Quote: Several economists have demonstrated that income inequality has grown more rapidly under Republican administrations than under Democratic administrations. Income-tax policy has been cited as one of several factors that contributed to inequality. Republican President Ronald Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from over 70 to 28 percent during his tenure in office, which greatly contrasted with the very high top marginal tax rates in place during the period of great income equality, the “Great Compression”. [55]
Larry Bartels, a Princeton political scientist, looked at average annual pre-tax income growth from 1948 to 2005, which encompassed most of the egalitarian Great Compression and the entire inegalitarian Great Divergence (up until the time he did his research) and published his findings in the book Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age (Princeton University Press: 2008). His calculations showed that pre-tax income increased overall about 1.42 percent for people in the lowest quintile of the population and 2 percent for those in the top 5%. His research did suggest that income inequality increased under Republican administration and not under Democratic administration. Timothy Noah in the series “The United States of Inequality” summarized Bartels's findings below:
“ “In Democrat-world, pre-tax income increased 2.64 percent annually for the poor and lower-middle-class and 2.12 percent annually for the upper-middle-class and rich. There was no Great Divergence. Instead, the Great Compression—the egalitarian income trend that prevailed through the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s—continued to the present, albeit with incomes converging less rapidly than before. In Republican-world, meanwhile, pre-tax income increased 0.43 percent annually for the poor and lower-middle-class and 1.90 percent for the upper-middle-class and rich. Not only did the Great Divergence occur; it was more greatly divergent. Also of note: In Democrat-world pre-tax income increased faster than in the real world not just for the 20th percentile but also for the 40th, 60th, and 80th. We were all richer and more equal! But in Republican-world, pre-tax income increased slower than in the real world not just for the 20th percentile but also for the 40th, 60th, and 80th. We were all poorer and less equal! Democrats also produced marginally faster income growth than Republicans at the 95th percentile, but the difference wasn't statistically significant.”[56]