It is clear that there has been a decline in the income of the middle class. That is a fact, but what does it mean? Rather than look at this data like a normal brain dead liberal, why don't we take a different look. Who is this middle class? What is different about those who claim to be in the middle class compared to those above and below them? Is the American economic pie just one pie or is it made up of many pies that are then added together? I know that most people want a simple answer, but that might not apply in this case. Here is my take on what has happened and what is continuing to happen.
What if we divide the people in the USA and those around the world into two groups and then compare how each of those groups are doing economically? For my example, I divide them into "low skill" and "high skill". Look at the whole world and tell me how many people in the USA are in the "low skill" group and how many in the rest of the world are also in the "low skill" group. Next, do the same thing for the "high skill" groups. Got that? Next, look at the USA in 1950 and the what percentage "low skill" workers in the world we were competing with. Next, do the same thing for 2000. What you will find is that back in 1950, our "low skill" workers were only competing with 5-10% of the other "low skill" workers from the rest of the world. Now, look at 2000 where the number is, some thing like, 50%. Interesting isn't it? That is 10 times as many!
We had "high skill" people back in 1950 who were purchasing most of the products and services from the "low skill" workers here in the USA. The "low skill" workers could demand a high price for their products and services because they did not have a lot of competition. The result was a period of temporary wealth for the "low skill" workers. Clear with that? Now advance to 2000 and see what the numbers look like. The "high skill" workers now purchase more and more of their products and services from "low skill" workers from the rest of the world and less from our own "low skill" workers. Do you agree with that?
Given the above, how do you think these facts will affect the median income? The shift in who we compete with is still changing, but the big shift started to happen in about 1950 and the big impact mostly affected our "low skill" workers. Another point is that our "high skill" workers now have a larger world wide market for their products and services. Boeing builds more planes for the rest of the world now than they do for the USA, but those jobs are mostly "high skill".
It is a fact that the "low skill" workers in the USA have been going backwards since about 1950, but unions and minimum wage laws are not the solution. "Low skill" workers have to figure out how they can become "high skill". One of the problems is that the definition of "low skill" and "high skill" keeps changing. People who used to be in the "high skill" group are finding that their skills have become "low skill". We can't just walk and keep up, we have to run.
In a prior blog, I pointed out that "extraction" historically was a large component of our economy and as our population has increased the portion from "extraction" has gone down. This compounds the problem where "skill" has to pick up the slack. Are you starting to see that "skill" has become the name of the game? Once you figured out that, if we want to maintain our median quality of life, we need to continually increase our "skill" levels. This is not a one time deal. We have to keep climbing the "skill" ladder.
To raise the average "skill", we need to work on both ends. That means raising the "skill" of our workers while "punishing" those who don't contribute by improving their own "skills". What we have been doing is rewarding those who don't help by not increasing their "skill" with food stamps and all kinds of welfare. We have to stop doing that. It is clearly counter productive. I know that it makes liberals feel good when they appear to help people with your hard earn tax money, but they are actually hurting the USA in the process. If you can understand that point you have a chance.
If it is this clear, how can so many liberals not understand?
PS---Here is a different slant. If you were a kid from a middle class family and you had the "same" skill set at your parents, as an adult, you would no longer be in the middle class. The skill set required to be in the middle class has changed and you apparently have not. Sorry.
