97
submitted 2 years ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/us_news@lemmygrad.ml
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 32 points 2 years ago

Interesting how the golden 90's, right after major capitalist victory, brought drastic drop of wealth for the middle "class".

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 34 points 2 years ago

That's the part a lot of people in the west still don't seem to get. The existence of Soviet Union alone was enough to force capitalists to allow for a relatively high standard of living for the working majority. As soon as the threat of a good example was destroyed, there was no longer any reason to keep up any pretenses. The exploitation could now begin in full.

[-] AOCapitulator@hexbear.net 28 points 2 years ago

The fuck is a middle class

[-] ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml 28 points 2 years ago

Some made up bullshit to fool workers into abandoning their actual class interests.

[-] kredditacc@lemmygrad.ml 27 points 2 years ago

Wtf is this "middle class" anyway? How do you define it? And where is the line?

The classes I learned from my schools and university is simpler: If you work, you are the worker. If you exploit the worker, you are a capitalist.

[-] Juice@hexbear.net 24 points 2 years ago

We never learned about classes in school. My son was taught explicitly that the US was not a class society. Class is a vibe.

Shorthand for middle class is whether someone owns or could "own" a house

[-] davel@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 2 years ago

What two red scares and a cold war does to a curriculum.

[-] SoyViking@hexbear.net 13 points 2 years ago

We never learned about classes either. We did learn about consumer segments, what papers they read and what brands of cigarettes they smoked.

[-] Juice@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago

Right, its interesting because a class (by this definition) is an affectation. Its a brand identity, it is a level of access that you can aspire to (or lose.)

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 years ago

Right, middle class is a nebulous idea that doesn't really have much meaning behind it. I agree that class membership derives its meaning from the relations in society. If majority of the income comes from the capital the individual owns then they're a member of the capitalist class, and if majority of their income comes from their labour then they're a member of the working class. These two classes have contradictory interests since capital owners act as employers of the workers.

[-] machiabelly@hexbear.net 17 points 2 years ago

"earners from between the 20th and 80th percentile"

[-] WaterBowlSlime@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 2 years ago

The top 1% holds $38.7 trillion in wealth. That’s more than the combined wealth of America’s middle class, a group many economists define as the middle 60% of households by income. Those households hold about 26% of all wealth.

Low-income Americans, representing the bottom 20% by income, own about 3% of the wealth.

So it's more like the top 1% owns as much wealth as the entire rest of the country.

[-] keepcarrot@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago

There's a 19% gap between the "middle 60%" and the 1% that has a bunch of money.

Idk who has decided these numbers or why they're significant. Seems pretty arbitrary

[-] WaterBowlSlime@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 years ago

This article linked to this page to explain why they chose that definition of middle class. It's because statisticians like it so yeah, pretty arbitrary.

[-] NeelixBiederman@hexbear.net 21 points 2 years ago

Put another way: 3.5 million people control more wealth than 210 million people. Each individual of those 3.5 million owns as much as 60 "middle classers" combined.

Lastly, according to this graphic, the top 1% and 60% of middle income earners account for only ~51% of the nation's wealth? There's no way the bottom 39% control 49% of the wealth, so where tf is it? Something's fucky

[-] Shinhoshi@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They defined middle class as the top 80% that are not in the top 20%, not “60% of middle income earners”.

I’m guessing your missing wealth is in the top 20% that aren’t in the top 1%

[-] NeelixBiederman@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago

Ah ok, so top income earners from 2-19% would account for that 39%. Seems right.

https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM?si=uX5nOhWhyStz7VaB this is my basis for comparison. Still one of the best "income inequality explained" videos of all time

[-] TankieReplyBot@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 years ago

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[-] usernamesaredifficul@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago

how did they categorise the middle class

[-] Ronin_5@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Center 60% of the middle income earners, is the standard definition

[-] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I wonder if this correlates with the wealth of the 1% in pre-revolutionary China and Russia? 🤔

[-] bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 years ago

Line goes up, so the Amerikkkan economic system is still working as intended. Ignore the other line, just look at the upward line. The only important line. /j

this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
97 points (97.1% liked)

US News

2244 readers
21 users here now

News from within the empire - From a leftist perspective

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS