This story is archived
How The Middle-Class is Getting Screwed »
Posted by: msaleem 2 years, 11 months agoIn our winner-take-all casino economy, the middle class is getting royally screwed. A call to arms for populism, before it's too late.
Read Full Story at nymag.com »
Submitted By:
msaleem
Please visit me at:
muhammadsaleem.com
Please visit me at:
pronetadvertising.com
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 285
-
newsquew
Jan. 5, 2007, 9:24 p.m.Anderson selectively connects New Deal & Great Society programs over a 30 yr period. He goes on to connect Regan era deregulation, tax cuts & welfare reform dominating our political economy over the past 30 years. What he fails to account for is the TOTALITY OF 70 YRS of New Deal - Great Society programs that are still active, requiring yearly funding or, worse yet, remain as unfunded liabilities. That's the Albatross.
Issues like the downside of POSSIBLE illness, he states 60 - 70% of people like the lure of Govt healthcare; reducing risk of job change or entrepreneurialism. Thinking in that manner, these people are Not risk takers in the 1st place or they wouldn't be waiting for the Govt to transfer someone else's $ to provide a safety net.
Anderson's premise removes free choice from yet another decision that should be the responsibility of the individual.
-
donald51
Jan. 6, 2007, 12:16 p.m....also missed the fact that many bills under the Republicans have gradually torn down the New Deal worker protections such as in the energy bill where all the anti-monopoly acts for owning different energy corporations were thrown out by a simple majority of Republicans. Got to make those record profits and guarantee the same in the future! The California Dems couldn't even present an amendment for the federal government to look into why California was charged over 200% for electricity by fellow western states (including Texas).
-
Justice4All
Jan. 6, 2007, 12:24 p.m.Maybe we could learn from you. I'm doing pretty well now.
In 2003 I sold my house due to a job transfer and decided to wait until after the 2004 elections to re-purchase. When the Bush regime was re-elected I decided to just keep renting. Now I'm very glad I did. Home prices are down.
Stocks were a different story. I expected a small decline over the last couple years but there has been an increase. But I knew the deficit's would drop the dollar pushing oil prices up so I moved much more into energy stocks. Guess what, I'm up 80 percent in 3 years.
Part of financial success is just a matter of turning off Fox news and paying attention to what is really going on in this country. The picture isn't pretty, but it will help you make better decisions.
-
m-simon
Jan. 6, 2007, 1:13 p.m.I have a billion dollar computer (what it would have cost in 1950) on my desk. It cost me $1400 with all software and accessories.
I have a pipe into it that is equivalent to 2.5 T1 lines. A T1 line rents for $600 a month. So that would be $1500 a month. What do I pay? A little over $30 a month with 8 cable channels thrown in.
Did I mention I have a son at the University of Chicago? Full scholarship.
I have running water, a flush toilet, central heating and cooling. A car, 2 color TVs. etc.
BTW I live below the poverty line.
This kind of poverty is pretty easy to take.
Middle class screwed? I'm poor (monetarily) and feel empowered.
Some people just like to bitch.
-
-
chloez
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:30 p.m."newsquew" sounds like a young Republican - full of him(her)self and just starting up a new business. Well, congratulations to you sir or madam. May the force be with you. Please recognize that the United States is only as strong as its weakest link, and with nearly 50,000,000 citizens without healthcare and teachers and firefighters unable to afford housing, our country is moving in the wrong direction on the list of civil societies.
There is much to be said for individual responsibility, BUT, keep in mind the inequities of CEO pay vs. worker pay, particularly over the past six, brutal economic years. The middle class, soon to be the working poor, are playing against a stacked deck, with government representing corporations, instead of citizens. There need to be limits, on corporate power, and greed. I would gladly pay more taxes, as long as corporations move out of their tax sheltered havens in Bermuda, and investors pay an equal share on dividends and capital gains.
-
newsquew
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:02 p.m.Why must you personalize, categorize & attempt to discredit an observation & me? (Incorrect on all of them by the way) No response to these, only diatribes & rhetoric. Interesting.
Private sector CEO pay is in the realms of privately owned & controlled companies, of no concern to anyone other than stock owners. If dissatisfied, they vote their shares as such or, sell their position of ownership. (Actually, these substantial million $ bonuses are fractional %'s of corporate profits that are in the billions.)
Middle class Americans are in negative savings due to poor personal economic decisions of spending more than they make... Personal debt is not because people are charging healthcare payments. Those in trouble consider wants 1st & needs lastly. Its consumer items from housing, transportation, clothing, food, etc... they can't afford.
I agree that corporate (as well as agricultural & social welfare) is not Govt's responsibility.
-
MarsDlugosz
Jan. 6, 2007, 11:46 a.m.Like I said there are two kinds of Repulicans... those with money and those that think they have money.
Give Populism a chance!
Have'nt we been down this road already? I'm just not feeling the love.
-
-
-
m-simon
Jan. 6, 2007, 5:46 p.m.If I want to rent a house who will I rent from?
Why do you want to outlaw rental houses?
You can only rent apartments? Or condos? Or what?
No new homes built? That will drive up housing prices. Supply and demand. Fixing housing supply will raise the price making housing less affordable. Was that your original intention?
Where did you learn economics? May I suggest an antidote?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABF1uW6wOyg
*
-
jdjr
Jan. 22, 2007, 10:39 a.m.I am going to generalize here and say that I love hearing arguments that have a common ring to them such as yours. The ones where everyone is out to get you and then you bring in the teachers and police, fire, ems, etc.. and talk about how they can't make it. What are you so scared of? Are you afraid of making alot of money, because bo, it is out there to make. Why should anyone have to move out of anywhere? Just because you said so? I think you are jealous of newsquew, because you do think they are starting a business and is going to make something of his/her self.
-
-
NelsonR
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:50 p.m.Yesterday I brought up the same points as msleem. You cannot equate the present American CEO payscale and golden parachutes with foreign Corporations by saying American CEO are making the Corp. huge profits so consequently Hugh salaries and benefits are warranted. The analogy and facts do not compute.
The outsourcing of American jobs for a higher rate of return for the 10% of Americans is just plain greed and uncaring for the middle class. With the diminishing middle class the present status quo will not continue forever.
Another fraudulent activity not mentioned in the article is this fact, Banks both past and especially currently make morgage loans to applicants who they know will default. The bank makes the closing fees and passes the bad loans off to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, investor loss. Make more money newsquew.
-
newsquew
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:15 p.m.People borrowing $ may want to educate themselves as to what they can afford. No one is holding a gun to their head to over-buy housing. That's their greed... have now, pay later.
What economy & CEO structure do you suggest we pattern after?
Are they as robust as the U.S. economy? (loaded question -- there are none)
Out sourcing for what 10% of Americans? Who are you talking about?
Make more $... thanks for the advice, got any tips?
I've responded the best that I can, given the substance you've provided.
-
-
-
bgibbs07
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:42 p.m."Another fraudulent activity not mentioned in the article is this fact, Banks both past and especially currently make morgage loans to applicants who they know will default"
The people should also know this, and should not take out loans if there is a great chance of not paying it back. Don't scold the bank for taking advantage of a situation.
-
Beau7890
Jan. 6, 2007, 2:27 a.m.Seriously, bgibbs07? Don't scold the bank for taking advantage?
You're right--people should know better than to take out loans they don't have a chance of paying back. But I'm sorry--taking advantage of people who are either more desperate than you, or not as smart as you, to make your living is EVIL. Which is worse?
-
-
IncaQueen
Jan. 5, 2007, 11:58 p.m.It's simply greed.
If Company's and Corporations were required to "Die" every 100 years, they wouldn't be around, to buy everything, control everything. Every 100 years the Company or Corporation should have a funeral, its assets divided and sold at auction. This is what happenes to individuals.
Some think raising the minimum wage will help. It only helps big companies. Rarely does it ever help little businesses, in fact it drives many of them out of business. You think you can compete with K-Mart, Targer, Wal-Mart, Pennys, or any of the other big companys?
No politician should ever be allowed to hold an office more than two terms in their lifetime. We have far too many greedy politicians, every party, whose only goal is power and money. You should not be allowed to even run for office until you're 50! That means you have years of experience in life, not theory.
-
awongscreen
Jan. 6, 2007, 11:25 a.m.No doubt about the greed factor.
However, who is responsible to put these politicans in office that pride themselves as pro-business? Yes, the answer is the voters who think pro-business is good. If we vote for pro-citizen people in office instead of pro-business politicians, I wonder what would happen?
-
-
srhayes
Jan. 6, 2007, 1:32 p.m.Actually, It's the large companies that don't like raising the minimum wage. Most small businesses already pay employees a living wage, probably because the owners have to face the employees every day. That is one of the reasons, they can't usually compete with the Wally worlds.
-
LeftTurn
Jan. 6, 2007, 2:40 p.m.Good insight Inca, and a great post...
I think we really need work unions back in force, that seems to be the only time that America was great for most ALL people, and it was always like pulling teeth with big business, gee I wonder why. We only had to look ahead to today to see why the government squashed out the unions, because unions were a good thing for this country, and good things in this country means that everyone lives better. But it's bad for a corrupt politician in government, less money for them to misuse and appropriate to their liking.
Wal-Mart and K-mart should ban together and form unions, as should all licensed trades that aren't now, and even non licensed trades. And congress needs to get a hold of the FDA pronto, and stop the killing of more Americans in our country with unapproved drugs streamlining approvals through the FDA because of actual laws passed by congress.
-
-
NelsonR
Jan. 6, 2007, 1:12 a.m.Quick story line, A slum lord who adored and coveted money cheated a couple who were down and out. The job he gave them for 100.dollars was complete and he made excuses why he didn't want to pay. After much haggling over the debt he pulled out a wad of Bills and paid them 35 dollars emphasizing that they were paid in full and if they accepted that amount, they were even. Naturally they were broke and needed the money so they accepted.
Within six month this man died and I wonder if the 'LARGE WAD OF BILLS FOLLOWED HIM".
This is a true story, probably occuring repeatedly throughout the world. Makes you wonder, whats important in life to, Each and Every One!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
awongscreen
Jan. 6, 2007, 11:35 a.m.This is capitalism and golbal economy. If you have the choice between getting things done in China and India for half the price, any rational capitalist will not choose to employ people here.
This is all about equilibrium. Either the living standard and income in China/India be raised to our level, or our living standard is plummeting down.
I like to offer a solution but I have none against capitalism and golbal economy. I can only see some hope if the world's population can be cut drastically so that will be less demands for resources.
-
-
m-simon
Jan. 6, 2007, 6:56 p.m.I remember when we had the same worries about Japan and Taiwan and South Korea.
Evidently they don't teach David Riccardo in Economics school any more.
Every one's output is some one elses input. Lowering costs improves economic performance. Lower cost paper means cheaper books. Cheaper books lower the cost of education. More education raises earning power. So should the publisher get his paper cheaper from China? Or the more expensive paper from America?
If you are a paper maker the answer is obvious. However, every one else in the chain of buyers and sellers is hurt.
The cost of living is high in Europe because of so many protections. Wages are somewhat less than in America.
The best thing to do is to buy from the lowest cost producer of adequate quality. This also improves our export position.
The publisher can sell more books around the world if he uses Chinese paper. Since the profit is higher on the books than on the paper we have a double net gain.
-
-
m-simon
Jan. 6, 2007, 7:04 p.m.The problem is that economics is always a two factor problem. But not just two factor (buyer and seller) but chains of these factors.
Seller, buyer, seller, ....... buyer, seller, buyer.
Suppose the chain starts with seller of paper and the final buyer is the paper maker why buys a book on improving paper maker efficiency. The more of the books sold the cheaper paper becomes. Which also lowers waste.
Now not everything in the economy is as clean as this example. But it does express the general idea.
-
-
m-simon
Jan. 6, 2007, 7:09 p.m.It is hard to see how even a 5 trillion housing buble could bankrupt an economy with 100 trillion in assets. And even 5 trillion in default does not mean the defaulted properties have no worth. Just lower worth.
A big recession perhaps, but bankrupt?
Where did you learn economics?
Global warming, jihadis at the gate, and now a housing bubble. We are doomed. If an asteroid doesn't get us first.
-
spectrum
Jan. 6, 2007, 6:55 a.m.Took 20 years to pay for my house. My kids probably will never have it that easy. Impeace would be nice but would it really help? my taxes are a house payment now. Is there anyone out there that will help or protect the dwarf man? No!
-
m-simon
Jan. 6, 2007, 7:15 p.m.Yep. Every generation has had it tougher than the previous one.
You need to tell your kids there is no hope. The way kids are these days they probably won't listen. We had more respect for our parents in my day. If they had said there was no hope we would have done the right thing and just given up.
-
-
bfrostusa50
Jan. 6, 2007, 7:34 a.m.Oh poor me I need a goverment to hand me every thing I need. People need to get a life.........the government is running you not the other way around.
-
Ratskii
Jan. 6, 2007, 8:55 a.m.It seems to me that the government gives far more welfare to the rich than to the poor. The super rich and powerful have been invited by some congressmen to write bills affecting their industries in exchange for generous donations to said congressmen's campaign funds (in addition to other considerations). It is not a level playing field.
Recall it was Theodore Roosevelt that instituted the inheritance tax because he feared that America was becoming an aristocratic society that no longer rewarded hard work and ability.
-
-
kboy
Jan. 6, 2007, 9:31 a.m.Certainly is a lot of carping with a lack of economics. How much were those pilots making in exchange for how many hours worked? They invested their retirement in their own airline stock? The compensation of a CEO is done by the Board of the company. The middle class is getting screwed because they are paying for almost all the entitlement programs for the poor and for the political electees, public employees and apointees. Oh yea, you also have to include anyone making $500,000 a year in the middle class.
Pay needs to be linked to output. How much is the person that takes out the trash worth as compared to the CEO having to make decisions and comply with all the forms and reg from the government as well as make enough to pay all the business taxes and still turn a profit?
-
bubba2
Jan. 6, 2007, 12:31 p.m.NO CEO is worth TENS of MILLIONS of Dollars, period! CEOs and professional athletes are NOT worth anywhere NEAR that much money!
And WHY do they need THAT MUCH MONEY? That is nothing but GREED! And the boards of the corporations that dole out that ungodly amount of money to ONE person are just as greedy and also very SHORT-sited.
The middle class MAY be paying for intitlement programs for the poor - what LITTLE there is left of that since Bush and Congress have CUT ALL of those programs for the last 6 years in a row.
But if they are 'paying' for those programs it is because of the tax cuts for the RICH which has put the tax BURDEN ON the Middle Class (it is TAX $$ that 'pay' for those 'entitlement' programs).
-
-
royal-m
Jan. 6, 2007, 9:59 a.m.Its always been this way to an extent, but I must admit it seems worse now. I think our economy is a paper tiger that will collapse soon and compeletely regardless of who is in charge in the white house. To much if it is depedent on consumer faith and spending by people who are the first to stop spending when things get tight, ie the middle class. We are holding this economy in our wallets and no one seems to notice. If you want to impress me give everyone making less than $500 K a year a complete tax break for one year
Tax cuts without strings do not remedey years of low capital investment and out of date facilities and outsourcing to save monet to pay off top level exec who do little actual work at the companies
-
amazed
Jan. 6, 2007, 9:59 a.m.I am going to flip out many people who have seen my posts by going on record in agreement that many of the CEO's of big companies salaries are obscene and are begging for regulation. Here in CT, insurance companies pay body shops $44--$48 per hour (and they determine how many hours!) to repair a car. They also insist (or try to) on aftermarket parts to save themselves a few bucks. At the same time, the CEO's are making in the high nine figurs ($750 MM) per year, and my insurance for my business goes up substantially each year, your car insurance goes up each year, but not how much they want to pay.
The electric company asked for and received a 50% rate increase for domestic use and 70% increase for commercial rates == crying how strapped they were and how small their profits were. The state commission (shame on them) allowed it. Two weeks later, the board of the electric company announced 8 figure bonuses to the top ceo's.
I agree this is obscene and bad for our country.
-
amazed
Jan. 6, 2007, 10:03 a.m.NO one, not CEO's, nor movie stars nor sports figures are worth that kind of money. When the CEO's in question aren't even running the company well and get huge bonuses as stocks and profits fall, something is seriously wrong and requires some fixing.
As far as "corporate death" and confiscatory estate taxes,however, I remain opposed.
-
-
LABELDUDE
Jan. 6, 2007, 10:10 a.m."The spectacle of a few ecstatic big winners encourages the losers to believe that, hey, they might get lucky and win, too."
Well, not if they bothered to take a course in Junior College called "Probabilities and Statistics".
-
goodgrief
Jan. 6, 2007, 10:31 a.m.You gotta be kidding me! Teachers and firefighters can't afford houses? You mean, all those people sleeping in the alley and trying to get warm in Grand Central Station are . . . oh, my.
How do you reconcile this twaddle with the fact that home ownership (by percentage of population) is the highest it has ever been in this country?
Look - argue about the CEO salaries all you want. Can't remember what dimwit company it was, but they just fired a CEO after 5 months with a $10 million severence package.
That's wrong. It's also wrong to reward the jokes who run GM with a bonus at all. Fight that fight if you want. But don't turn it into have/have-not. It just ain't so
-
RunNJump
Jan. 6, 2007, 10:45 a.m.I know from personal experience that the way the corporation my husband is employeed by compensates their employees is a travisty. My husband is in management is and even though it is a struggle just to meet our financial obligations, we are able to put food on the table most of the time. On the other hand, the employees that are just under him are not that fortunate. There are times when my husband brings food to work to share with them because they wouldn't eat otherwise. He has given them gas money to get to work on occasion. These are adults with families and responsibilities and are coming to work and doing their jobs. Not slackers. There just aren't any jobs out there that are any better. Meanwhile the CEO of our company is over compensated by millions, not just in bonuses but also stocks and options. It is the employee in the store that is bringing in the cash for the company. ...
-
fretloop
Jan. 6, 2007, 10:49 a.m."Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in cases of conflict, the man before the dollar."
Abraham Lincoln
Well, it was a nice thought anyway.
-
Justice4All
Jan. 6, 2007, 12:12 p.m.It was probably true at the time. But it sure isnt that way now.
-
-
-
RunNJump
Jan. 6, 2007, 10:52 a.m.It is the management at low level that makes sure the ordering gets done and distributed and puts in the 70-80 hours a week required to make sure it all happens. My husband is supposed to be able to take 5 weeks a year vacation, but he is lucky if he get to take 3-4 days in a row off and usually only gets about 10 total days the entire year. Vacations are a thing of the past. It is the enslavement of the people by corporations. We can't just go somewhere else because it's the same everywhere. I don't know what the solution is but something has got to change. Our credit card companies will own us all!
-
RunNJump
Jan. 6, 2007, 10:55 a.m."runNjump - c'monnnnnn"
For you to say this just means that you haven't a clue how it really is for some of us. I have no reason to make this up.
-
goodgrief
Jan. 6, 2007, 10:57 a.m.Uh - spend less.
I worked for a corporation for many years. I put in extra hours for a lot of those years. I made a great salary and got a bonus every once in a while. But I was basically a slave to the company. Also a slave to the lifestyle. Guess what. I escaped. We live more simply now. I work less now. Life is much better now.
-
walden3
Jan. 6, 2007, 12:15 p.m.life is not a vending machine. people put in the same effort and get different results. you were lucky. be grateful.
-
bubba2
Jan. 6, 2007, 12:48 p.m.You are lucky.
I know several people who are poor and are working their butts off. They are not stupid, they are not lazy, they are not waiting for a handout. They just want to make a decent living so that they can afford to maybe eat out once in a while or go to a movie, because they RARELY have any money for that sort of 'luxury'.
Most of them either work 2 jobs to be able to pay the bills, or they rent a tiny apartment with no cable and no computer and no vehicle because they can't afford any of that. Again, they are not stupid or lazy - they cannot FIND a job to pay anything much above the minimum wage.
Try living on minimum wage just one month - just you, not the rest of your family if you have one. Try it.
-
bubba2
Jan. 6, 2007, 12:49 p.m.I also have a friend who has MANY years of experience in accounting and finance. After his company closed down, about 6 years ago, he has YET to find a job AT his skill level and at anywhere NEAR the pay he made at the now defunct company. He has been working multiple jobs to keep from losing their home, etc.
There many people going thru this same scenario. And it will continue to happen to more and more SKILLED workers if the current trends of government and corporations do not change.
-
-
-
RunNJump
Jan. 6, 2007, 10:59 a.m.If gas were cheaper, I'd spend less. If the power bill were cheaper, I'd spend less. If clothing were cheaper, I'd spend less. If I had one less child, I'd spend less. You're answer is just too simplistic.
-
awongscreen
Jan. 6, 2007, 11:44 a.m.You need to spend and use less anyway. Does not matter whether it is cheap or not. This earth has limited resources. As long as the population goes up, the aviable resource per person will goes down.
-
-
-
RunNJump
Jan. 6, 2007, 11:02 a.m.You spent too much in the first place and you got smart and recognized that. Not everyone is in your position.
The first 187 comments are shown. Show all 285 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
