ADVERTISEMENT

POLL: Who's Responsible for the Hollowing Out of the Middle Class

Who or what is most responsible for hollowing out America's middle class?


  • Total voters
    89
Nov 28, 2010
83,700
37,523
113
Maryland
I've heard this "hollowing out" phrase - and others very like it - from both left and right. They tend to disagree on the cause.

For example, a NY Times article reports " Rick Santorum, the runner-up in the Republican nomination race four years ago, announced his second presidential bid on Wednesday, pledging to restore a middle class “hollowed out” by government policies."

[As a side question, was Santorum really the GOP runner-up? I know he did well in some primaries, but runner-up?]
 
I've heard this "hollowing out" phrase - and others very like it - from both left and right. They tend to disagree on the cause.

For example, a NY Times article reports " Rick Santorum, the runner-up in the Republican nomination race four years ago, announced his second presidential bid on Wednesday, pledging to restore a middle class “hollowed out” by government policies."

[As a side question, was Santorum really the GOP runner-up? I know he did well in some primaries, but runner-up?]

The government policies option could go either way. Conservatives can say it's because of Democratic government policies, Liberals can say it's because of Republican government policies.
 
The government policies option could go either way. Conservatives can say it's because of Democratic government policies, Liberals can say it's because of Republican government policies.
I suppose so, but GOP government policies are more non-policies. Doing away with regulations, allowing businesses to pollute, offshore, pay less tax, move profits offshore, engage in fraudulent behavior, and so on.
 
The government policies option could go either way. Conservatives can say it's because of Democratic government policies, Liberals can say it's because of Republican government policies.
Don't go out on a limb here. Since the two have had a vice grip on politics forever, could it be anything else?



The way to crush the bourgeoisie (middle class) is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
Vladimir Lenin

The 2nd plank of The Communist Manifesto calls for a graduated or progressive income tax. Check this box off. The 16th amendment was passed in 1913.

The 5th plank of The Communist Manifesto called for a central bank. Check this box off as well. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. This is a private banking cartel. These unelected and unaccountable few men work in secret to manipulate all things financial. They inflate and shrink the money supply at will. When they inflate, they punish savers whose in pocket dollars diminish value daily.

Both parties are a part of this game, while middle America suffers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vroom_C14
All the options given are over simplified for people that overestimate the power of governments and corporations. It is about technology and demographic. The populations continue to get larger and then need for labor in production and service continues to get smaller. It is a worldwide marketplace where technology forces individuals to compete for the limited labor needed which drives down wages. It is impossible for me to imagine that corporations which have a singular motive of profit would act any differently in this reality.
 
Politicians love appealing to the middle class, but there isn't a consistent definition of what the middle class is. For most, it's "from the poverty line to anyone that makes just a little bit more than me, and everyone else is rich." This is a flawed view that politicians love to exploit.

I don't even know what people mean when they say "Middle class" anymore.
 
The government policies option could go either way. Conservatives can say it's because of Democratic government policies, Liberals can say it's because of Republican government policies.
More like conservative policies don't go far enough and liberal policies go to far.
 
I suppose so, but GOP government policies are more non-policies. Doing away with regulations, allowing businesses to pollute, offshore, pay less tax, move profits offshore, engage in fraudulent behavior, and so on.

Im not sure the middle class has been hollowed out. Im not sure its in better shape either. The only thing I would probably argue is that it has gotten bigger. \

Isnt this why everyone is so mad at the 1%. Because they are so much weatlhier? They Economist suggested in 2012 that the 1% is about stable. 75% of those in it one year will be there several years later. So if the mid class is hollowed out that would argue everyone is poorer now?

I would vote not hollowed out.
 
Im not sure the middle class has been hollowed out. Im not sure its in better shape either. The only thing I would probably argue is that it has gotten bigger. \

Isnt this why everyone is so mad at the 1%. Because they are so much weatlhier? They Economist suggested in 2012 that the 1% is about stable. 75% of those in it one year will be there several years later. So if the mid class is hollowed out that would argue everyone is poorer now?

I would vote not hollowed out.
It's a Poisson distibution. And it's getting more "poissony" (with apologies to Stephen Colbert). So "hollowed out" may not be the best term. But the notion that the middle class is slipping and shrinking seems correct. Maybe someone will dig up good pictures for us.
 
Interesting results so far. About equal numbers who blame the government, companies, and both. Seems like that's a good signal that people are blaming both sides pretty equally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vroom_C14
Interesting results so far. About equal numbers who blame the government, companies, and both. Seems like that's a good signal that people are blaming both sides pretty equally.
And very few objecting to the premise that the middle class is, in fact, being hollowed out.

Is there a tip here for the politicians? Blaming the government is the GOP shtick. Blaming corporations is the Dem shtick. Perhaps the candidates who can convincingly expand into the "both" space - but do so without alienating their base - will have the edge.

Which candidates are best poised to do that? What would their messages look like?
 
The union movement and higher wages have driven middle class blue collar jobs away by the millions over the last 30 or so years.

Unskilled labor has fewer "middle class jobs" to go around any more.
 
The union movement and higher wages have driven middle class blue collar jobs away by the millions over the last 30 or so years.

Unskilled labor has fewer "middle class jobs" to go around any more.
So your solution to protecting the middle class is to reduce their wages enough to keep those jobs from being outsourced? Seems to me that it would be hard to do that and still keep those jobs as middle class jobs, wouldn't it?

Help me out here. I'm having some trouble understanding your point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
The middle class was kind of like Hawking's rim of the black hole, it doesn't really exist, it's kind of a hologram.
 
So your solution to protecting the middle class is to reduce their wages enough to keep those jobs from being outsourced? Seems to me that it would be hard to do that and still keep those jobs as middle class jobs, wouldn't it?

Help me out here. I'm having some trouble understanding your point.
Honestly, I think Trump is the best to exploit this - he can simply point at the government and say "see". Then he can explain, in detail, the business side.
 
America has always had an Upper Class, a Middle Class
and a Lower Class. It has usually been based on the income
of a family. Obviously, this fluctuates from decade to decade.
Whatever the median income is in our nation that would help
define the Middle Class.

The Middle Class is shrinking and the Lower Class is ballooning.
Without good jobs for the average American worker, you see
income decline. People on welfare helps to increase the Lower
Class.
 
So your solution to protecting the middle class is to reduce their wages enough to keep those jobs from being outsourced? Seems to me that it would be hard to do that and still keep those jobs as middle class jobs, wouldn't it?

Help me out here. I'm having some trouble understanding your point.

I don't have the solution. The problem is wages for this type of work became uncompetitive in the world economy. You didn't necessarily ask for a solution, but a cause.

The solution generically speaking (in which the US really can't do with wages) is to make producing here in America less expensive to where we can make these things that were taken from us again. We have a numbers problem...all those unskilled jobs we had in the 50's and 60's started disappearing in the 70's and never came back (and a rewards system for non-producers that enable them to never produce ever in their lifetime if they choose), and now we have a sea of people who are not armed enough to make a middle class living nearly in the numbers as it did prior.

I personally think the receiving countries have to have their wages increase to where the savings is less attractive. That may take a generation or two to occur. Again, if you're talking purely wages - our labor costs have to go down if all other things are equal. It's that simple. If I can build a car for 50% less labor costs in China than I can in the US, it doesn't take a math major to figure out what I will investigate.

No sane person here is going to forcibly advocate making wages decrease. And unions certainly aren't going to advocate that either - moreover, unions seem to think that jobs should be guaranteed, even if the industry evolves where the worker is not needed any more. How sane is that? And here is your side, saying we have to hit companies and damn near every producer in this country hard with higher taxes and taking away subsidies etc, thereby making the situation even worse.

So, how do we reduce the cost of producing things here in America to offset the distinct disadvantage we have in labor costs while overcoming also the technological advances we're inventing today to reduce the human interaction to producing? After all, you don't have to pay a robot a single penny - robots don't get pensions and health insurance either. We wouldn't have robots building cars if the workers didn't cost so damn much money to put a bolt on a car. Forcing higher wages ain't going to work and never will. Then we lump higher taxes and costs on top of everything and you might as well call the moving vans and book a ship to China for all the manufacturing plants.

The jobs might disappear FOREVER. And in some industries, they are never coming back.


You have to decide what you want. Higher uncompetitive wages but less people working overall (or the job simply disappearing altogether), higher taxes thereby driving even more business away, or trying to make it where we're producing all the piddly million little things we used to produce for the unskilled among us.

Which is it going to be? Saying flipping burgers is now a middle class job deserving living wages and all that ridiculous claptrap doesn't make it so. Business will find a way to eliminate the worker or abandon the market.

Business always adapts to the environment they dwell in. If they can't make money here, they'll go where they can make money.
 
Corporations like Caterpillar have moved their plants to
the right-to-work states and shut down factories in union
states. Of course Caterpillar is not the only business
doing this. Every major business wants to show a profit
for their stockholders. Blue collar workers with outdated
skills are getting eliminated from formerly good paying
jobs.
 
I don't have the solution. The problem is wages for this type of work became uncompetitive in the world economy. You didn't necessarily ask for a solution, but a cause.

The solution generically speaking (in which the US really can't do with wages) is to make producing here in America less expensive to where we can make these things that were taken from us again. We have a numbers problem...all those unskilled jobs we had in the 50's and 60's started disappearing in the 70's and never came back (and a rewards system for non-producers that enable them to never produce ever in their lifetime if they choose), and now we have a sea of people who are not armed enough to make a middle class living nearly in the numbers as it did prior.

I personally think the receiving countries have to have their wages increase to where the savings is less attractive. That may take a generation or two to occur. Again, if you're talking purely wages - our labor costs have to go down if all other things are equal. It's that simple. If I can build a car for 50% less labor costs in China than I can in the US, it doesn't take a math major to figure out what I will investigate.

No sane person here is going to forcibly advocate making wages decrease. And unions certainly aren't going to advocate that either - moreover, unions seem to think that jobs should be guaranteed, even if the industry evolves where the worker is not needed any more. How sane is that? And here is your side, saying we have to hit companies and damn near every producer in this country hard with higher taxes and taking away subsidies etc, thereby making the situation even worse.

So, how do we reduce the cost of producing things here in America to offset the distinct disadvantage we have in labor costs while overcoming also the technological advances we're inventing today to reduce the human interaction to producing? After all, you don't have to pay a robot a single penny - robots don't get pensions and health insurance either. We wouldn't have robots building cars if the workers didn't cost so damn much money to put a bolt on a car. Forcing higher wages ain't going to work and never will. Then we lump higher taxes and costs on top of everything and you might as well call the moving vans and book a ship to China for all the manufacturing plants.

The jobs might disappear FOREVER. And in some industries, they are never coming back.


You have to decide what you want. Higher uncompetitive wages but less people working overall (or the job simply disappearing altogether), higher taxes thereby driving even more business away, or trying to make it where we're producing all the piddly million little things we used to produce for the unskilled among us.

Which is it going to be? Saying flipping burgers is now a middle class job deserving living wages and all that ridiculous claptrap doesn't make it so. Business will find a way to eliminate the worker or abandon the market.

Business always adapts to the environment they dwell in. If they can't make money here, they'll go where they can make money.
Your choices don't cover all the options.

Big reasons why some other nations are more competitive are because they do not guarantee the human rights, worker protections, consumer protections, environmental protections, safety net and so on that we have here. We would obviously be more competitive if we did away with those things. Even low wages (by US standards) aren't enough to make us competitive.

The obvious answer is to convince other nations to guarantee those rights and protections and standards, too.

The US is the market everyone wants to trade in. We are, I assume, still the biggest consumer, per capita, of any nation on earth. What's more, we are a reasonably safe place to trade and aren't too corrupt. We have abundant roads, cheap gas, rail, good ports, and more. Point being that higher taxes are a fair tradeoff for getting to play on our court. Saying we have to lower taxes to be competitive is ludicrous. That goes for both foreign corps and those with home field advantage.

Again, the obvious answer is to convince our trading partners to stop playing race-to-the-bottom tax games. We see it with states bending over and giving away the store to lure or keep corps in their states or localities. We see it with nations cutting corporate tax rates to entice corporations to incorporate there, or to merge with a local business so, for example, Burger King can pay lower taxes to Canada than they'd pay in the US, even though most of their business is done in the US.

I reject your race-to-the-bottom solutions. There are better alternatives.
 
Our own Materialistic desire for stuff on the cheap. So our business leaders looked to outsource for cheap labor and our politicians followed suite w one sided trade deals.
 
The rise of corporate America, the revision of the tax code by Reagan and Clinton, the adoption of NAFTA (supported by both Reagan and Clinton) all lead to the demise of the "middle class" in 'merica.
e You can rewrite and reinterpret the facts (and no one is harmless), but the strangulation of trade unions, the rewarding America industry for sending American jobs and products overseas are at the heart of this phenomena. "The rise of libertarianism" has done more to destroy any hope for the common man has played a key role in this demise, too.
 
The rise of corporate America, the revision of the tax code by Reagan and Clinton, the adoption of NAFTA (supported by both Reagan and Clinton) all lead to the demise of the "middle class" in 'merica.
e You can rewrite and reinterpret the facts (and no one is harmless), but the strangulation of trade unions, the rewarding America industry for sending American jobs and products overseas are at the heart of this phenomena. "The rise of libertarianism" has done more to destroy any hope for the common man has played a key role in this demise, too.

Ok. I'll bite. Please explain.
 
technology has eliminated jobs...many many jobs. It is also much easier to ship goods around the world.

I would also say that Walmart, Home depot, Lowes have pushed out the American made products
 
Ok. I'll bite. Please explain.
Very simply Nat.......the government's #1 role is to protect those it represents. ":Libertarians" have complained about how "the government" has prevented American's from living their dream. So, the past 30+ years, more and more government has become deregulated. In fact what has occurred is that the floor has been cut from beneath "we the people" in order to fulfill someone's (NOT mine) idea of what costitututes "the self-made man. In short, as unions have been deminished and protections of Americans and their jobs have been done away with in the name of corporate profits, "we the people" have lost. A few have benefitted greatly while most of us just hang on thinking the Dems, the liberals, the commies or the radical Muslims are destroying out way of life. As "Pogo" famously announced years ago..."I have found the enemy...and it is us!"
 
Very simply Nat.......the government's #1 role is to protect those it represents. ":Libertarians" have complained about how "the government" has prevented American's from living their dream. So, the past 30+ years, more and more government has become deregulated. In fact what has occurred is that the floor has been cut from beneath "we the people" in order to fulfill someone's (NOT mine) idea of what costitututes "the self-made man. In short, as unions have been deminished and protections of Americans and their jobs have been done away with in the name of corporate profits, "we the people" have lost. A few have benefitted greatly while most of us just hang on thinking the Dems, the liberals, the commies or the radical Muslims are destroying out way of life. As "Pogo" famously announced years ago..."I have found the enemy...and it is us!"
But, Libertarians hold zero power in government. Americans work 7 months a year just to pay their taxes. The Federal Registry has exploded with regulations. It has never been higher. We are governed by Keynesians and you blame a few lone voices in the wilderness.

Not sure why you ignore the fact that Lenin predicted the destruction of the middle class with the adoption of the Communist Manifesto. He said they will crush the middle class between the millstones of taxation and inflation. The 2nd plank called for the creation of a progressive or graduated income tax. Check that box off when America's oligarchs shoved the 16th amendment down our throats. 1st sold as a tax on the rich, then creeped up to suck the life out of America. Then the adoption of the 5th plank (the centralization of banking which creates inflation). Both passed in 1913 under the cover of darkness by the Morgans, Rockefellers, Warburgs and Rothschild agents. And wouldn't you know it. These guys implemented tax-exempt foundations that year as well, so they could hide their money from taxation. They paid themselves a $1 salary and put the rest in their foundations to grow free of taxes. The rest of America gets soaked. There isn't one libertarian who sits at the fulcrum of power. They're all Keynesians.
 
ADVERTISEMENT