The Lost Decade of the Middle Class

August 27, 2012

Previous | Next

The Pew Research Center has just released their report, “The Lost Decade of the MiddleClass: Fewer, Poorer, Gloomier.” It shows that the American middle class has not only been seriously hurt by the recent recession, but that it has been losing ground for some time.

The report divides households into three tiers: upper, middle and lower. The middle-income tier includes all adults whose annual household income is at least two-thirds of the national median income, but no more than twice that median. (Since larger households need more money to live a middle-class lifestyle, incomes were adjusted for family size before assigning households to tiers.) By that definition, 51% of households are middle-income, while 20% are upper-income and 29% are lower-income.

Between 2000 and 2010, the median income of the middle-income tier fell by 5%, and its median wealth (assets minus liabilities) fell 28%. Households at this economic level have a lot of their wealth in housing, so they were hit pretty hard by the bust in home prices.

But the story of the middle class’s changing fortunes involves more than the recent recession. Deeper changes have been at work for a long time. The report describes these changes in the four decades since 1971:

  • The percentage of households classified as middle-income has dropped from 61% to 51%. Meanwhile, lower-income households have gone from 25% to 29% of the total, and upper-income households have gone from 14% to 20%. This is consistent with the often-noted increase in economic inequality and the “hollowing out of the middle class.”
  • The share of the national income going to middle-income households has dropped from 62% to 45%. Meanwhile, the share going to lower-income households has declined slightly, from 10% to 9%, while the share going to upper-income households has increased from 29% to 46%. We know from other studies that the share going to the super-rich has increased the most.
  • Prior to the 1980s, income gains were much more similar for different income groups than they have been since then. The gains were much larger in the 1950s and 1960s than in the 1970s, but in both cases they were experienced by households at many different levels. In the 1980s and 90s however, gains for middle- and lower-income households were much smaller than those for upper-income households. The 2000-2010 decade was the first decade since World War II in which median income actually fell. So in general, income gains have been slowing down for a long time, except in the upper-income tier.

The report also studied the opinions of a large sample of adults, focusing especially on the 49% who classified themselves as “middle class.” (That percentage is similar to the 51% classified as middle-income by the researchers, but note that the 49% doesn’t include those who classified themselves as “lower middle class” or “upper middle class.”) 85% of these self-described middle-class people said that it’s harder to maintain a middle-class standard of living than it was ten years ago. Although 60% of them said that they were better off than their parents were at the same age, only 43% expected their children to be better off than they are. They were most likely to place the blame for the nation’s economic problems on Congress, banks and financial institutions, large corporations, and the Bush administration, in that order.

The Pew report is more descriptive than explanatory, but we may well ask why the middle class is becoming smaller and more financially insecure. The problems obviously go deeper than the recent financial crisis. I suspect that they also go deeper than some of the most common explanations, such as the downward pressure of globalization on wages because corporations can easily seek out the cheapest labor on the planet. We shouldn’t be so preoccupied with impersonal global forces that we forget the many human decisions that shape investment and employment. Among the issues I hope to explore in future posts are how much we’re willing to invest in education and training, and how well we utilize the talents of our population to create things of greater economic value.


Welcome

August 24, 2012

Welcome to Beneath the Surface, a blog devoted to socioeconomic issues. I am writing this in the middle of a presidential election campaign, a time when public discourse can get pretty disconnected from social reality. Political speeches and ads keep repeating assertions that fact-checkers have already discredited. Each side plays up the social benefits of its proposals and avoids talking about the social costs. Each side presents itself as the champion of the middle class and the protector of seniors, two groups who vote a lot. The media spend much of their time dutifully reporting the charges and counter-charges of political adversaries, only occasionally evaluating the competing claims or providing essential background information.  The result is a largely confused and under-informed electorate.

The debates over the Obama administration’s two main pieces of legislation, the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the 2010 Affordable Care Act, have been less than inspiring examples of public discourse in a democracy. The Recovery Act got branded as “wasteful spending” and “failed stimulus” long before the evidence was in about its actual impact on jobs. Arguments over the Affordable Care Act became focused on the relatively small number of Americans who can afford insurance but don’t want to be required to buy it, not the much larger number who want it but can’t afford it. In both cases, far more Americans could repeat what partisans were saying about the bills than could describe what was actually in the legislation.

What I find strange about this situation is that we live in the most information-rich society in history. Is it too much to ask that the media disseminate the most accurate and relevant information on social issues, and that citizens use that information to engage in informed discussions of them? Well maybe it is. Sociologists know a number of reasons why that doesn’t happen more often: The media find it more profitable to entertain than to inform; people have strong group loyalties and only care about the arguments on their own side of an issue; powerful special interests spread misinformation about their true agendas; etc. Nevertheless, some people—especially those who are aware of such dangers—would like to be better informed, and are often willing to reserve judgment on an issue until they are. This site is for us.