Impossible to re-establish a solid middle class in the USA...

If we assume the classic middle class type jobs are those in manufacturing, and if manufacturers are primarily located in the highest population centers, then there is little hope that rural America where tens of millions of Americans live, that they can ever find employment in manufacturing.

Continued population growth effects the rural areas as well so over the years we have greater numbers of Americans living in non-manufacturing areas of the US.

Except for professional jobs and some trades and business ownership, based on the above comments, tens of millions of Americans are relegated to service-type jobs, most of them low to no skilled, most of them requiring little education, generally more labor supply than demand, which equates to eternally low wages.

Meanwhile, people are commuting hours to and from work, all of which is costly, many times not being able to afford to live within 50 miles of our highest employment centers. These areas have millions of low paying service jobs but no one can afford to live near where they work. Even middle-class paying manufacturing jobs require living in distant bedroom-communities.

Geographically, it is not possible to re-establish middle-class manufacturing jobs in most areas of the USA...

 

we are outsourcing middle class jobs and importing products

we are becoming a service class nation

and technology is even trying to replace those

soon a socialist nation may be the only option....

.

 

Why do we have to assume that middle class jobs can only be in manufacturing? Why can't they be in retail or services or restaurants?

Workers in manufacturing got those middle class wages not because of the difficulty in screwing the nut onto the bolt on the car chassis, but because they had union representation that could leverage salaries that more reflected what the workers added to the creation of the product; and not solely on the market supply and demand for their individual labor.

What we need to do is find a way to change those scores of millions of retail and service jobs into middle class incomes like workers in the past did for manufacturing jobs.

But that will take a change away from the "trickle down" mentality of union bashing and it would mean that the richest would get a proportionately smaller chunk of the nation's income and wealth.

That is the real problem.

 

The middle class and is doomed. Everything the government does targets the middle class. This is the "everything for free" and "everyone is a victim" era. Money people will just keep moving their money and jobs out - and the government will continue to target the middle class from every direction.

 

As long as we continue to elect those whose priority is enriching the rich, that will be the result.

 

no as long as we make it to expensive to produce anything in America anymore between the high tax rates and over regulations
make it cheaper to produce products here in America jobs will come back and be created here in America

 

this is the corporate greed era of corporatism

 

We don't have a problem with making things too expensive to produce. If the problem was things are too expensive to make, spending would be up but there would be a shortage of goods and services available to to purchase. There is no such shortage. The problem is that there is a low increase in consumption spending.

Year - % chng real personal expenditures
1982 1.4
1983 5.7
1984 5.3
1985 5.3
Average: 4.4

1992 3.7
1993 3.5
1994 3.9
1995 3.0
Average 3.5

2002 2.5
2003 3.1
2004 3.8
2005 3.5
Average 3.2

2010 2.0
2011 2.5
2012 2.2
2013 2.0
Average 2.2

Source data: http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=1&isuri=1
Table 2.3.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Personal Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product

And there is a low increase in consumption spending because since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, we have diverted more and more of the nation's income to the wealthy, and less and less to that great engine of spending, the middle classes.





None of which was helped by the GOP austerity we've been under the past 5 years or so.

Jobs will come back when we reverse course, stop pampering the richest, and get more of the nation's income flowing to the middle classes like it used to before the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

 

3rd world countries will always be cheaper unless we create fees on imports and fees on outsourcing of labor

we could add security restrictions too on outside agencies having access to American data, this would cut into foreign outsourcing

take away tax cuts from corps that outsource, ect....

.

 

We've always had corporate greed.

The difference is that we didn't used to elect folks whose priority was to feed it over the middle class.

 

foreign outsourcing and foreign imports have never been at the levels they are today, corporate greed is killing the middle class

 

still spewing the nonsense hollow income inequity propaganda which it only purpose is to create envy and class warfare for a political purpose
which is better to raise middle class by 1,000 per year and upper income by 0 or raise middle class income by 2,000 an upper income by 3,000
according to your propaganda it is better to raise middle class by 1,000 and upper income by 0 because it closed a gap

 

Maybe there are others who can follow your blather. But I've posted the data and facts and sources that demonstrate the reality of how the middle classes have been getting a smaller and smaller proportion of the nation's income (and the rich more and more), which is reflected in the the weakness in spending. All of which contradicts your post about the problem being things being too costly to produce.

You seem to be trying to argue that it is better that the richest get a larger and larger share of the nation's income because then the middle classes' income will go up faster too. Which is the standard 1% apologist RW "trickle down" propaganda. But belied by the facts:


Family median income 2012 dollars
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2012/F06AR_2012.xls

Year - income
2012 62,241
1979 57,734
1953 31,929

In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 81%.

In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real median family income (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 8%.


http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N

In the 26 years from 1953 to 1979, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 126.4%

In the 33 years from 1979 to 2012, real GDP (in inflation adjusted terms) grew by 137.9%

http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

The trillions of growth in income and wealth have not been shared with the middle classes since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution. While the incomes of the rich have soared, the incomes of the bottom 90% have barely changed, and they have not shared in the nation's economic growth over the past 35 years.

There was no "trickle down".

 

no you posted unrelated FIGURES and provided not one bit of context no evidence of causation just coalition the proves nothing

so I will ask again what is better
to increase middle class income by 1,000 a year and upper class income by 0 per year
or increase middle class income by 2,000 per year and upper class income by 3,000 per year

 

Exactly why do you contend that the FIGURES I provide are "unrelated"?

The latter. What's your point with this meaningless question? In fact, real middle class incomes have barely budged since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, despite decent economic growth. See my post above.

 

Because those service jobs in retail, services and restaurants industry use to provide the services to those in the manufacturing industry.

There was a time in America like during the 1950's and 60's when the ditch digger or the burger flipper working at a drug store lunch counter could actually afford to buy and own a home. That was before the Immigration Act of 1965 that would cut off most legal immigration from Europe and those new immigrants would be uneducated, unskilled from third world countries who would be more likely to become dependent on government. They may not be as productive as American born workers, usually five being as productive as three American workers but they will work for pennies that results in the depression of wages for Americans and more profits for the corporations stock holders. America's stupid laws require that the corporate CEO's not to protect jobs but to see that the stock holders make a profit. How often has Carly has pointed this out in the past month ?

Any time America had restrictive immigration policies of what was best for America not what was best for the immigrant, corporate America or one political party, the American middle class grew, became stronger and it was the "Life of Reilly" or the "Ozzie and Harriet" life.

But the first American jobs that were sent over seas was in the heavy industrial and steel industry and it was mostly the doings of the unions. The result was to be known as the "Rust Belt."

Corporations unable to recover from illegal wildcat strikes and when it became clear for the American steel industry to compete with foreign steel, they had to upgrade their facilities. 5% of the steel workers would loose their jobs but the industry would be able to compete with cheaper imports. The unions said no way Jose, every one keeps their job or nobody keeps their jobs. The end game was everyone lost their jobs and the result would be the "Rust Belt" in the middle of industrial America.

For almost 200 years the way America worked was that the country would grow the food to feed the nation. What surplus there was would be exported. The country would manufacture the goods needed and wanted by America. What surplus their was would be exported. What goods that couldn't be produced in America would be imported. What goods that were imported but were also being manufactured in America, tariffs (taxes) would be added to these imported goods to protect American companies and workers. America would produce it's own weapons, ships, munitions to protect the individual sovereign states who belonged to the Union aka The United States of America. It use to be always about America.

In historical layman terms:

 

but the latter closes no income gap it increases it, and it is all about income inequality corrct? so how can the later be better? the first one closes the income gap so that would be better wouldn't it?
unless like I said income inequality is just bull (*)(*)(*)(*) propaganda

 

Middle class jobs do not have to be manufacturing jobs. We just need a demand for labor to drive up wages on those areas. Middle class is based on your income, not your job title. Second, there are quite a few areas in which the middle class is doing quite well. There are a lot of variables, but the long and short of it is that national policies will only be focused on national numbers. Areas that are struggling must rely on state and local resources and stop waiting for Uncle Sam to wave a magic wand.

 

And now, putting America FIRST is seen as bad. How DARE YOU or anyone else put a citizen over an illegal immigrant? Put American lives first? How arrogant!!!! That makes you a nationalistic bigot!!! Japan puts Japan first. China puts China first. Germany puts Germany first. Switzerland CERTAINLY puts Switzerland first. But not us. We have to put everyone ELSE first now or be shamed. We have a generation who simply doesn't love the country anymore because they're being told NOT to love it. Don't salute that flag!!!! Don't respect the policeman!!! Spit on that soldier baby killer!!! Why should they like where they live? Loving your country is BAAAAAAAAAD. Yes, its completely insane. But its true.

 

Not correct. Where have I ever said "it is all about income inequality"? Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) strawman.

You're promoting the same old 1% bull(*)(*)(*)(*) propaganda claim that "trickle down" policies provide stronger economic growth and that the growth will "trickle down" to the middle who will also enjoy strong income growth.

But the facts show that has not happened. We have not seen overall faster economic growth, and real middle class incomes have basically stagnated since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

You aren't even trying to refer to facts or data to support you claim. Just some made up hypothetical from the 1% apologist "supply side" sales pitch. It is just bull(*)(*)(*)(*) propaganda.

 

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period
how much has it increased under Obama's Keynesian redistribution agenda? It hasn't it has dropped by over 8%
so give me Reaganomics any day of the week

 

Automation is actually a sign of prosperity.

We are losing our middle class, but that's from unfair taxation. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer because the middle class has to pay for everything: the rich and the poor don't pay much in taxes. Income and payroll taxes are much higher than corporate and capital gains taxes.

The US has the highest income inequality than any other OECD country, and many of these countries are growing faster economically than the US. So, the fiscal conservatives got their way, and now we're paying for it.

The top 1% paid only 30% tax on their income. This is about he same as a middle class worker. Source: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

Spread the wealth, you greedy SOBs, and then 99% of your complaints will disappear.

 

Reagan
Federal Spending increase, 1981-1986: +46.0%.
Total government employment, 1981-1986: +879,000

Obama
Federal Spending increase, 2009-2014: -0.53%
Total government employment, 2009-2014: -540,000

Then write your GOP reps and tell them to stop it with the sequestration and austerity.

- - - Updated - - -

Costs may be up, but the real problem is that middle class incomes have barely kept up with inflation, much less economic growth over the past 35 years.

 

Actually, it goes beyond income "inequality".

Many are finding themselves unable to earn at all.

No one ever complained before about income inequality; no one envied the wealthy and most still don't. They just want to get a piece of the action. If all of the action is sent overseas or given to specifically imported immigrants, what is left?

Nothing.

Unless the real goal is to lower the population, the current policies are misguided.

Lowering the population by depriving those who live in the US and then claiming we "need" immigration because of our low birth rate is ridiculous. The middle class was responsible and limited their family sizes to what they could afford, and now watch as their country is importing irresponsible breeders that collect massive amounts from the taxes the (former) middle class continues to pay.

The working class and the middle class are not the same thing as the welfare class, but in the minds of the top 0.01% there is, IMO, no clear distinction. They have insulated and isolated themselves so well from the consequences of their political and financial manipulations that they are incapable of actually seeing what they are doing to their fellow citizens and the country as a whole. They are as out of touch as Marie Antoinette was, which is dangerous to the country and possibly at some point even to them.

 

NAFTA would have to be repealed in order to bring back the middle class.
George H.W. Bush is the author of NAFTA.
Repeal NAFTA and impose import tariffs;that's the only way.
And get rid of illegals.