Gone with the Globalization, that is the US Middle Class

[scaredyclassic]

when you think about it, people before the 1950s had much less jazz than we do today; why, they ahd no bebop practically at all! we are much wealthier today.

[briansd1]

[quote=temeculaguy] With the exception of the lack of concubines and servants, most of us live as well as royalty did a few hundred years ago. [/quote]

Even as a kid, I had discussed this with my dad.

He said that he’d rather be a billionaire today than the Duke, Lord of the Castle of the past.

I think that royalty (those that survived revolutions) live better today than they did in the past. Their relative power over those below them is much diminished. But their ancestors were wise to give in to democratic reforms to preserve and enhance their existence.

I’m sure the Romanovs of Russia wished they had allowed a constitutional monarchy. That would have kept Russia integrated with the West and avoided decades of hardship under authoritarian Communism.

Likewise, we are better off embracing globalization because technology makes it unstoppable. Fighting it is futile.

With the right regulations that distribute income more equally in America, we can channel globalization to create wealth for all of us. And we can be an example to other countries.

China and India now understand that they need higher wages, better working conditions, and more leisure time at home to enhance consumer spending and growth. In many ways, they are following our economy path.

[briansd1]

[quote=temeculaguy] With the exception of the lack of concubines and servants, most of us live as well as royalty did a few hundred years ago. [/quote]

Even as a kid, I had discussed this with my dad.

He said that he’d rather be a billionaire today than the Duke, Lord of the Castle of the past.

I think that royalty (those that survived revolutions) live better today than they did in the past. Their relative power over those below them is much diminished. But their ancestors were wise to give in to democratic reforms to preserve and enhance their existence.

I’m sure the Romanovs of Russia wished they had allowed a constitutional monarchy. That would have kept Russia integrated with the West and avoided decades of hardship under authoritarian Communism.

Likewise, we are better off embracing globalization because technology makes it unstoppable. Fighting it is futile.

With the right regulations that distribute income more equally in America, we can channel globalization to create wealth for all of us. And we can be an example to other countries.

China and India now understand that they need higher wages, better working conditions, and more leisure time at home to enhance consumer spending and growth. In many ways, they are following our economy path.

[briansd1]

[quote=temeculaguy] With the exception of the lack of concubines and servants, most of us live as well as royalty did a few hundred years ago. [/quote]

Even as a kid, I had discussed this with my dad.

He said that he’d rather be a billionaire today than the Duke, Lord of the Castle of the past.

I think that royalty (those that survived revolutions) live better today than they did in the past. Their relative power over those below them is much diminished. But their ancestors were wise to give in to democratic reforms to preserve and enhance their existence.

I’m sure the Romanovs of Russia wished they had allowed a constitutional monarchy. That would have kept Russia integrated with the West and avoided decades of hardship under authoritarian Communism.

Likewise, we are better off embracing globalization because technology makes it unstoppable. Fighting it is futile.

With the right regulations that distribute income more equally in America, we can channel globalization to create wealth for all of us. And we can be an example to other countries.

China and India now understand that they need higher wages, better working conditions, and more leisure time at home to enhance consumer spending and growth. In many ways, they are following our economy path.

[briansd1]

[quote=temeculaguy] With the exception of the lack of concubines and servants, most of us live as well as royalty did a few hundred years ago. [/quote]

Even as a kid, I had discussed this with my dad.

He said that he’d rather be a billionaire today than the Duke, Lord of the Castle of the past.

I think that royalty (those that survived revolutions) live better today than they did in the past. Their relative power over those below them is much diminished. But their ancestors were wise to give in to democratic reforms to preserve and enhance their existence.

I’m sure the Romanovs of Russia wished they had allowed a constitutional monarchy. That would have kept Russia integrated with the West and avoided decades of hardship under authoritarian Communism.

Likewise, we are better off embracing globalization because technology makes it unstoppable. Fighting it is futile.

With the right regulations that distribute income more equally in America, we can channel globalization to create wealth for all of us. And we can be an example to other countries.

China and India now understand that they need higher wages, better working conditions, and more leisure time at home to enhance consumer spending and growth. In many ways, they are following our economy path.

[briansd1]

[quote=temeculaguy] With the exception of the lack of concubines and servants, most of us live as well as royalty did a few hundred years ago. [/quote]

Even as a kid, I had discussed this with my dad.

He said that he’d rather be a billionaire today than the Duke, Lord of the Castle of the past.

I think that royalty (those that survived revolutions) live better today than they did in the past. Their relative power over those below them is much diminished. But their ancestors were wise to give in to democratic reforms to preserve and enhance their existence.

I’m sure the Romanovs of Russia wished they had allowed a constitutional monarchy. That would have kept Russia integrated with the West and avoided decades of hardship under authoritarian Communism.

Likewise, we are better off embracing globalization because technology makes it unstoppable. Fighting it is futile.

With the right regulations that distribute income more equally in America, we can channel globalization to create wealth for all of us. And we can be an example to other countries.

China and India now understand that they need higher wages, better working conditions, and more leisure time at home to enhance consumer spending and growth. In many ways, they are following our economy path.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdrealtor]brian
i beleive they will be better off because wealth grows generation by generation unless you are a nitwit and blow it all. This demise of the middle class stuff boggles my mind and sounds like bad PR to me for the uber bears[/quote]

I’m not sure this is really true. Us baby boomers certainly inherited or will inherit more from their parents, than the generation that preceeded them.

But that’s a broad generality. There is a large and growing underclass which will inherit the exact same zero which their parents inherited. Some minority populations have never had significant assets to pass from generation to generation and there is little indication that will change any time soon.

The African-American population, which is roughly 15% of the total population currently owns only approximately 1% of the wealth. And possibly more troubling, only 1/2% more than that population owned the year after the Civil War, though it’s percentage of the total population isn’t significantly different today than it was then.

I suspect the current and intermediate future trend is/will be that as baby boomer estates get passed on, the top quintile of wealth-holders will continue to pass on larger and larger estates to their descendents. While those below that will pass on smaller estates than were passed to them by their parents.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdrealtor]brian
i beleive they will be better off because wealth grows generation by generation unless you are a nitwit and blow it all. This demise of the middle class stuff boggles my mind and sounds like bad PR to me for the uber bears[/quote]

I’m not sure this is really true. Us baby boomers certainly inherited or will inherit more from their parents, than the generation that preceeded them.

But that’s a broad generality. There is a large and growing underclass which will inherit the exact same zero which their parents inherited. Some minority populations have never had significant assets to pass from generation to generation and there is little indication that will change any time soon.

The African-American population, which is roughly 15% of the total population currently owns only approximately 1% of the wealth. And possibly more troubling, only 1/2% more than that population owned the year after the Civil War, though it’s percentage of the total population isn’t significantly different today than it was then.

I suspect the current and intermediate future trend is/will be that as baby boomer estates get passed on, the top quintile of wealth-holders will continue to pass on larger and larger estates to their descendents. While those below that will pass on smaller estates than were passed to them by their parents.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdrealtor]brian
i beleive they will be better off because wealth grows generation by generation unless you are a nitwit and blow it all. This demise of the middle class stuff boggles my mind and sounds like bad PR to me for the uber bears[/quote]

I’m not sure this is really true. Us baby boomers certainly inherited or will inherit more from their parents, than the generation that preceeded them.

But that’s a broad generality. There is a large and growing underclass which will inherit the exact same zero which their parents inherited. Some minority populations have never had significant assets to pass from generation to generation and there is little indication that will change any time soon.

The African-American population, which is roughly 15% of the total population currently owns only approximately 1% of the wealth. And possibly more troubling, only 1/2% more than that population owned the year after the Civil War, though it’s percentage of the total population isn’t significantly different today than it was then.

I suspect the current and intermediate future trend is/will be that as baby boomer estates get passed on, the top quintile of wealth-holders will continue to pass on larger and larger estates to their descendents. While those below that will pass on smaller estates than were passed to them by their parents.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdrealtor]brian
i beleive they will be better off because wealth grows generation by generation unless you are a nitwit and blow it all. This demise of the middle class stuff boggles my mind and sounds like bad PR to me for the uber bears[/quote]

I’m not sure this is really true. Us baby boomers certainly inherited or will inherit more from their parents, than the generation that preceeded them.

But that’s a broad generality. There is a large and growing underclass which will inherit the exact same zero which their parents inherited. Some minority populations have never had significant assets to pass from generation to generation and there is little indication that will change any time soon.

The African-American population, which is roughly 15% of the total population currently owns only approximately 1% of the wealth. And possibly more troubling, only 1/2% more than that population owned the year after the Civil War, though it’s percentage of the total population isn’t significantly different today than it was then.

I suspect the current and intermediate future trend is/will be that as baby boomer estates get passed on, the top quintile of wealth-holders will continue to pass on larger and larger estates to their descendents. While those below that will pass on smaller estates than were passed to them by their parents.

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdrealtor]brian
i beleive they will be better off because wealth grows generation by generation unless you are a nitwit and blow it all. This demise of the middle class stuff boggles my mind and sounds like bad PR to me for the uber bears[/quote]

I’m not sure this is really true. Us baby boomers certainly inherited or will inherit more from their parents, than the generation that preceeded them.

But that’s a broad generality. There is a large and growing underclass which will inherit the exact same zero which their parents inherited. Some minority populations have never had significant assets to pass from generation to generation and there is little indication that will change any time soon.

The African-American population, which is roughly 15% of the total population currently owns only approximately 1% of the wealth. And possibly more troubling, only 1/2% more than that population owned the year after the Civil War, though it’s percentage of the total population isn’t significantly different today than it was then.

I suspect the current and intermediate future trend is/will be that as baby boomer estates get passed on, the top quintile of wealth-holders will continue to pass on larger and larger estates to their descendents. While those below that will pass on smaller estates than were passed to them by their parents.

[sdrealtor]

So most of the poor stay poor and most of the rich stay rich. My challenge is that wealth is not a finite thing. It grows over time. So even though the richest get richer, others can still get richer too even though they may hold a smaller share of the ever increasing pie. We live in the real world not on some graph with an income distribution. I still see people better off today than a generation or two ago.

[sdrealtor]

So most of the poor stay poor and most of the rich stay rich. My challenge is that wealth is not a finite thing. It grows over time. So even though the richest get richer, others can still get richer too even though they may hold a smaller share of the ever increasing pie. We live in the real world not on some graph with an income distribution. I still see people better off today than a generation or two ago.

[sdrealtor]

So most of the poor stay poor and most of the rich stay rich. My challenge is that wealth is not a finite thing. It grows over time. So even though the richest get richer, others can still get richer too even though they may hold a smaller share of the ever increasing pie. We live in the real world not on some graph with an income distribution. I still see people better off today than a generation or two ago.

[sdrealtor]

So most of the poor stay poor and most of the rich stay rich. My challenge is that wealth is not a finite thing. It grows over time. So even though the richest get richer, others can still get richer too even though they may hold a smaller share of the ever increasing pie. We live in the real world not on some graph with an income distribution. I still see people better off today than a generation or two ago.

[Author]

Posts