Ignore Ron Paul are the new marching orders?

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl] She doesn’t seem to take into account that middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today (and even compared to some families currently on public assistance with a Section 8 grant)!
[…]
[/quote]

I could spend a whole lotta time with a point by point rebuttal here but I will just leave it at hogwash. I was there.[/quote]

Lots of us “were there” – and some of us remember it differently.

The LA Times had a very long piece a few years back about the economic difference between the “poor” of today and prior decades. It was several pages long and included very detailed research (too long for a newspaper article, really.) The main theme of the article was that the financial habits of the lower class are very different today. One reason is that today incomes are less consistent from year to year and the poor tend to overspend on luxuries during good times and get into more trouble during downturns (there was a photograph of a large Hispanic family crammed into a small room with a gigantic TV that seemed to capture the whole point pretty well.)

BG’s points are hardly “hogwash” – the personal financial habits of the lower and middle classes have changed, and not for the better. People don’t save and people buy stupid, unnecessary things more than they did thirty years ago. We can blame some of it on exploitation by creditors, marketing, etc. but, in the end, it is the individual that chooses to use credit to buy shiny rims for their car.

[Arraya]

[quote=pri_dk]
The main theme of the article was that the financial habits of the lower class are very different today.[/quote]

No doubt, everybody’s financial habits are different because it’s a different world. Corporate “profit-seeking” habits have become quite perverse and overtly predacious in many industries.

The question is; Do the “changes” in these financial habits outweigh the systemic changes that Warren laid out? According to her it’s a big fat no. Meaning, whatever increasingly bad financial habits laid out in that article(which I would love to see their methodology for quantifying this) isn’t the main driver or causal mechanism of a lower standard of living. According to Warren dollar value per segment is usually the same or lower spent a generation ago.

And that just goes right to the heart of a cultural narrative that has been around since the iron age. So it stings that quite possibly these are systemic problems and not individual “management” ones.

The “Just world myth” :

refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice, they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault

Now, the past decade of the housing bubble really really distorts this discussion because we all love the stories of the strawberry picker that heloc’d a hummer and 70 inch plasma screen TVs for every room.

Though, I would bet the lion share, at the very least, in dollar damage was done in the top 30%(Which are not the lower or middle class). NYT even ran that article that the well-to-do were much more likely to default than someone of modest means. The ones of modest means are much more likely to suck it up and take the pain – which kind of runs contrary to popular narrative(of the over-entitled lower-classes that need to be disciplined). I’m very interested in the psychology behind that, personally. 1: Why are the lower classes willing to take more pain as a group 2: Why do we give the well-to-do a pass on this.

[quote=pri_dk][ (there was a photograph of a large Hispanic family crammed into a small room with a gigantic TV that seemed to capture the whole point pretty well.)
.[/quote]

That after 18 hours a day working in the hot sun for a pittance and no benefits, the only luxury this large family had energy to enjoy is television, so they pooled money together to buy a big one?

Why does a poor person or large family in this case(which probably means multiple incomes and hence reduces the mismanagement charge) with a big screen TV indicate some obvious deep financial mismanagement issue?

[Arraya]

[quote=pri_dk]
The main theme of the article was that the financial habits of the lower class are very different today.[/quote]

No doubt, everybody’s financial habits are different because it’s a different world. Corporate “profit-seeking” habits have become quite perverse and overtly predacious in many industries.

The question is; Do the “changes” in these financial habits outweigh the systemic changes that Warren laid out? According to her it’s a big fat no. Meaning, whatever increasingly bad financial habits laid out in that article(which I would love to see their methodology for quantifying this) isn’t the main driver or causal mechanism of a lower standard of living. According to Warren dollar value per segment is usually the same or lower spent a generation ago.

And that just goes right to the heart of a cultural narrative that has been around since the iron age. So it stings that quite possibly these are systemic problems and not individual “management” ones.

The “Just world myth” :

refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice, they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault

Now, the past decade of the housing bubble really really distorts this discussion because we all love the stories of the strawberry picker that heloc’d a hummer and 70 inch plasma screen TVs for every room.

Though, I would bet the lion share, at the very least, in dollar damage was done in the top 30%(Which are not the lower or middle class). NYT even ran that article that the well-to-do were much more likely to default than someone of modest means. The ones of modest means are much more likely to suck it up and take the pain – which kind of runs contrary to popular narrative(of the over-entitled lower-classes that need to be disciplined). I’m very interested in the psychology behind that, personally. 1: Why are the lower classes willing to take more pain as a group 2: Why do we give the well-to-do a pass on this.

[quote=pri_dk][ (there was a photograph of a large Hispanic family crammed into a small room with a gigantic TV that seemed to capture the whole point pretty well.)
.[/quote]

That after 18 hours a day working in the hot sun for a pittance and no benefits, the only luxury this large family had energy to enjoy is television, so they pooled money together to buy a big one?

Why does a poor person or large family in this case(which probably means multiple incomes and hence reduces the mismanagement charge) with a big screen TV indicate some obvious deep financial mismanagement issue?

[Arraya]

[quote=pri_dk]
The main theme of the article was that the financial habits of the lower class are very different today.[/quote]

No doubt, everybody’s financial habits are different because it’s a different world. Corporate “profit-seeking” habits have become quite perverse and overtly predacious in many industries.

The question is; Do the “changes” in these financial habits outweigh the systemic changes that Warren laid out? According to her it’s a big fat no. Meaning, whatever increasingly bad financial habits laid out in that article(which I would love to see their methodology for quantifying this) isn’t the main driver or causal mechanism of a lower standard of living. According to Warren dollar value per segment is usually the same or lower spent a generation ago.

And that just goes right to the heart of a cultural narrative that has been around since the iron age. So it stings that quite possibly these are systemic problems and not individual “management” ones.

The “Just world myth” :

refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice, they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault

Now, the past decade of the housing bubble really really distorts this discussion because we all love the stories of the strawberry picker that heloc’d a hummer and 70 inch plasma screen TVs for every room.

Though, I would bet the lion share, at the very least, in dollar damage was done in the top 30%(Which are not the lower or middle class). NYT even ran that article that the well-to-do were much more likely to default than someone of modest means. The ones of modest means are much more likely to suck it up and take the pain – which kind of runs contrary to popular narrative(of the over-entitled lower-classes that need to be disciplined). I’m very interested in the psychology behind that, personally. 1: Why are the lower classes willing to take more pain as a group 2: Why do we give the well-to-do a pass on this.

[quote=pri_dk][ (there was a photograph of a large Hispanic family crammed into a small room with a gigantic TV that seemed to capture the whole point pretty well.)
.[/quote]

That after 18 hours a day working in the hot sun for a pittance and no benefits, the only luxury this large family had energy to enjoy is television, so they pooled money together to buy a big one?

Why does a poor person or large family in this case(which probably means multiple incomes and hence reduces the mismanagement charge) with a big screen TV indicate some obvious deep financial mismanagement issue?

[Arraya]

[quote=pri_dk]
The main theme of the article was that the financial habits of the lower class are very different today.[/quote]

No doubt, everybody’s financial habits are different because it’s a different world. Corporate “profit-seeking” habits have become quite perverse and overtly predacious in many industries.

The question is; Do the “changes” in these financial habits outweigh the systemic changes that Warren laid out? According to her it’s a big fat no. Meaning, whatever increasingly bad financial habits laid out in that article(which I would love to see their methodology for quantifying this) isn’t the main driver or causal mechanism of a lower standard of living. According to Warren dollar value per segment is usually the same or lower spent a generation ago.

And that just goes right to the heart of a cultural narrative that has been around since the iron age. So it stings that quite possibly these are systemic problems and not individual “management” ones.

The “Just world myth” :

refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice, they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault

Now, the past decade of the housing bubble really really distorts this discussion because we all love the stories of the strawberry picker that heloc’d a hummer and 70 inch plasma screen TVs for every room.

Though, I would bet the lion share, at the very least, in dollar damage was done in the top 30%(Which are not the lower or middle class). NYT even ran that article that the well-to-do were much more likely to default than someone of modest means. The ones of modest means are much more likely to suck it up and take the pain – which kind of runs contrary to popular narrative(of the over-entitled lower-classes that need to be disciplined). I’m very interested in the psychology behind that, personally. 1: Why are the lower classes willing to take more pain as a group 2: Why do we give the well-to-do a pass on this.

[quote=pri_dk][ (there was a photograph of a large Hispanic family crammed into a small room with a gigantic TV that seemed to capture the whole point pretty well.)
.[/quote]

That after 18 hours a day working in the hot sun for a pittance and no benefits, the only luxury this large family had energy to enjoy is television, so they pooled money together to buy a big one?

Why does a poor person or large family in this case(which probably means multiple incomes and hence reduces the mismanagement charge) with a big screen TV indicate some obvious deep financial mismanagement issue?

[Arraya]

[quote=pri_dk]
The main theme of the article was that the financial habits of the lower class are very different today.[/quote]

No doubt, everybody’s financial habits are different because it’s a different world. Corporate “profit-seeking” habits have become quite perverse and overtly predacious in many industries.

The question is; Do the “changes” in these financial habits outweigh the systemic changes that Warren laid out? According to her it’s a big fat no. Meaning, whatever increasingly bad financial habits laid out in that article(which I would love to see their methodology for quantifying this) isn’t the main driver or causal mechanism of a lower standard of living. According to Warren dollar value per segment is usually the same or lower spent a generation ago.

And that just goes right to the heart of a cultural narrative that has been around since the iron age. So it stings that quite possibly these are systemic problems and not individual “management” ones.

The “Just world myth” :

refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is fundamentally just. As a result, when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice, they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault

Now, the past decade of the housing bubble really really distorts this discussion because we all love the stories of the strawberry picker that heloc’d a hummer and 70 inch plasma screen TVs for every room.

Though, I would bet the lion share, at the very least, in dollar damage was done in the top 30%(Which are not the lower or middle class). NYT even ran that article that the well-to-do were much more likely to default than someone of modest means. The ones of modest means are much more likely to suck it up and take the pain – which kind of runs contrary to popular narrative(of the over-entitled lower-classes that need to be disciplined). I’m very interested in the psychology behind that, personally. 1: Why are the lower classes willing to take more pain as a group 2: Why do we give the well-to-do a pass on this.

[quote=pri_dk][ (there was a photograph of a large Hispanic family crammed into a small room with a gigantic TV that seemed to capture the whole point pretty well.)
.[/quote]

That after 18 hours a day working in the hot sun for a pittance and no benefits, the only luxury this large family had energy to enjoy is television, so they pooled money together to buy a big one?

Why does a poor person or large family in this case(which probably means multiple incomes and hence reduces the mismanagement charge) with a big screen TV indicate some obvious deep financial mismanagement issue?

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
BG’s points are hardly “hogwash” – the personal financial habits of the lower and middle classes have changed, and not for the better. People don’t save and people buy stupid, unnecessary things more than they did thirty years ago. We can blame some of it on exploitation by creditors, marketing, etc. but, in the end, it is the individual that chooses to use credit to buy shiny rims for their car.[/quote]

You’ll note that I didn’t copy her entire comment. Some of it was insightful. But some of it was obviously influenced by her ideological disdain for current consumerism. The parts that I think are hogwash:

“middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today”.

Keep in mind she didn’t say lower class, she said middle class. No references to the poor. I think there is some pretty strong evidence with regards to the poor, however, over that same period, the gap between those that have, and those that don’t has been pretty consistenly widening. Today, the bottom half of the population (income and asset wise) controls only 2.5% of the total wealth in this country. I have a recollection of statistics indicating that in 1980 that number was closer to 10%. (That 10% could be wrong, I’ll find the time to verify shortly.)

I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, the schools i went to were a mixture of lower-middle class to a very small minortiy of upper middle class. (There were a handful of “rich” people.) Times were different then. We didn’t have cable or flat screen TVs. But the vast majority of my friends had color TVs. (My family didn’t have one until AFTER I graduated from high school in 1973.) They drove new cars. Some of them had their new cars repossessed. At least 1/2 of the mothers of my peer group worked some out of the home, as mine did, 3 or 4 days a week. Was it as lavish a lifestyle as my kids grew up with? Relatively so. Mine grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood, with new cars and cell phones and flat screen TVs. Although my kids didn’t have any of those things, and neither did their parents. I drive a 12 year old car, havent had a new car since 1994. I’ve had a cell phone for work for two decades, but my wife didn’t have one until probably 8 or 9 years ago. And the flat screen TV? We got one last year. First one.

“There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care.”

Of course there were standards. Otherwise I couldn’t have known people that flunked out. Were they standard across all districts? I have no idea. But in the SD city school there were certainly standards that were maintained in my middle class high school. I knew a dozen kids who had to take summer school AFTER graduation in order to get their diploma. And a handful more that didn’t get theirs. I don’t know much about teacher’s favorites. But I do know about jocks. We had to take the exact same coursework, the same tests, the same attendance requirements. We did get to miss some classes on game or meet days in order to get to a 3:00 game sometimes. And the star athletes? Same thing. I wasn’t one of them. But my wombmate was. So I pretty much know how the stars were treated first hand. No shoddy attendance allowed. No missed homework. (And to dispel another myth, college was no different. I’m sure there are situations where star athletes got special treatment, but that doesn’t mean all of them did. My brother didn’t. The most special thing he ever got was a good referral for a job doing contruction clean-up. At minimum wage. That he got paid for only if he worked. No special treatment by professors, no waivers on tests. And he was a star. The best player on the 2nd most popular campus sport, team MVP, league MVP, honorable mention all-american. On campus, that wouldn’t get him more than a phone number from a cute girl. Not even a cup of coffee.)

“There were no health or dental plans in place for children.”

In the context of the discussion about the middle class, I’m not sure what this refers to. We had medical insurance. Most everyone did. Policies looked different than they do today, but it wasn’t any worse coverage. True on the dental insurance. As a practical matter, that was invented in the ’80s.

The title IX stuff, i agree. No idea how that fits into the discussion.

“Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. Blah Blah Blah”

Highly exaggerated, she’s describing 1955, not 1975. But in general, it’s correct that father’s rights have expanded over the last 35 years. But again, I have no idea how this fits into the argument that she’s making. Even accepting it as absolute truth, I’m not sure how it’s the least bit supportive of the thesis that today’s middle class is different than the middle class of 1975.

And just to be clear, I am not disputing that today’s middle class is different from that of 1975. Or even that past rampant consumerism is a significant factor in today’s bleak economy. Just that the facts that she’s presented are either inaccurate, broad generalizations without evidence, or simply not supportive of her thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
BG’s points are hardly “hogwash” – the personal financial habits of the lower and middle classes have changed, and not for the better. People don’t save and people buy stupid, unnecessary things more than they did thirty years ago. We can blame some of it on exploitation by creditors, marketing, etc. but, in the end, it is the individual that chooses to use credit to buy shiny rims for their car.[/quote]

You’ll note that I didn’t copy her entire comment. Some of it was insightful. But some of it was obviously influenced by her ideological disdain for current consumerism. The parts that I think are hogwash:

“middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today”.

Keep in mind she didn’t say lower class, she said middle class. No references to the poor. I think there is some pretty strong evidence with regards to the poor, however, over that same period, the gap between those that have, and those that don’t has been pretty consistenly widening. Today, the bottom half of the population (income and asset wise) controls only 2.5% of the total wealth in this country. I have a recollection of statistics indicating that in 1980 that number was closer to 10%. (That 10% could be wrong, I’ll find the time to verify shortly.)

I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, the schools i went to were a mixture of lower-middle class to a very small minortiy of upper middle class. (There were a handful of “rich” people.) Times were different then. We didn’t have cable or flat screen TVs. But the vast majority of my friends had color TVs. (My family didn’t have one until AFTER I graduated from high school in 1973.) They drove new cars. Some of them had their new cars repossessed. At least 1/2 of the mothers of my peer group worked some out of the home, as mine did, 3 or 4 days a week. Was it as lavish a lifestyle as my kids grew up with? Relatively so. Mine grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood, with new cars and cell phones and flat screen TVs. Although my kids didn’t have any of those things, and neither did their parents. I drive a 12 year old car, havent had a new car since 1994. I’ve had a cell phone for work for two decades, but my wife didn’t have one until probably 8 or 9 years ago. And the flat screen TV? We got one last year. First one.

“There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care.”

Of course there were standards. Otherwise I couldn’t have known people that flunked out. Were they standard across all districts? I have no idea. But in the SD city school there were certainly standards that were maintained in my middle class high school. I knew a dozen kids who had to take summer school AFTER graduation in order to get their diploma. And a handful more that didn’t get theirs. I don’t know much about teacher’s favorites. But I do know about jocks. We had to take the exact same coursework, the same tests, the same attendance requirements. We did get to miss some classes on game or meet days in order to get to a 3:00 game sometimes. And the star athletes? Same thing. I wasn’t one of them. But my wombmate was. So I pretty much know how the stars were treated first hand. No shoddy attendance allowed. No missed homework. (And to dispel another myth, college was no different. I’m sure there are situations where star athletes got special treatment, but that doesn’t mean all of them did. My brother didn’t. The most special thing he ever got was a good referral for a job doing contruction clean-up. At minimum wage. That he got paid for only if he worked. No special treatment by professors, no waivers on tests. And he was a star. The best player on the 2nd most popular campus sport, team MVP, league MVP, honorable mention all-american. On campus, that wouldn’t get him more than a phone number from a cute girl. Not even a cup of coffee.)

“There were no health or dental plans in place for children.”

In the context of the discussion about the middle class, I’m not sure what this refers to. We had medical insurance. Most everyone did. Policies looked different than they do today, but it wasn’t any worse coverage. True on the dental insurance. As a practical matter, that was invented in the ’80s.

The title IX stuff, i agree. No idea how that fits into the discussion.

“Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. Blah Blah Blah”

Highly exaggerated, she’s describing 1955, not 1975. But in general, it’s correct that father’s rights have expanded over the last 35 years. But again, I have no idea how this fits into the argument that she’s making. Even accepting it as absolute truth, I’m not sure how it’s the least bit supportive of the thesis that today’s middle class is different than the middle class of 1975.

And just to be clear, I am not disputing that today’s middle class is different from that of 1975. Or even that past rampant consumerism is a significant factor in today’s bleak economy. Just that the facts that she’s presented are either inaccurate, broad generalizations without evidence, or simply not supportive of her thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
BG’s points are hardly “hogwash” – the personal financial habits of the lower and middle classes have changed, and not for the better. People don’t save and people buy stupid, unnecessary things more than they did thirty years ago. We can blame some of it on exploitation by creditors, marketing, etc. but, in the end, it is the individual that chooses to use credit to buy shiny rims for their car.[/quote]

You’ll note that I didn’t copy her entire comment. Some of it was insightful. But some of it was obviously influenced by her ideological disdain for current consumerism. The parts that I think are hogwash:

“middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today”.

Keep in mind she didn’t say lower class, she said middle class. No references to the poor. I think there is some pretty strong evidence with regards to the poor, however, over that same period, the gap between those that have, and those that don’t has been pretty consistenly widening. Today, the bottom half of the population (income and asset wise) controls only 2.5% of the total wealth in this country. I have a recollection of statistics indicating that in 1980 that number was closer to 10%. (That 10% could be wrong, I’ll find the time to verify shortly.)

I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, the schools i went to were a mixture of lower-middle class to a very small minortiy of upper middle class. (There were a handful of “rich” people.) Times were different then. We didn’t have cable or flat screen TVs. But the vast majority of my friends had color TVs. (My family didn’t have one until AFTER I graduated from high school in 1973.) They drove new cars. Some of them had their new cars repossessed. At least 1/2 of the mothers of my peer group worked some out of the home, as mine did, 3 or 4 days a week. Was it as lavish a lifestyle as my kids grew up with? Relatively so. Mine grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood, with new cars and cell phones and flat screen TVs. Although my kids didn’t have any of those things, and neither did their parents. I drive a 12 year old car, havent had a new car since 1994. I’ve had a cell phone for work for two decades, but my wife didn’t have one until probably 8 or 9 years ago. And the flat screen TV? We got one last year. First one.

“There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care.”

Of course there were standards. Otherwise I couldn’t have known people that flunked out. Were they standard across all districts? I have no idea. But in the SD city school there were certainly standards that were maintained in my middle class high school. I knew a dozen kids who had to take summer school AFTER graduation in order to get their diploma. And a handful more that didn’t get theirs. I don’t know much about teacher’s favorites. But I do know about jocks. We had to take the exact same coursework, the same tests, the same attendance requirements. We did get to miss some classes on game or meet days in order to get to a 3:00 game sometimes. And the star athletes? Same thing. I wasn’t one of them. But my wombmate was. So I pretty much know how the stars were treated first hand. No shoddy attendance allowed. No missed homework. (And to dispel another myth, college was no different. I’m sure there are situations where star athletes got special treatment, but that doesn’t mean all of them did. My brother didn’t. The most special thing he ever got was a good referral for a job doing contruction clean-up. At minimum wage. That he got paid for only if he worked. No special treatment by professors, no waivers on tests. And he was a star. The best player on the 2nd most popular campus sport, team MVP, league MVP, honorable mention all-american. On campus, that wouldn’t get him more than a phone number from a cute girl. Not even a cup of coffee.)

“There were no health or dental plans in place for children.”

In the context of the discussion about the middle class, I’m not sure what this refers to. We had medical insurance. Most everyone did. Policies looked different than they do today, but it wasn’t any worse coverage. True on the dental insurance. As a practical matter, that was invented in the ’80s.

The title IX stuff, i agree. No idea how that fits into the discussion.

“Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. Blah Blah Blah”

Highly exaggerated, she’s describing 1955, not 1975. But in general, it’s correct that father’s rights have expanded over the last 35 years. But again, I have no idea how this fits into the argument that she’s making. Even accepting it as absolute truth, I’m not sure how it’s the least bit supportive of the thesis that today’s middle class is different than the middle class of 1975.

And just to be clear, I am not disputing that today’s middle class is different from that of 1975. Or even that past rampant consumerism is a significant factor in today’s bleak economy. Just that the facts that she’s presented are either inaccurate, broad generalizations without evidence, or simply not supportive of her thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
BG’s points are hardly “hogwash” – the personal financial habits of the lower and middle classes have changed, and not for the better. People don’t save and people buy stupid, unnecessary things more than they did thirty years ago. We can blame some of it on exploitation by creditors, marketing, etc. but, in the end, it is the individual that chooses to use credit to buy shiny rims for their car.[/quote]

You’ll note that I didn’t copy her entire comment. Some of it was insightful. But some of it was obviously influenced by her ideological disdain for current consumerism. The parts that I think are hogwash:

“middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today”.

Keep in mind she didn’t say lower class, she said middle class. No references to the poor. I think there is some pretty strong evidence with regards to the poor, however, over that same period, the gap between those that have, and those that don’t has been pretty consistenly widening. Today, the bottom half of the population (income and asset wise) controls only 2.5% of the total wealth in this country. I have a recollection of statistics indicating that in 1980 that number was closer to 10%. (That 10% could be wrong, I’ll find the time to verify shortly.)

I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, the schools i went to were a mixture of lower-middle class to a very small minortiy of upper middle class. (There were a handful of “rich” people.) Times were different then. We didn’t have cable or flat screen TVs. But the vast majority of my friends had color TVs. (My family didn’t have one until AFTER I graduated from high school in 1973.) They drove new cars. Some of them had their new cars repossessed. At least 1/2 of the mothers of my peer group worked some out of the home, as mine did, 3 or 4 days a week. Was it as lavish a lifestyle as my kids grew up with? Relatively so. Mine grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood, with new cars and cell phones and flat screen TVs. Although my kids didn’t have any of those things, and neither did their parents. I drive a 12 year old car, havent had a new car since 1994. I’ve had a cell phone for work for two decades, but my wife didn’t have one until probably 8 or 9 years ago. And the flat screen TV? We got one last year. First one.

“There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care.”

Of course there were standards. Otherwise I couldn’t have known people that flunked out. Were they standard across all districts? I have no idea. But in the SD city school there were certainly standards that were maintained in my middle class high school. I knew a dozen kids who had to take summer school AFTER graduation in order to get their diploma. And a handful more that didn’t get theirs. I don’t know much about teacher’s favorites. But I do know about jocks. We had to take the exact same coursework, the same tests, the same attendance requirements. We did get to miss some classes on game or meet days in order to get to a 3:00 game sometimes. And the star athletes? Same thing. I wasn’t one of them. But my wombmate was. So I pretty much know how the stars were treated first hand. No shoddy attendance allowed. No missed homework. (And to dispel another myth, college was no different. I’m sure there are situations where star athletes got special treatment, but that doesn’t mean all of them did. My brother didn’t. The most special thing he ever got was a good referral for a job doing contruction clean-up. At minimum wage. That he got paid for only if he worked. No special treatment by professors, no waivers on tests. And he was a star. The best player on the 2nd most popular campus sport, team MVP, league MVP, honorable mention all-american. On campus, that wouldn’t get him more than a phone number from a cute girl. Not even a cup of coffee.)

“There were no health or dental plans in place for children.”

In the context of the discussion about the middle class, I’m not sure what this refers to. We had medical insurance. Most everyone did. Policies looked different than they do today, but it wasn’t any worse coverage. True on the dental insurance. As a practical matter, that was invented in the ’80s.

The title IX stuff, i agree. No idea how that fits into the discussion.

“Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. Blah Blah Blah”

Highly exaggerated, she’s describing 1955, not 1975. But in general, it’s correct that father’s rights have expanded over the last 35 years. But again, I have no idea how this fits into the argument that she’s making. Even accepting it as absolute truth, I’m not sure how it’s the least bit supportive of the thesis that today’s middle class is different than the middle class of 1975.

And just to be clear, I am not disputing that today’s middle class is different from that of 1975. Or even that past rampant consumerism is a significant factor in today’s bleak economy. Just that the facts that she’s presented are either inaccurate, broad generalizations without evidence, or simply not supportive of her thesis.

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk]
BG’s points are hardly “hogwash” – the personal financial habits of the lower and middle classes have changed, and not for the better. People don’t save and people buy stupid, unnecessary things more than they did thirty years ago. We can blame some of it on exploitation by creditors, marketing, etc. but, in the end, it is the individual that chooses to use credit to buy shiny rims for their car.[/quote]

You’ll note that I didn’t copy her entire comment. Some of it was insightful. But some of it was obviously influenced by her ideological disdain for current consumerism. The parts that I think are hogwash:

“middle-class families in 1975 lived a VERY spartan lifestyle compared to MC families of today”.

Keep in mind she didn’t say lower class, she said middle class. No references to the poor. I think there is some pretty strong evidence with regards to the poor, however, over that same period, the gap between those that have, and those that don’t has been pretty consistenly widening. Today, the bottom half of the population (income and asset wise) controls only 2.5% of the total wealth in this country. I have a recollection of statistics indicating that in 1980 that number was closer to 10%. (That 10% could be wrong, I’ll find the time to verify shortly.)

I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, the schools i went to were a mixture of lower-middle class to a very small minortiy of upper middle class. (There were a handful of “rich” people.) Times were different then. We didn’t have cable or flat screen TVs. But the vast majority of my friends had color TVs. (My family didn’t have one until AFTER I graduated from high school in 1973.) They drove new cars. Some of them had their new cars repossessed. At least 1/2 of the mothers of my peer group worked some out of the home, as mine did, 3 or 4 days a week. Was it as lavish a lifestyle as my kids grew up with? Relatively so. Mine grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood, with new cars and cell phones and flat screen TVs. Although my kids didn’t have any of those things, and neither did their parents. I drive a 12 year old car, havent had a new car since 1994. I’ve had a cell phone for work for two decades, but my wife didn’t have one until probably 8 or 9 years ago. And the flat screen TV? We got one last year. First one.

“There were no real “standards” to graduate from a public HS – the “teacher’s favorites” and “jocks” graduated doing almost no work and with a bad attendance record. There was no afterschool care.”

Of course there were standards. Otherwise I couldn’t have known people that flunked out. Were they standard across all districts? I have no idea. But in the SD city school there were certainly standards that were maintained in my middle class high school. I knew a dozen kids who had to take summer school AFTER graduation in order to get their diploma. And a handful more that didn’t get theirs. I don’t know much about teacher’s favorites. But I do know about jocks. We had to take the exact same coursework, the same tests, the same attendance requirements. We did get to miss some classes on game or meet days in order to get to a 3:00 game sometimes. And the star athletes? Same thing. I wasn’t one of them. But my wombmate was. So I pretty much know how the stars were treated first hand. No shoddy attendance allowed. No missed homework. (And to dispel another myth, college was no different. I’m sure there are situations where star athletes got special treatment, but that doesn’t mean all of them did. My brother didn’t. The most special thing he ever got was a good referral for a job doing contruction clean-up. At minimum wage. That he got paid for only if he worked. No special treatment by professors, no waivers on tests. And he was a star. The best player on the 2nd most popular campus sport, team MVP, league MVP, honorable mention all-american. On campus, that wouldn’t get him more than a phone number from a cute girl. Not even a cup of coffee.)

“There were no health or dental plans in place for children.”

In the context of the discussion about the middle class, I’m not sure what this refers to. We had medical insurance. Most everyone did. Policies looked different than they do today, but it wasn’t any worse coverage. True on the dental insurance. As a practical matter, that was invented in the ’80s.

The title IX stuff, i agree. No idea how that fits into the discussion.

“Divorced and unwed dads never got custody of their children, even if the mom was a flake, drug addict, prostitute or all three. Blah Blah Blah”

Highly exaggerated, she’s describing 1955, not 1975. But in general, it’s correct that father’s rights have expanded over the last 35 years. But again, I have no idea how this fits into the argument that she’s making. Even accepting it as absolute truth, I’m not sure how it’s the least bit supportive of the thesis that today’s middle class is different than the middle class of 1975.

And just to be clear, I am not disputing that today’s middle class is different from that of 1975. Or even that past rampant consumerism is a significant factor in today’s bleak economy. Just that the facts that she’s presented are either inaccurate, broad generalizations without evidence, or simply not supportive of her thesis.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] So it stings that quite possibly these are systemic problems and not individual “management” ones. [/quote]

I agree that these are systemic problems. Groups of humans can be influenced to behave in certain ways.

But some individuals, through strength of character, can definitely transcend societal influences.

I personally think that we should limit and ban advertizing. I don’t see how product advertizing is a free speech issue.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] So it stings that quite possibly these are systemic problems and not individual “management” ones. [/quote]

I agree that these are systemic problems. Groups of humans can be influenced to behave in certain ways.

But some individuals, through strength of character, can definitely transcend societal influences.

I personally think that we should limit and ban advertizing. I don’t see how product advertizing is a free speech issue.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] So it stings that quite possibly these are systemic problems and not individual “management” ones. [/quote]

I agree that these are systemic problems. Groups of humans can be influenced to behave in certain ways.

But some individuals, through strength of character, can definitely transcend societal influences.

I personally think that we should limit and ban advertizing. I don’t see how product advertizing is a free speech issue.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya] So it stings that quite possibly these are systemic problems and not individual “management” ones. [/quote]

I agree that these are systemic problems. Groups of humans can be influenced to behave in certain ways.

But some individuals, through strength of character, can definitely transcend societal influences.

I personally think that we should limit and ban advertizing. I don’t see how product advertizing is a free speech issue.

[Author]

Posts