US CEOs enjoy 40% pay rise

[Traitorfish]

So then what good is a middle class? Why even have a middle class?

Could you define what you mean by "middle class", here? It's a very ambiguous term, especially when regional variation is taken into account.

 

[Crezth]

Could you define what you mean by "middle class", here? It's a very ambiguous term, especially when regional variation is taken into account.

Good question. I suppose I mean it in the sense that it's normally used in America, but you'd be hard-pressed to obtain a concrete definition from me. Sorry.

 

[Pangur Bán]

In America "middle class" basically means "everyone who isn't either super poor or super rich", basically everyone from factory workers to ordinary doctors and lawyers.

 

[Traitorfish]

Good question. I suppose I mean it in the sense that it's normally used in America, but you'd be hard-pressed to obtain a concrete definition from me. Sorry.

In that case, leaving the semantics aside, would you be able to elaborate on your question to Luiz? I'm interested to know what you're getting at when you talk about the "good" of these social strata.

 

[Murky]

Could you define what you mean by "middle class", here? It's a very ambiguous term, especially when regional variation is taken into account.

The USA, what most people consider "middle-class" are people who earn enough to live comfortably and still have enough left over to save for retirement. I think before inflation kicked in, it was people making more than $75,000/year and less than 250,000. The cost of living is a lot higher here than a lot of other places so $75k probably sounds like a lot but it's not when compared to the millions the top 1% are making.

 

[downtown]

In America "middle class" basically means "everyone who isn't either super poor or super rich", basically everyone from factory workers to ordinary doctors and lawyers.

I think for practical purposes, we say it's those with an income level between 45,000-90,000ish, depending on where you live, and your family size.

These are the people who are experiencing stagnant wage growth, which is a *really big* problem for the US. When everybody could just throw stuff on credit (which they did for the 80s and 90s), one could still have purchasing power with stagnant wage. Now that those days of reckoning are here, we don't have a strong consumer base anymore.

The demise of manufacturing has a *lot* to do with this, but it hurts even a lot of educated, white collar workers. Somebody with my job responsibilities and education would be doing MUCH better (in the US) 15 years ago.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I think for practical purposes, we say it's those with an income level between 45,000-90,000ish, depending on where you live, and your family size.

These are the people who are experiencing stagnant wage growth, which is a *really big* problem for the US. When everybody could just throw stuff on credit (which they did for the 80s and 90s), one could still have purchasing power with stagnant wage. Now that those days of reckoning are here, we don't have a strong consumer base anymore.

The demise of manufacturing has a *lot* to do with this, but it hurts even a lot of educated, white collar workers. Somebody with my job responsibilities and education would be doing MUCH better (in the US) 15 years ago.

I understand the need everyone has to fix things for analysis, but I think in practice "middle class" has a much broader meaning than that in actual usage. An experienced freelance construction supervisor can rake in twice this figure in a good year and would still be middle class, while a 20- or 30-something with a college degree in an unskilled service job earning less could also be grouped in the category.

 

[downtown]

I understand the need everyone has to fix things for analysis, but I think in practice "middle class" has a much broader meaning than that in actual usage. An experienced freelance construction supervisor can rake in twice this figure in a good year and would still be middle class, while a 20- or 30-something with a college degree in an unskilled service job earning less could also be grouped in the category.

I understand that there is an American propensity to do that, but I don't think it should be the case. If your income is wildly above or below that range, you aren't buying the same products, and you won't have the same policy concerns as somebody in that bracket. We're just afraid to call ourselves rich or poor.

If you're making six figures, and you don't live on the east coast, California, or Chicago, you're really above middle class. It's okay.

 

[Traitorfish]

I understand the need everyone has to fix things for analysis, but I think in practice "middle class" has a much broader meaning than that in actual usage. An experienced freelance construction supervisor can rake in twice this figure in a good year and would still be middle class, while a 20- or 30-something with a college degree in an unskilled service job earning less could also be grouped in the category.

I think the latter example owes more to the baggage of upbringing than to any real socioeconomic factors. If Pittance-Hireling A is "middle class" because they have a degree and a certain accent, and Pittance-Hireling B is "working class" because they have a high school diploma and another accent, then I don't think that the distinction being made is one of real sociological significance. As Crezth comment's implied that what s/he referred to as the "middle class" was to be conceived of a discrete social stratum with a particular social function, then we can presume that we're dealing with a socioeconomic rather than cultural definition.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I think the latter example owes more to the baggage of upbringing than to any real socioeconomic factors. If Pittance-Hireling A is "middle class" because they have a degree and a certain accent, and Pittance-Hireling B is "working class" because they have a high school diploma and another accent, then I don't think that the distinction being made is one of real sociological significance. As Crezth comment's implied that what s/he referred to as the "middle class" was to be conceived of a discrete social stratum with a particular social function, then we can presume that we're dealing with a socioeconomic rather than cultural definition.

What you dismiss contemptuously as "baggage of upbringing" is a how actual Americans using actual English use the term ... and it has nothing to do with accent (that's an English thing). To translate from American into British, Middle Class=Working Class +Middle Class -ghetto and trailer park dwellers.

 

[Crezth]

In that case, leaving the semantics aside, would you be able to elaborate on your question to Luiz? I'm interested to know what you're getting at when you talk about the "good" of these social strata.

I suppose, if I had to define it, the middle class are the majority of consumers and producers in a modern post-industrial economy. They are also a segment of society that is, speaking in generalities, capable of "graduating" to the upper class (often thought of as the highest income earners, but are more accurately the job creators, executives, and successful entrepreneurs).

A massive income gap would decrease the extent to which the middle class are capable of moving up, which is the most important factor in identifying the middle class. This is theoretical but seems intuitive, and, of course, ignores some of the subtleties of social mobility. But this is the essence of what I'm trying to get at: if you have a large income gap, bridging that gap becomes impossible for most people, even if those people work hard.

 

[Traitorfish]

What you dismiss contemptuously as "baggage of upbringing" is a how actual Americans using actual English use the term ... and it has nothing to do with accent (that's an English thing). To translate from American into British, Middle Class=Working Class +Middle Class -ghetto and trailer park dwellers.

I'm aware of that, yes, I'm just trying to steer this back round to the original point, which was about the question which Czreth asked Luiz about the utility of what s/he called the "middle class". How it's used in conversational American isn't really that important.

I suppose, if I had to define it, the middle class are the majority of consumers and producers in a modern post-industrial economy. They are also a segment of society that is, speaking in generalities, capable of "graduating" to the upper class (often thought of as the highest income earners, but are more accurately the job creators, executives, and successful entrepreneurs).

A massive income gap would decrease the extent to which the middle class are capable of moving up, which is the most important factor in identifying the middle class. This is theoretical but seems intuitive, and, of course, ignores some of the subtleties of social mobility. But this is the essence of what I'm trying to get at: if you have a large income gap, bridging that gap becomes impossible for most people, even if those people work hard.

Right, that's a workable definition (although we should probably set aside the idea of "job-creators", because that's a contentious point.) So what do you mean when you talk about the "good" of this stratum, which I take to mean the idea that the existence of this stratum has some general utility to society as a whole, rather than just being a preferable situation for those who happen to constitute its membership?

 

[Pangur Bán]

I'm aware of that, yes, I'm just trying to steer this back round to the original point, which was about the question which Czreth asked Luiz about the utility of what s/he called the "middle class". How it's used in conversational American isn't really that important.

Funny thing, general use is probably the origin for his use of the term, so it is the only thing that is important here. Everyone can make up definitions for words if they chose to ignore actual definitions actually existing in the actual world.

 

[Traitorfish]

Funny thing, general use is probably the origin for his use of the term, so it is the only thing that is important here. Everyone can make up definitions for words if they chose to ignore actual definitions actually existing in the actual world.

That as it may be, I'm trying to get at the social stratum that he's actually addressing, so quibbling about his derivation of a particular label isn't immediately important. I'm trying to talk about the content of the question, rather than the form.

 

[Pangur Bán]

That as it may be, I'm trying to get at the social stratum that he's actually addressing, so quibbling about his derivation of a particular label isn't immediately important. I'm trying to talk about the content of the question, rather than the form.

Given that you already know what he meant (as you have asserted), is getting someone to rule on the inclusion of tiny groups on the fringes of such large categories really a priority? He's just gonna make it up ad hoc anyway and give you a unique one-off ruling, as that's what people always do when interrogated about large category boundaries.

 

[Traitorfish]

Given that you already know what he meant (as you have asserted)...

No, I said that I know what the term "middle class" means in conversational American. I didn't know what he meant by the term, which I assumed to be something more specific because of the functionalist overtones of his question. By describing the middle class as serving some "good", which I took to mean supplied some useful function to society as a whole, it's implied that it could be identified by this function, and that's what I was asking for.

...is getting someone to rule on the inclusion of tiny groups on the fringes of such large categories really a priority? He's just gonna make it up ad hoc anyway and give you a unique one-off ruling, as that's what people always do when interrogated about large category boundaries.

Well, as I said, my interest was in the original meaning of his question (Remember that? All those posts ago? ), so this isn't really important.

 

[Crezth]

Right, that's a workable definition (although we should probably set aside the idea of "job-creators", because that's a contentious point.) So what do you mean when you talk about the "good" of this stratum, which I take to mean the idea that the existence of this stratum has some general utility to society as a whole, rather than just being a preferable situation for those who happen to constitute its membership?

Well I included the bit about job-creators mainly because it's clear who I'm talking about when I say that.

A system where social mobility exists and is common or prevalent is a system that would, ideally, bear witness to a more dynamic, democratic system. Power nuclei would be harder to form and more easily dislodged. If you accept the premise that the most successful individuals also control the direction of the country (to some extent) including the conditions under which they might be considered successful, then any system where those successful individuals can and would often come from literally anywhere in society would be fundamentally more democratic than a system with zero social mobility where one class of people continues to rule between generations. And I mean this in the sense of representation in the aggregate: the total representation of all people over time.

I realize this point is a bit foggy on the details, but that's the gist of it.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I don't see a problem with "pay" increasing as stocks do. They founded the company and so get the most profit when it grows.

On the other hand, liquid cash is more worthy of scrutiny. It makes no sense that there are people who can't find jobs, or have a job and can barely get by, while government employees and corporate heads aren't expected to cut back either.

Never mind, paying your workers well can be rewarding when you consider that they can give you a recurring customer base. But hey, that'd require very simple logic, which it seems that, oddly enough, many corporate heads lack.

 

[Pangur Bán]

No, I said that I know what the term "middle class" means in conversational American.

Which, by default, is what you would assume an American in conversation would use. But we are going way off topic now ... we need to get back to learning why a tiny group of corporate magnates diverting wealth from ordinary people to themselves is actually a great thing.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well I included the bit about job-creators mainly because it's clear who I'm talking about when I say that.

A system where social mobility exists and is common or prevalent is a system that would, ideally, bear witness to a more dynamic, democratic system. Power nuclei would be harder to form and more easily dislodged. If you accept the premise that the most successful individuals also control the direction of the country (to some extent) including the conditions under which they might be considered successful, then any system where those successful individuals can and would often come from literally anywhere in society would be fundamentally more democratic than a system with zero social mobility where one class of people continues to rule between generations. And I mean this in the sense of representation in the aggregate: the total representation of all people over time.

I realize this point is a bit foggy on the details, but that's the gist of it.

Ok, so the function of this social stratum is to ensure a sort of circulation between classes, to preserve economic and political dynamism, am I understanding that correctly? And the question to Luiz is basically whether or not he considers this function to be necessary?

But we are going way off topic now ... we need to get back to learning why a tiny group of corporate magnates diverting wealth from ordinary people to themselves is actually a great thing.

The real question is whether it's a great thing, or a really great thing.