The fact is that American workers (some of whom think of themselves as 'middle class') *should* be wealthier than they are because they are so much more productive now than they have ever been. But the wages-system prevents that from occuring and we all simply must kowtow to the wages-system because it is the best of all possible worlds.
By wealthier, I don't mean trinket-wealthier e.g. shiney new SUVs to transport individual wage-slavers in comfort through the traffic jams to their points of production or paying more for safer, better islands of education in a cesspool of 'free' market choices. They should be wealthier in the sense that they should have more *time* for themeselves, their families and their friends and be devoting less time to the mostly meanlingless, money grubbing tasks that the employing class have them doing. Imagine what a four hour day would do in terms of quality time for their kids--including caring, help with school work. Commdification has made consciousness cheap along with everything else, most especially, our lives. Regards, Mike B) --- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > September 4, 2003/New York TIMES > ECONOMIC SCENE > The No-Frills Middle Class > By JEFF MADRICK > > THE booming economy of the 1990's spawned many a > spurious piece of > conventional wisdom. One is that Americans' > materialism has run amok. > > Americans from all walks of life, the story goes, > are spending with > abandon on fancy and unnecessary products. Many > people on the political > right welcome this as evidence of how high the > standard of living really > is in the United States, despite slow-growing wages > for three decades. > Some on the left claim the indulgent materialism is > using up the > economy's resources while serious social problems > are left unsolved. > > Similarly, many economists argue that "affluenza" > has pushed too many > Americans deeply into debt and produced a savings > rate too low to > sustain prosperity without the piling up of > mountains of foreign debt. > > There is little doubt that some Americans are > spending ostentatiously. > But this Labor Day week it is appropriate to debunk > the > oversimplification. As Elizabeth Warren and Amelia > Warren Tyagi > convincingly claim, most Americans do not fit the > bill. What is driving > Americans into debt, they argue, is not superficial > luxury spending but > necessities. > > If they perhaps push the point too far in their new > book, "The > Two-Income Trap" (Basic Books), they provide a > clear-eyed correction to > the myth of far-flung affluence. > > The fact is that it is not only the poor and working > poor who are not > faring well in America. Many of those in the middle, > especially > two-income families, are having trouble making ends > meet, despite the > boom of the 1990's. > > Part of the distortion about where American working > families stand today > is that we tend to think of a standard of living as > measured in the > physical goods we own. The conservative analysts W. > Michael Cox and > Richard Alm, in their 1999 book "Myths of Rich and > Poor," asserted that > Americans were buying a lot more goods like Gap > clothes, Nike sneakers > and VCR's, and the standard of living was improving > faster than the data > suggested. But the book conspicuously ignored the > costs of education and > health care, and put a misleading spin on housing. > > Yes, the costs of food and clothing have risen more > slowly than median > family incomes, and the costs of electronic products > have fallen > rapidly. But the costs of what it really takes to be > middle class today > - education, health care, housing, drugs - rose much > faster than median > family incomes. According to federal data, for > example, my own > calculations show that nominal family incomes rose > by about 5.5 percent > a year from 1973 to 2000, but the cost of health > care rose nearly 8 > percent a year, and the cost of higher education 6.5 > percent. > > Ms. Warren and Ms. Tyagi make the point vividly, > however. Ms. Warren is > a professor at Harvard Law School, and Ms. Tyagi is > a management > consultant. They are mother and daughter. > > The authors find that despite the popular notions > about overconsumption, > a typical family spends less on clothing today, > discounted for > inflation, than in the early 1970's. Similarly, it > spends less on large > appliances and on food, including going out to > restaurants. As for > vacation homes, the data suggest that 3.2 percent of > families had them > in 1973, and that 4 percent do now. Is this > affluenza? > > Rather, what families spend a lot more on, the > authors calculate, is a > house in a safe neighborhood with a good school - > about 70 percent more > a year, discounted for inflation, for the typical > family of four. The > scarcity of good schooling has created a bidding war > that drives up > house prices in first-rate school districts. > > And these families are not buying huge new homes. > The average home size > has been skewed upward by the wealthy. The typical > family's house is, in > fact, only a half room or so larger than it was 30 > years ago. > > The other factors driving spending are largely the > costs of the > two-income family. The authors find that typical > payments for day care > and preschool for two children can add enormously to > the household > budget. > > Two workers also make a second car a necessity, and > often a good second > car. > > Also, the cost of health insurance is often up, even > when spouses work, > because corporate benefit plans are demanding higher > employee > contributions. For the typical family of four, it is > up by 60 percent. > > And two incomes often mean a substantial increase in > taxes because the > family moves into a higher tax bracket. > > The upshot is that two-income families often have > even less income left > over today than did an equivalent single-income > family 30 years ago, > even when they make almost twice as much. And they > go deeper in debt. > The authors find that it is not the free-spending > young or the > incapacitated elderly who are declaring bankruptcy > so much as families > with children. > > The authors' suggestions for how to solve the > problems are not > conventionally liberal. They call for vouchers for > the total cost of > public education; tuition freezes at colleges rather > than more federal > financing; and tax breaks for all savings. > > Not all of these are practical. > > And Ms. Warren and Ms. Tyagi draw too fine a point > here and there. There > is surely some mere status-seeking in sending a > child to the right day > care institution and living in the right > neighborhood. > > They also justify too readily the purchase of an > expensive car as the > family's second vehicle. > > But their main thesis is undeniable. Typical > families often cannot > afford the high-quality education, health care and > neighborhoods > required to be middle class today. > > More clearly than anyone else, I think, Ms. Warren > and Ms. Tyagi have > shown how little attention the nation and our > government have paid to > the way Americans really live. > > ------------------------ > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine ===== ***************************************************************** "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity." Albert Einstein http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
