I completely agree with Reeves: the US has a class structure with built-in advantages that few of us would acknowledge. However, many of us progressives are acutely aware that we are lucky, in addition to doing the work required to maintain our place. And it is hard to maintain that place, particularly for our kids, who must play the game very hard or fall back.
267
Americans are falling en masse into a classic human trap -- mistaking a secondary indicator for the thing itself. And it will take us much further down that this if we remain willfully ignorant of the situation.
The ultimately erroneous belief that one can buy ANYTHING -- a favored bit of capitalistic catechism -- is leading us all astray. What begins as simply providing for one's children -- food, shelter, a tutoring session here and there -- warps itself into the faith that simply throwing money at a task is the solution. One cannot buy nutrition, a true home, or an education. One must actively construct things things, working to earn every morsel of food, safety, and knowledge. Only then are they truely owned by the individual in question.
Yes, capitalism (untainted) is the best way we have yet devised to find a quantifiable way to trade goods and services. But to assume that everything is for sale, is ultimately to assume that merit -- or even forgiveness and acceptance -- can be purchased. And if I'm not mistaken, a few centuries ago, when society took this bad idea to its absurd endpoint, it ultimately fed and sparked a very bloody Reformation.
Do we really want to relive this lesson with automatic weapons?
The ultimately erroneous belief that one can buy ANYTHING -- a favored bit of capitalistic catechism -- is leading us all astray. What begins as simply providing for one's children -- food, shelter, a tutoring session here and there -- warps itself into the faith that simply throwing money at a task is the solution. One cannot buy nutrition, a true home, or an education. One must actively construct things things, working to earn every morsel of food, safety, and knowledge. Only then are they truely owned by the individual in question.
Yes, capitalism (untainted) is the best way we have yet devised to find a quantifiable way to trade goods and services. But to assume that everything is for sale, is ultimately to assume that merit -- or even forgiveness and acceptance -- can be purchased. And if I'm not mistaken, a few centuries ago, when society took this bad idea to its absurd endpoint, it ultimately fed and sparked a very bloody Reformation.
Do we really want to relive this lesson with automatic weapons?
153
Here's the problem I have with your obviously well-thought-out article, sir-
You don't live here. You are basing your entire essay not on personal experience, but from some broad sheet, and statistics.
Come and live here for a year in a bunch of places - New York City, Hoboken, Dayton, Dallas, Ft. Lauderdale, New Mexico, San Francisco, Seattle, Omaha.
Do some real research. Talk to people. See how they live. Ask questions. Be a reporter. Get dirty, get sweaty. Hang out in the ghettos. Hang out at the country clubs. Hang out at the ball games with the middle-class and lower-middle class.
Then write.
And I'll read.
You don't live here. You are basing your entire essay not on personal experience, but from some broad sheet, and statistics.
Come and live here for a year in a bunch of places - New York City, Hoboken, Dayton, Dallas, Ft. Lauderdale, New Mexico, San Francisco, Seattle, Omaha.
Do some real research. Talk to people. See how they live. Ask questions. Be a reporter. Get dirty, get sweaty. Hang out in the ghettos. Hang out at the country clubs. Hang out at the ball games with the middle-class and lower-middle class.
Then write.
And I'll read.
201
No apologies here. My parents, immigrants, worked their fingers to the bone and saved in order to send me to college as did my husband's. We lived modestly for years while paying off his med school loans and trying to build a practice. He also got himself into an Ivy League school without legacy for undergrad as did our son who not only was accepted by my husband's alma mater but chucked it to go to an even higher ranked Ivy League without legacy.
You are wrong Mr. Reeves. Legacy candidates are only accepted if they have equivalent grades/scores to other admission candidates. (I have two other children who were not accepted).
Furthermore, $200,000 is a nice income but when you live in the New York metropolitan area where housing and taxes are through the roof and you pay for your own astronomical health insurance if you are self-employed, being "comfortable" has been earned. Maybe you ought to return to your socialist England. Here the American spirit is alive and well. It has attracted immigrants worldwide for its' freedom and opportunity since its' inception. Anybody can make it to the upper middle class if you try. We are not a land of Kings and Queens from whence you came!
You are wrong Mr. Reeves. Legacy candidates are only accepted if they have equivalent grades/scores to other admission candidates. (I have two other children who were not accepted).
Furthermore, $200,000 is a nice income but when you live in the New York metropolitan area where housing and taxes are through the roof and you pay for your own astronomical health insurance if you are self-employed, being "comfortable" has been earned. Maybe you ought to return to your socialist England. Here the American spirit is alive and well. It has attracted immigrants worldwide for its' freedom and opportunity since its' inception. Anybody can make it to the upper middle class if you try. We are not a land of Kings and Queens from whence you came!
273
I couldn't agree more. The "pretending to not be rich phenomenon" is not just different in the U.S relative to the U.K., but also different in the U.S relative to the rest of the world. For those of you (including NYT picks!) who have made snide comments on how accent makes a difference in the U.K. but not here - my head is shaking in disbelief. Try having a "black" accent and talk on the phone for renting an apartment or fixing an appointment with a service prodvider. Then come back and tell us about accents.
515
The resort community in which I live is a good example of what's up. 3 out of 4 homes are empty 8 or 9 months of the year, while people go without a place to live. These 2 or 3rd homeowners are oblivious to the privileged lives they lead.
They don't think they're rich because they don't have the 8 million dollar beachfront palace.
Remember, about 50% of Americans do NOT even have an extra $500 for an emergency. Put that in your pipe.
They don't think they're rich because they don't have the 8 million dollar beachfront palace.
Remember, about 50% of Americans do NOT even have an extra $500 for an emergency. Put that in your pipe.
375
I grew up in a dysfunctional family of 8 children with an alcoholic father. I left home at 16. My husband lost both parents before his 17th birthday.
My oldest daughter is a CPA and a business owner along with her husband. My middle daughter is a Social Worker and my son is a Union Electrician. We taught them the only lessons we could, morals, empathy, civic duty and a strong work ethic.
There, but for the grace of God, go I.
My oldest daughter is a CPA and a business owner along with her husband. My middle daughter is a Social Worker and my son is a Union Electrician. We taught them the only lessons we could, morals, empathy, civic duty and a strong work ethic.
There, but for the grace of God, go I.
170
Over 1700 comments!
The bulk of the ones I've read are along the line of "I fit the type, but I'm not like that" or "$200K isn't that much."
The lack of self-awareness is astounding.
When the pitchforks brigades eventually come - as they always have throughout history - these folks are in for a very rude awakening.
The bulk of the ones I've read are along the line of "I fit the type, but I'm not like that" or "$200K isn't that much."
The lack of self-awareness is astounding.
When the pitchforks brigades eventually come - as they always have throughout history - these folks are in for a very rude awakening.
427
This column can be summed up as follows: Elitism is a terrible thing--until it comes to your own family.
132
The upper 20% see no class in America. Trust me when I say that the rest of us do. This fact is, to a large extent, what drove Donald Trump to victory.
Yes, there were plenty of racists in that group, and plenty of religious conservatives who long ago sold their soul to the GOP, but there were also a fair number of people like my brother, who had never voted for a republican before. It is voters like him that gave Donald Trump his victory.
Class resentment or jealousy, or whatever you want to call it is alive and well in the US, and it is to the interest of all liberals earning more than 100k a year to look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself whose side you are really on. I would wager good money that many of you would be more comfortable in a room full of Enron executives than a room full of unionized bus drivers.
Just an observation.
Yes, there were plenty of racists in that group, and plenty of religious conservatives who long ago sold their soul to the GOP, but there were also a fair number of people like my brother, who had never voted for a republican before. It is voters like him that gave Donald Trump his victory.
Class resentment or jealousy, or whatever you want to call it is alive and well in the US, and it is to the interest of all liberals earning more than 100k a year to look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself whose side you are really on. I would wager good money that many of you would be more comfortable in a room full of Enron executives than a room full of unionized bus drivers.
Just an observation.
651
There are many ways the tax code favors inherited and accumulated wealth. I am personally in favor of:
1) Taxing all dividends and interest as ordinary income
2) Eliminating the step-up basis for inherited stock
3) Eliminating the stretch IRA provision for non-spousal heirs
I see no benefit to society of these tax policies. Any economist will tell you that if you want less of something, tax it more, and vice versa.
- Why should earned income be penalized by the tax code, while unearned income is favored?
- Why should capital gains taxes be forgiven upon death when shares are bequeathed to an heir?
- I think these policies are much more significant than the political football of the estate tax / death tax (which impacts very few people).
My wife and I own stocks, including in tax-advantaged accounts. My aging father has a low 6-figure nest egg, which I have helped him set up to go to my sister and me as a stretch IRA/Roth IRA. Of course we will take advantage of the current law as written. We'd be stupid not to.
I am arguing against my own self-interest here, because I do not think the current tax policy is fair or good for society.
1) Taxing all dividends and interest as ordinary income
2) Eliminating the step-up basis for inherited stock
3) Eliminating the stretch IRA provision for non-spousal heirs
I see no benefit to society of these tax policies. Any economist will tell you that if you want less of something, tax it more, and vice versa.
- Why should earned income be penalized by the tax code, while unearned income is favored?
- Why should capital gains taxes be forgiven upon death when shares are bequeathed to an heir?
- I think these policies are much more significant than the political football of the estate tax / death tax (which impacts very few people).
My wife and I own stocks, including in tax-advantaged accounts. My aging father has a low 6-figure nest egg, which I have helped him set up to go to my sister and me as a stretch IRA/Roth IRA. Of course we will take advantage of the current law as written. We'd be stupid not to.
I am arguing against my own self-interest here, because I do not think the current tax policy is fair or good for society.
278
Most of the people who are angry with the author exhibit a lack of understanding of what the concept of "class" means in England. The author rightly finds our system very different from his.
In America we have tiers he we call classes:
• poor
• blue collar working class
• white collar working class
• white collar professionals
• The wealthy (say) over $300K
• the rich (say over $10M in assets)
• the uber rich (forget numbers, we know who they are
England still has the remnants of a class structure that once reflected aristocracy, landed wealth and a disdain for urban money.
The British system was (and to some extent still is) marked by different strata:
• the unban poor
• the rural poor
• the "working class”
• the urban trade/clerical class (lower middle in UK parlance)
• the English "Middle Class" Barristers, Bankers, Professors, etc
• The county aristocracy/squireocracy with sizeable properties and old houses
• Real money from "the City" and serious entrepreneurial ventures
• Actual aristocrats who may or may not have any money
• Royals
In America we have tiers he we call classes:
• poor
• blue collar working class
• white collar working class
• white collar professionals
• The wealthy (say) over $300K
• the rich (say over $10M in assets)
• the uber rich (forget numbers, we know who they are
England still has the remnants of a class structure that once reflected aristocracy, landed wealth and a disdain for urban money.
The British system was (and to some extent still is) marked by different strata:
• the unban poor
• the rural poor
• the "working class”
• the urban trade/clerical class (lower middle in UK parlance)
• the English "Middle Class" Barristers, Bankers, Professors, etc
• The county aristocracy/squireocracy with sizeable properties and old houses
• Real money from "the City" and serious entrepreneurial ventures
• Actual aristocrats who may or may not have any money
• Royals
129
No one should feel guilty for having achieved a level of income that allows them to live comfortably. And sending your child to an expensive private school does not call for shame, it is to be commended since even at $200,000 per year it is a sacrifice.
97
very amusing... but someone writing books and columns about US wealth and income inequality and failing to mention their primary cause (the astonishing stock market winnings of the investor class since 2008) ends up with wrong conclusions (most damagingly, that said wealth has been taken from the poor and given to the rich as a gobbling up of a static national wealth pie) and even worse "remedies" (most alarmingly, that government needs to redistribute those "ill-gotten" gains)... shame on you, Mr. Reeves
62
Time to read some of the thinking of the past. Try those in England in the early 1800's when it was debated whether the educated aristocracy could think for the working class and Ricardo argued for the latter's having a secret vote.
We've created a genetically selected aristocracy of the educated who have left the rest of their lower middle class surroundings behind by hard work and education only to insure their brats don't have to work as hard and have privileges that are now unavailable to most Americans. They pass their genes long together with nurture that further isolates their aristocratic pretensions.
We've created a genetically selected aristocracy of the educated who have left the rest of their lower middle class surroundings behind by hard work and education only to insure their brats don't have to work as hard and have privileges that are now unavailable to most Americans. They pass their genes long together with nurture that further isolates their aristocratic pretensions.
34
The great middle class has been dying since Reagan and now is stone dead in America. You can either be a hammer or a nail if you want to stay in this country--no third option.
What's your choice?
What's your choice?
79
The comments illustrate both the problem with American society and the problem with the article. Many people not in the top 20% equate an income of $200K a year as equivalent to having private school and chauffeurs. Which is is obviously not. But those in the top 20% seem to forget that 80% of Americans earn significantly less than they.
166
All good points, Mr. Revere. I would add that many of those in the upper 20% don't believe they're actually doing that well. In an America in which the Great Recession put barely a dent into Conspicuous Consumption, it amazes me that so many of those who qualify for mega-mortgages believe that they are 'struggling' — they have no idea what economic struggle really is. I teach an undergraduate course on Class & Media in which we look at the economic quintiles for class differentiation. The students are usually stunned to find that their families actually are in 60-80% quintile or above.
361
My parents, both children of immigrants, worked hard and were lucky and smart. As a kid, we didn't have much; I learned to ride a bike on the big green bike that had been passed down from the cousins, and that I and my siblings all shared. I worked my way through state university for undergrad, but by the time I went to grad school my parents could basically pay -- but I still got a teaching assistantship that waived tuition and made it easier.
Because of that, I am comfortable. I stood on their shoulders. They are comfortably retired, and I can have peace of mind knowing that they will remain ok for the rest of their lives.
I don't forget that, how lucky we are.
Because of that, I am comfortable. I stood on their shoulders. They are comfortably retired, and I can have peace of mind knowing that they will remain ok for the rest of their lives.
I don't forget that, how lucky we are.
98
A meaningless article. Give up the 529 plan and the mortgage deduction? Sure, happy to. But remember, I used the 529 proceeds to pay full boat at private school, while others received tens of thousands in scholarship. Did I pay for those scholarships with 529 money? Most likely. It was a roundabout way for the government to give money to those "lower class" students. The real estate brokers, attorneys, and local government taxes all would have suffered without my mortgage deduction. I ask, what is wrong with my "high" salary after having put myself through school with loans, paying the loans back, and working hard and long hours? Since when is this an affront to mankind? The tortured, quasi-academic treatment of this topic is short-sighted and inadequate.
156
Many people seem to be objecting to the author's statement that $200,000 is the average income of those in the top 20%. I didn't find this misleading at all as the author was quite clear what he was saying. What should disturb us more, however, is that so many people apparently in the top 20% of income earners don't understand the concept of "average." So much for the theory that intelligence or education correlates with earnings!
114
It used to be that the up and coming aspired to become millionaires--as far off a goal as that seemed to be at the time. Remember the "first million by forty" adage? Now the goal has been moved to billionaire status--a much harder lift but seemingly more possible due to the young tech success stories. It is my belief that companies large and small have become so much harder on and less generous with their workers all in service to this goal for the principals. No one is willing to accept having "enough"---unless "enough" means billions.
164
Mr. Reeves' numbers are very misleading. The 90th (not 80th! percentile of family income in this country is about $100,000 (not $200k). If the essay's statement that the upper 20th percentile averages $200k is correct, it merely shows how skewed the distribution is to very high incomes. One might agree that $200k per year qualifies as well off, but only a small percentage of Americans reach this level of income.
55
..."there have been failed attempts to make zoning laws more inclusive in supposedly liberal cities like Seattle and states like California and Massachusetts."
I don't know about CA and MA, but the city of Seattle's alleged "inclusivity" zoning agenda is a PR veneer to drive increased density only into areas that have been solidly middle and lower class single-family neighborhoods for decades: a bald-faced giveaway to developers in places where long-time modest-means Seattleites still maintain a toe-hold. To save "progressive" face, they require developers to designate a token number of units "affordable" yet allow them to opt-out by paying additional fees, which they usually do. Neighborhood resistance has been erroneously portrayed as hostility to inclusivity.
Our mayor's "Housing Affordability & Livability Agenda" group recently had the gall to call single family home zones "inherently racist". The "tell" that reveals their hypocrisy is the city's latest rezone map, where the real exclusionary agenda is obvious: the city's wealthiest enclaves are spared density up-zones. The official rationalization: "we need density in the transit corridors" & "urban villages"; areas which recently experienced numerous eminent domain takings to serve this same social engineering agenda.
The way my city has fudged its way around the disparities caused by the tsunami of tech and investment wealth flooding in these last 10 years is a case study in wealthy neo-liberal self-delusion.
I don't know about CA and MA, but the city of Seattle's alleged "inclusivity" zoning agenda is a PR veneer to drive increased density only into areas that have been solidly middle and lower class single-family neighborhoods for decades: a bald-faced giveaway to developers in places where long-time modest-means Seattleites still maintain a toe-hold. To save "progressive" face, they require developers to designate a token number of units "affordable" yet allow them to opt-out by paying additional fees, which they usually do. Neighborhood resistance has been erroneously portrayed as hostility to inclusivity.
Our mayor's "Housing Affordability & Livability Agenda" group recently had the gall to call single family home zones "inherently racist". The "tell" that reveals their hypocrisy is the city's latest rezone map, where the real exclusionary agenda is obvious: the city's wealthiest enclaves are spared density up-zones. The official rationalization: "we need density in the transit corridors" & "urban villages"; areas which recently experienced numerous eminent domain takings to serve this same social engineering agenda.
The way my city has fudged its way around the disparities caused by the tsunami of tech and investment wealth flooding in these last 10 years is a case study in wealthy neo-liberal self-delusion.
123
I attended my 25th reunion at Harvard four years ago. In the reporting of the class survey, 52% of the respondents stated that they sent their children to public schools. In the belief that this number was something to be proud of, class members gave an extended applause when the statistic was revealed on the auditorium's screen. I did not applaud, as I could only think of the 48% who believed that public school was not good enough for their children.
81
I was VERY against Bernie Sanders desire to make college free, for many reasons, but mostly because we need to work on making elementary school a great experience no matter your zip code. Schools being funded largely by property taxes is bad fuel economy, so to speak.
The upper middle class, who wouldn't want to be part of it?
We should not punish the middle and the upper middle, we need to keep people there, they feed the economy more than anyone, they make it possible through the service economy to lift those in the working classes and those in poverty..
The upper middle class, who wouldn't want to be part of it?
We should not punish the middle and the upper middle, we need to keep people there, they feed the economy more than anyone, they make it possible through the service economy to lift those in the working classes and those in poverty..
48
Data I checked indicated (for 2016) households making $200k and above accounted for less than 8 percent of total. Misleading implication that 20 percent of households make over 200k undercuts entire article.
30
The part of the article you are reffering to is perhaps confusing or vague, but not false. I quote: "This favored fifth at the top of the income distribution, with an average annual household income of $200,000". This does not implicate a $200,000+ income for the top 20 percent but rather an average figure for this percentage. Nonetheless i agree with you that some people may be mislead by this phrase.
38
You've understood the article incorrectly. The article states the average (average and mean are the same thing) income of the top quintile is $200k - it is correct: (the number of interest here is $202,366 for 2015)
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quintiles
What you have understood the article to say is that the $200k mark is the bottom of the fifth quintile. Completely different thing...
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-quintiles
What you have understood the article to say is that the $200k mark is the bottom of the fifth quintile. Completely different thing...
31
There seems to be some confusion between "class" and "income." Why are we still referring to "class" when in fact, what we are really talking about is "income." You can still be upper-class with a poverty level income, and conversely, you can be "low-class," but make ten million dollars a year. I"m not sure what "class" means these days, but it certainly has nothing to do with elocution lessons and dancing school. I try to avoid using "class since no one brags about being low-class, but, I have no trouble calling a "spade a spade," when it comes to income. What really confuses me is that in NYC "upper middle" income has the purchasing power of "middle income" in other parts of the country. Class doesn't pay the bills, but ten million dollars income a year will probably get you into the country club.
46
I agree that we need to be more class conscious. The mortgage deduction encourages home ownership, but also rewards wealthy home owners. I think the interest upper bound deduction of $1 million is too large and incentivizes home building to be about $500k. If it could be reduced to interest on $300k and keep the loan equity deduction of $100k would help lower-middle home builders and buyers.
Back to the class consciousness, Tocqueville was right we notice any visible difference among our neighbors. But the sub-urban spread of America physically separates the classes by dozens of miles.
Back to the class consciousness, Tocqueville was right we notice any visible difference among our neighbors. But the sub-urban spread of America physically separates the classes by dozens of miles.
31
This is an old theme in those who study comparative political science. In Britain, as well as the other English-speaking Commonwealth democracies, there has always been an implicit presumption (admittedly more honoured at some times than at others) that with wealth, rank and privilege came the responsibility to ensure the well-being of the community as a whole. It is a concept at least as old as Thomas Hobbe's Leviathon. As a political movement its followers are often referred to as "Red Tories."
For those observing American politics from the outside, one can't help but notice the absence of this particular view in the American spectrum. I was particularly struck by a supposed centralist like Jon Ossoff and his explicit rejection of a single-payer health care system. The benefits such a system brings to the community are so breath-takingly obvious, and on full display in other industrial democracies. And yet, so many Americans seem to hold the deep rooted belief that a decent, affordable and accessable system of public health care is a "bad" thing - is it because queue-jumping by the wealthy is more difficult in such a system?
Yes -- wealthy Americans do work to better their communities, but it seems to be viewed as a personal choice rather than a social obligation. Perhaps it has to do with the American rugged individualist mythology -- whatever the case there is an utterly different dynamic at work here.
For those observing American politics from the outside, one can't help but notice the absence of this particular view in the American spectrum. I was particularly struck by a supposed centralist like Jon Ossoff and his explicit rejection of a single-payer health care system. The benefits such a system brings to the community are so breath-takingly obvious, and on full display in other industrial democracies. And yet, so many Americans seem to hold the deep rooted belief that a decent, affordable and accessable system of public health care is a "bad" thing - is it because queue-jumping by the wealthy is more difficult in such a system?
Yes -- wealthy Americans do work to better their communities, but it seems to be viewed as a personal choice rather than a social obligation. Perhaps it has to do with the American rugged individualist mythology -- whatever the case there is an utterly different dynamic at work here.
338
To the extent that there is any ethical deliberation, it usually results in a justification along the lines of “Well, maybe it’s wrong, but everyone’s doing it.”
What a glib and offhand affront to any parent (all of them?) who, understandably, will make the decisions they can afford that will offer the best potential outcome for their kids!
We do not have kids (thankfully) but if we did I’m not sure what Mr. Reeves is suggesting — that we send our kids to an underperforming public school just to make a point?
There are a lot of things that individuals can do to try to make a difference in the world - conserve resources, be kind, volunteer and donate to charities - but implying that kids may be used as a tool of social policy is not one of them.
What a glib and offhand affront to any parent (all of them?) who, understandably, will make the decisions they can afford that will offer the best potential outcome for their kids!
We do not have kids (thankfully) but if we did I’m not sure what Mr. Reeves is suggesting — that we send our kids to an underperforming public school just to make a point?
There are a lot of things that individuals can do to try to make a difference in the world - conserve resources, be kind, volunteer and donate to charities - but implying that kids may be used as a tool of social policy is not one of them.
36
gsteve,
It sure seems as though you don't mind the children of those of lesser means being used as "tools of social policy" considering those are the kids left behind in the underfunded public schools.
It sure seems as though you don't mind the children of those of lesser means being used as "tools of social policy" considering those are the kids left behind in the underfunded public schools.
54
US immigrants and their second-generation offspring account for over 40% of the S&P 500 with the total GDP exceeding all economies except China and Japan. And they are accepted by America's upper class and celebrated by American society even--despite their accents. Can these thing be said about the UK, or any other nation?
41
Don't look at me! This household has never even skirted the $200,000 mark. But I can afford a subscription to the NYT.
I think you make a great point. I am in the middle. Most of my friends are well south of $60K-$80K per annum, a few are well above $200K. I list to the latter and realize they need to do a little more volunteer work and get some gratitude.
I think you make a great point. I am in the middle. Most of my friends are well south of $60K-$80K per annum, a few are well above $200K. I list to the latter and realize they need to do a little more volunteer work and get some gratitude.
24
I am a mentor with the Take Stock in Children program which pays for the college education of poor children who maintain certain grade requirements throughout junior high and high school. The person who started the program in this community invited his friend, Eugene Robinson, the Washington Post columnist, to come and help raise some money and speak to the participating children. For $250 one could meet Mr. Robinson and then be provided with special seating to hear his informal talk. Those who paid $40 were provided with bleacher seating in the back of the room, analogous to the interior cabins on the lower decks of cruise ships. During the course of his talk he mentioned a gathering that was happening that evening which prompted his inviter to interject that the gathering was a dinner by invitation only. Wow, I thought, that comment really rubbed in our faces the class issue. One can buy a bit of privilege but true privilege and class are not for sale.
35
I agree with some others who are surprised at the resistance and animosity shown to this article. I think it's the word "rich" that can drive folks into a frenzy. Folks complain about working 60 hours a week (good point, welcome to the club) and their debts and costs that eat away at an income of 200,000 or 300,000. So they claim they are really just middle class. The article is imperfect, but at the same time right on the mark. It says a lot about us. My measure of middle class is the number of bathrooms that you have. My family of five always had one bathroom. There was one income producer, maxing out at 62,000 for eleven months of work (yes, that's academe for many of us). But every year I got excited about the start of the year and exhausted by its end. There have been difficult times of other sorts, but financially and work-wise, I am grateful. Sometimes it seems like we are a nation of complainers.
255
I live in a resort town in the mountains. We have many wealthy part time home owners here. It was amusing to see the sham austerity they displayed after the crash of '08.
43
Yes, we are very calcified if you're talking about upward mobility, but it's not that hard to move down in the world. All you need is a random accident that keeps you home from work long enough to lose your health insurance.
83
..but if you're in the top 20 or 10% you most likely have family who can help tide you over, not to mention investment accounts you can draw on. Losing health insurance is only truly disastrous for the bottom 80%.
41
The author makes perfect sense. Let's build a bunch of social programs to lift people out of poverty. Then, when people escape poverty and attain professional success, let's eliminate programs that help them retain their status. Then, let's build a bunch of social programs to lift people out of poverty. Then....
31
Talk to me about giving up the mortgage interest deduction when the hedge fund guys don't get to treat their income as if it were capital gains ("carried interest").
68
I think a majority of Americans could be considered "rich" compared to the poverty of much of the world. That does not mean that hardship, hunger, and privation do not exist here in many places. I come from a middle class family that worked hard forever; my parochial schooling in the 40s and 50s were paid by church collections, and Temple University paid by my parents and me. I worked into my 70s, yet all my pension goes to medical insurance and we live on and pay our underwater mortgage with SS with a wobbly 401K in the margins. My kids are paying off college loans in their 40s; I worry about my grandson's college payments. Every aspect of our lives costs more and more, and I don't know what will happen when we need in-home or skilled nursing. Am I "rich"? Yes, certainly. The 20%? Probably not. Elitist white woman? NO. Never. Disparaged by jealous working-class inlaws? From day one of my marriage, as were/are my kids. But people with immense wealth whose greed promotes corporate welfare at the expense of "all the rest of us," yes, class bias. Not "American class" difference--the oligarch class, the robber barons among us, in every society and country. This is the class we need to humanize globally.
216
Most of these comments on this article are complaints based on our draconian minimum wage. When it improves we can began to think about other improvements.
24
This will get me stoned, but . . . . .
Bernie Sanders makes me sick and I say that as a bleeding heart liberal "socialist" leaning Democrat.
This clown toured the top colleges and universities in the US for over a year, holding huge rallies that were about one thing -- you, spoiled affluent white kids are not getting enough of the pie! Claiming they are victims of the system! Claiming they should be able to go to university for free! As a recent in depth NYT piece exposed the idea that these schools are anything but class conscious and catering to the elites in this country is pure bunk. Go look at who actually attends these schools, not what the glossy brochure from Yale tells you.
It's really disgusting to have Sanders standing in front of roaring huge crowds of these 20%ers railing on about how they need more! Why isn't he standing up there telling them to give more? His whole campaign was about "You white rich kids are victims of the system!" "Vote for me and I'll get you more of the pie!" Where were the bleeding heart liberal students *protesting* his disgusting pandering to the selfish narcissism he was promoting?
I commend Mr. Reeves for a well-written, incisive piece which is really truth to real power in numbers and $$$ and I am sure has many NYT readers squirming a little in their $2500 mid-century lounge chairs while they drink their $5 Starbucks passing the time until they pick up the kids from their private ballet classes.
Help others.
Bernie Sanders makes me sick and I say that as a bleeding heart liberal "socialist" leaning Democrat.
This clown toured the top colleges and universities in the US for over a year, holding huge rallies that were about one thing -- you, spoiled affluent white kids are not getting enough of the pie! Claiming they are victims of the system! Claiming they should be able to go to university for free! As a recent in depth NYT piece exposed the idea that these schools are anything but class conscious and catering to the elites in this country is pure bunk. Go look at who actually attends these schools, not what the glossy brochure from Yale tells you.
It's really disgusting to have Sanders standing in front of roaring huge crowds of these 20%ers railing on about how they need more! Why isn't he standing up there telling them to give more? His whole campaign was about "You white rich kids are victims of the system!" "Vote for me and I'll get you more of the pie!" Where were the bleeding heart liberal students *protesting* his disgusting pandering to the selfish narcissism he was promoting?
I commend Mr. Reeves for a well-written, incisive piece which is really truth to real power in numbers and $$$ and I am sure has many NYT readers squirming a little in their $2500 mid-century lounge chairs while they drink their $5 Starbucks passing the time until they pick up the kids from their private ballet classes.
Help others.
69
Thanks for writing this. Every time Sanders yaps on about the working class, he's only thinking of white men. He's said several times that women's reproductive rights are not a core issue! When having control over when and how many children one has is THE determinate of a woman's economic life.
And all those privileged elitists who still worship him are part of the problem, not the solution, wasting their votes on a dead gorilla or brain-dead Stein, relying on my vote to save them from the consequences of their own.
And all those privileged elitists who still worship him are part of the problem, not the solution, wasting their votes on a dead gorilla or brain-dead Stein, relying on my vote to save them from the consequences of their own.
41
Of course there have always been several class divisions in the U.S. That is hardly new; however, there is a significant difference between how upward mobility is viewed in the two nations. In America, if you come from a poor background and make it to the 1 percent, you're a hero, almost a godlike figure. Think Oprah Winfrey or Bill Gates. In Britain, if you work your way up to become rich, people sneer at you. Think the Middletons or David and Victoria Beckham. Also, Brits have a pretty limited choice for getting the kind of education that can spur that rise in class. If you're not Ox-bridge, well, forget it.
14
Bill Gates didn't come from a poor background.
36
"In America, if you come from a poor background and make it to the 1 percent, you're a hero, almost a godlike figure. Think Oprah Winfrey or Bill Gates."
Wikipedia: He is the son of William H. Gates Sr.[b] (born 1925) and Mary Maxwell Gates (1929–1994). His father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way . . . .
47
"My wife claims they resurface when I drink, but she doesn’t know what she’s talking about — she’s American." And yet the writer decided to move to the States with all the dumb-because-they-are-Americans. Why does this paper pay for this tripe? Why doesn't he just go back to England if we Americans are so blind and dumb? Every country has deepening class divisions and I think most all Americans know there are class divisions in their country. They don't need this uprooted Brit pointing out the obvious.
23
He was joking. Of course she can tell the difference between his normal and inebriated English accents. He's intentionally being a weasel by claiming that no American can tell the difference. He's showing us he has a sense of humor
before he gets down to serious analysis.
Reeves is obviously not feeling uprooted. In this case, his perspective as an American citizen who has grown up somewhere else may help us to better
see ourselves. I don't think he'll take your advice for an Amerexit.
before he gets down to serious analysis.
Reeves is obviously not feeling uprooted. In this case, his perspective as an American citizen who has grown up somewhere else may help us to better
see ourselves. I don't think he'll take your advice for an Amerexit.
55
What's really disgusting is when the top 20% uses the lower 80% to get votes and then systematically steals from them.
94
What would you have me do?
You bullies insist I "acknowledge my privilege," whatever that means.
I donate my time to helping people less fortunate than myself. I don't donate money, I don't give change to the homeless.
So take your high-mindedness, your holier-than-thou rhetoric, and pound sand with it.
And I'll keep my 529 capital gains, because that's just a program that makes sense.
You bullies insist I "acknowledge my privilege," whatever that means.
I donate my time to helping people less fortunate than myself. I don't donate money, I don't give change to the homeless.
So take your high-mindedness, your holier-than-thou rhetoric, and pound sand with it.
And I'll keep my 529 capital gains, because that's just a program that makes sense.
28
Well, avoid living in a gated, homogenous community. Send your children to public schools and work to improve them.
7
@David :
I think you are precisely the intended target of this article.
I think you are precisely the intended target of this article.
45
If you think a newspaper article qualifies as bullying, you're leading rather a sheltered life. Which only goes to Mr. Reeves's point, doesn't it?
52
The author has put his finger on "the" defining social characteristic in our America -- the inability to see ourselves as we really are, our an embrace of a civic myth near exclusively elevated, principled, virtuous, from which it follows we inhabit neither our past nor our present; a consequence, the newly arrived either pretend, or worse to internalize the "lie", so that they may, in appearance, belong.
A measure of civil maturity, my claim the most important measure, is that to fully own what is genuinely virtuous, one must own the shameful, the abhorrent, as well.
By this measure we are a profoundly immature society.
But given a space such as this exists there is room to hope and a way forward.
A measure of civil maturity, my claim the most important measure, is that to fully own what is genuinely virtuous, one must own the shameful, the abhorrent, as well.
By this measure we are a profoundly immature society.
But given a space such as this exists there is room to hope and a way forward.
150
I would agree that the $200K crowd needs to accept that they are not part of the holi poli. That after their posh suburban house and private school for the kids there is not much left over is head slappingly obtuse. But one cannot diminish what has been going on at the top of the distribution. Yes, the top 20% make on *average* 200K but the *cut off* for the top 20% is only 120K. The average of the top half of this group is over twice that of the bottom. The top quarter makes 6 times that of the bottom quarter. The "top 20%" most definitely don't all go to the same country club.
33
Don't tell me about the shortcomings of the upper class -- tell me how to join it!
21
@roger: "Don't tell me about the shortcomings of the upper class -- tell me how to join it!"
I think he's pointing out that you already have.
I think he's pointing out that you already have.
8
Mr Reeves, to borrow your own phrase, "You don't know what you are talking about - you're British." You have pointed out some of the mechanisms by which familial wealth and privilege are perpetuated in the USA, and imply that taking advantage of those things while maintaining a liberal political outlook makes one a hypocrite. The republicans, who are little more than Czarists, are the dominant force giving credence to the myth of a meritocracy in the USA. But for one who recognizes the truth, what are the alternative options to participating in a rigged game? Corporate serfdom, or minimum wage slavery? Your queen is symbolic. Our royal class is disguised by rhetoric, but is very real, and very dangerous.
28
Very perceptive article, thank you. But admitting class privilege is almost as hard as admitting racial bias. We Americans need to spend more time looking in the mirror held up by writers/researchers like yourself on both of these divides.
357
The class system works and it's not going away.....it's a zero/sum game. Grow up.
6
Take note, New York Times readers, he's talking about you.
22
Very good, and important... The "NYT Picks" comments at this moment are quick to point out that the UK has essentially no meritocracy, while the US at least has some. Born in the 50's, I'm a beneficiary of The American Dream, but fear it's dissolved/regressed in my lifetime, much as Mr. Reeves is describing. Too, and perhaps even more pernicious, the evisceration of the middle class is in concert with the destruction of cultural values: What's wrong with being 'comfortably' middle class, without having to strive for a vacuous, uber-materialistic, celebrity-engorged lifestyle?
23
the NYTimes is a newspaper for liberals and "progressives". There is no reason to make mistakes through carelessness. For example, Mr. Reeves correctly points out that progressives are hypocrites in the sense that they use legacy preferences and donations to help their offspring obtain admission into the best schools. He is correct that such behavior is contrary to the principles of a meritocratic system. He's basically totally right. So why are the liberals making these mistakes of principle through their own carelessness? Maybe these people are not really believers in meritocracy. I will use a reductio ad absurdum argument to prove it. Suppose they were meritocrats. Then they would not use unfair advantages for their offspring.. Since they do use such, we can conclude that they are not believers in meritocracy. Quod erat demonstrandum.
12
Op-eds like this always get a lot of comments from the 'I worked myself up from working-poor nothing to the upper-whatever, and if I did it from nothing so can everybody else' set. They basically feel that if the working poor are not on their way to becoming them, that they are stupid, lazy, and undeserving.
In the past, working people got a level of acceptance and appreciation, if not respect. Somebody has to pick up the garbage, clean your house, etc., after all. Now these same people get nothing but contempt. How stupid could you be if all you can do is pick up the garbage? And they get threats if they dare ask for more pay or better treatment. We're going to automate or AI this job and where will you be then?
I've seen this change in my lifetime. Picking up on a point in this piece, IIRC Jimmy Carter sent his daughter to DC public school. I don't expect to see it change again.
In the past, working people got a level of acceptance and appreciation, if not respect. Somebody has to pick up the garbage, clean your house, etc., after all. Now these same people get nothing but contempt. How stupid could you be if all you can do is pick up the garbage? And they get threats if they dare ask for more pay or better treatment. We're going to automate or AI this job and where will you be then?
I've seen this change in my lifetime. Picking up on a point in this piece, IIRC Jimmy Carter sent his daughter to DC public school. I don't expect to see it change again.
43
Picking up the garbage is a good job and may even come with a pension.
15
What is wrong with earning class status through hard honest work and rising above the masses living on stipends because of laziness?
Falling by the wayside as a result of illnesses and adverse conditions not searched for by the misfortuned deserves solidarity from the "lucky ones", but becoming lucky is not a handgiven thing: it arrives through personal effort and dedication to construct a fair society for everyone putting forth an effort, one is ready to accept luck when it comes by.
Falling by the wayside as a result of illnesses and adverse conditions not searched for by the misfortuned deserves solidarity from the "lucky ones", but becoming lucky is not a handgiven thing: it arrives through personal effort and dedication to construct a fair society for everyone putting forth an effort, one is ready to accept luck when it comes by.
11
this is such an important discussion, on so many levels, and I thank the author for the article.
While class in America is not identied in the same way as it is in Britain, it does exist. While I was in England some years ago, a friend said to me, after I made a joke, "You have a typical middle-class sense of humor." I was stung by this- it seemed like a putdown to put my witticism into a class category. I thought, "We don't have this in America." Later, thinking about her, I realized she was a wealthy upper middle class woman, possibly aspiring to but not capable of achieving a higher class stature. So that same class structure she was imposing on me was something she was actively suffering from, whereas I was without such a concept, just having fun being whoever I was, in my own mind at least without such references. Though our obsession with fame, ostentacious displays of wealth, mimicry of the aristocracy does imprision some of us, by and large at least in our minds, we can be free. Agreeing with another comment, the line here is race, not class. That is where the suffering in the US lands most heavily.
While class in America is not identied in the same way as it is in Britain, it does exist. While I was in England some years ago, a friend said to me, after I made a joke, "You have a typical middle-class sense of humor." I was stung by this- it seemed like a putdown to put my witticism into a class category. I thought, "We don't have this in America." Later, thinking about her, I realized she was a wealthy upper middle class woman, possibly aspiring to but not capable of achieving a higher class stature. So that same class structure she was imposing on me was something she was actively suffering from, whereas I was without such a concept, just having fun being whoever I was, in my own mind at least without such references. Though our obsession with fame, ostentacious displays of wealth, mimicry of the aristocracy does imprision some of us, by and large at least in our minds, we can be free. Agreeing with another comment, the line here is race, not class. That is where the suffering in the US lands most heavily.
12
Reeves is a bought-and-sold, lickspittle, lackey, apologist shill for the 0.1%.
The objectives of his op-ed are: (1) to transfer the sins of the 0.1% to the 80th through 99th percentiiles, and (2) to deny that the 0.1% is the US ruling class by conflating the total economic domination and total political control of the 0.1% with the much more modest comforts and zero political voice of the 80th through 99.9% percentiles.
The objectives of his op-ed are: (1) to transfer the sins of the 0.1% to the 80th through 99th percentiiles, and (2) to deny that the 0.1% is the US ruling class by conflating the total economic domination and total political control of the 0.1% with the much more modest comforts and zero political voice of the 80th through 99.9% percentiles.
20
Well, I'm sure you've convinced everyone reading this. Would you like to share any information that the rest of us lack?
6
@RHE: I think you completely missed Reeves' major point: that the top 20% in fact -- but unknowingly -- benefit from many of the same opportunities the 0.1% exploit.
10
American capitalism is marching rapidly towards its final phase before dissolution. The rich have learned to blend in wearing Jeans and t-shirt and pretend to be just like the others. But the reality is that American life-style is far from being an "shinning city on the hill that the world envies" as described by Comey. With the majority of people ("the 99%") being just an employee with little means or hope of competing with the mega corporations that the system has created which have ravaged family and small business. Forcing people to work long stressful shifts and spending hours and hours in traffic and and not being able to take real vacations, except maybe a week a couple of times a year while taking in all the profits for Wall Street! I'd say if Carl Marx was alive today he would should out "look at all these proletarians"!!! The rich want you to be in debt, with a useless college degree, have no health insurance pay more taxes them so you stay a modern slave happy with a cell phone upgrade (which you can't even afford to buy cash and need a two year plan contract):) So go figure!! This is not going to last...
24
Stop pretending class has nothing to do with race.
6
Stop pretending it's all about race when it's about class.
9
Possibly in a reverse sense. Many (not all) 'racists' might(?) be primarily class bigots. If the poor were disproportionately white, and rich disproportionately black (rather than the reverse, as presently), there'd be a different dynamic.
(I suppose, on the other hand, if my uncle were a woman, he'd be my aunt ... or however that expression goes).
(I suppose, on the other hand, if my uncle were a woman, he'd be my aunt ... or however that expression goes).
7
Let me also add that we liberals need to stop the infighting already. You always need a healthy dose of introspection when it comes to evaluating your morals, ideals and actions but we've crossed the line into a form of insanity I just can't wrap my head around.
An incredible example: We have an Attorney General actively employing an outright racist agenda and yet we crucify an extremely contrite Bill Maher, a life-long champion of race in this country whose contribution to the debate is far from just self-serving window dressing.
We need to reflect on ourselves and re-evaluate always. I'm proud to call this a defining principal that distinguishes "us" from the "other side" who can never admit they are wrong, but we need to stop tearing each other a part at the seams every time we recognize a flaw that we're already very consciously trying to correct.
An incredible example: We have an Attorney General actively employing an outright racist agenda and yet we crucify an extremely contrite Bill Maher, a life-long champion of race in this country whose contribution to the debate is far from just self-serving window dressing.
We need to reflect on ourselves and re-evaluate always. I'm proud to call this a defining principal that distinguishes "us" from the "other side" who can never admit they are wrong, but we need to stop tearing each other a part at the seams every time we recognize a flaw that we're already very consciously trying to correct.
24
Isn't it interesting how the majority of comments left here only help to confirm the author's thesis? L.O.L.
21
I hate to ask where Mr. Reeves lives, and how much he earns. To trash people who earn 200K or above, especially many who were brought up in working class homes, is unfair as it is idiotic.
Are you suggesting that wealth not be passed down by way of inheritance? BTW, depending upon where you live, 200K isn't all that much. Not in NYC, not if you must send your children to parochial schools, not if you have a larger family.
Are you suggesting that wealth not be passed down by way of inheritance? BTW, depending upon where you live, 200K isn't all that much. Not in NYC, not if you must send your children to parochial schools, not if you have a larger family.
8
Rosalie wrote:
"200K isn't all that much...not if you must send your children to parochial schools, not if you have a larger family."
Since when "must" people send their children to parochial schools or have large families? Those are your personal choices, choices that most working people can't afford, yet you think you also deserve a mortgage and college savings credit whereas they don't?
"200K isn't all that much...not if you must send your children to parochial schools, not if you have a larger family."
Since when "must" people send their children to parochial schools or have large families? Those are your personal choices, choices that most working people can't afford, yet you think you also deserve a mortgage and college savings credit whereas they don't?
38
So just as the much maligned Chas Murray describes, in super zips the distribution of wealth is unfair. Solution in an ideal world: SJW's shriek that wealth should therefore be fairly redistributed each according to his means, and each according to his needs. And who decides?: sadly what would with best intentions be a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy - Britain in the 70's? Venezuela now?
As far as CT goes, Individuals will decide with personal mobility and leave high tax, high overhead, high minded(?) states bringing there pocket books with them. Hobbesian indeed. Profile above needs to be amended - Jacksonville FL.
As far as CT goes, Individuals will decide with personal mobility and leave high tax, high overhead, high minded(?) states bringing there pocket books with them. Hobbesian indeed. Profile above needs to be amended - Jacksonville FL.
8
Leave it the New York Times to pick the very comments that deny Mr. Reeves observations on anecdotal grounds. It doesn't really matter if it is possible to rise from one class to another in America, it matters if it is likely, and it isn't likely.
I was born to immigrants in NYC, and grew up in Greenwich Village in the 80's and 90's. My father was fortunate and became a successful while I was a child. I attended private school for much of my childhood, but all my best friends were from the neighborhood. Back then Greenwich Village was considerably more diverse, racially and socio-economically. I didn't quite realize the differences between myself and my friends until one of pointed it out when I was eight. He said: "You're spoiled." I reflexively denied this. However after some thought I decided he was right. He became my best friend. I would sleep over his house on the weekends, which was in the projects. His mom would cook me up scrambled eggs, cheese and grits in the morning for breakfast. I had never seen grits in my life. I spent a lot of time with my friends and so I got to see how different things truly were.
These days it's all I talk, my peers seem like they believe in affordable housing, but block all development. They seem to be against school segregation, unless their child has to integrate. Their friends talk like them and think like them, they congratulate themselves for their liberal sophistication, but they are really just posers.
I was born to immigrants in NYC, and grew up in Greenwich Village in the 80's and 90's. My father was fortunate and became a successful while I was a child. I attended private school for much of my childhood, but all my best friends were from the neighborhood. Back then Greenwich Village was considerably more diverse, racially and socio-economically. I didn't quite realize the differences between myself and my friends until one of pointed it out when I was eight. He said: "You're spoiled." I reflexively denied this. However after some thought I decided he was right. He became my best friend. I would sleep over his house on the weekends, which was in the projects. His mom would cook me up scrambled eggs, cheese and grits in the morning for breakfast. I had never seen grits in my life. I spent a lot of time with my friends and so I got to see how different things truly were.
These days it's all I talk, my peers seem like they believe in affordable housing, but block all development. They seem to be against school segregation, unless their child has to integrate. Their friends talk like them and think like them, they congratulate themselves for their liberal sophistication, but they are really just posers.
54
The children of the wealthy will always have better and we shouldn't seek to reduce their futures. The point should be to improve the opportunities of the lower 80%'s children. Give them a 21st century education and medical care, as well as safe neighbourhoods, schools and families. To do this, you need to tax the more affluent. And there's the rub.
10
Mr. Reeves seems not to realize that there is a world of difference between having an upper middle class income of $250,000 - $300,000 and having a net worth of $250 million, which today probably places a family in the lower ranks of America's truly rich. Its is not unusual for a couple from working class backgrounds to each earn over $100,000 as middle tier professionals by dint of public university educations and sensible life choices. Such a couple, however, could never think of purchasing even the least expensive apartment advertised in today's NYT magazine. While Mr. Reeves' observations may have some validity, he should not confuse being comfortably affluent with being rich.
33
I am one of those rarities who was raised in the bottom fifth, and who now lives in the top fifth. Hard work, extreme frugality, early and wise investments, and yes, luck, all played a part. Why should I feel guilty for this?
38
You shouldn't!!
21
Hmm... a "senior fellow at the Brookings Institution" fits right into the supposed 20% category. As do the myriad of academics championing these same ideas. What we have here is an intriguing example of someone making it through the meritocratic process while trying to deny others the same "privilege". I am curious where he sends his children and what their college saving funds are. Otherwise, this is just hypocrisy.
10
How very right you are!
4
it's actually the professional-managerial class that rules. Read Joan Williams's "The White Working Class", if you dare.
2
Class is treated like a dirty secret in this country. Years ago I worked for a politician in the US House of Representatives. He was a good man and a successful politician. All correspondence and publications intended for general cosumption were carefully reviewed. One of the major concerns of the "managing editor" for the office was that there be no explicit or implicit reference to class. "We all know these distinctions exist, but we should never be referring to them." It is politics 101 and America in a nutshell.
18
I'm glad to see the myth of the meritocracy being punctured. Layer over this critique the ways in which African-Americans are still disadvantaged by the legacy of slavery, segregation and discrimination, and you have a compelling explanation for staggering economic inequality and the self-serving rationalizations that keep us from addressing it.
22
The word you are looking for is hypocrisy. The wealthy on left have been swimming in it for decades. The wealthy on the right, tell you exactly who they are and what they are, and then quickly get behind the walls and barriers they live behind.
21
Well said. The wealthy on the left want their followers to believe that they are just like them.........but the internet makes knowledge of their fortunes available to anyone curious about them.
The Clinton fortune at $250 million was gained through influence, and the Obama fortune can be expected to exceed the Clintons' wealth.
Remember Hillary's "We were dead broke when we left the White House"? Then they paid nearly $1 million for a house in NY, and soon paid nearly $1.5 million for a house in D. C.
At least Obama didn't say "We were broke"..........because now he's bought a house in D. C. for $8.1 million.
The first appearance for money Obama made was to a Wall Street investment firm, and he was paid $400,000, $50,000 more than Clinton made for a similar Wall Street firm talk.
What can Clinton or Obama offer to a Wall Street firm to support that kind of money? Pay for past favors, future influence?
The Clinton fortune at $250 million was gained through influence, and the Obama fortune can be expected to exceed the Clintons' wealth.
Remember Hillary's "We were dead broke when we left the White House"? Then they paid nearly $1 million for a house in NY, and soon paid nearly $1.5 million for a house in D. C.
At least Obama didn't say "We were broke"..........because now he's bought a house in D. C. for $8.1 million.
The first appearance for money Obama made was to a Wall Street investment firm, and he was paid $400,000, $50,000 more than Clinton made for a similar Wall Street firm talk.
What can Clinton or Obama offer to a Wall Street firm to support that kind of money? Pay for past favors, future influence?
23
And Bernie just bought himself a $600,000 holiday house, his third house, enriching himself mightily while in office.
The Clintons were in fact broke. They didn't enrich themselves while in office, waited till he was out of office to sign book deals, the advances for which paid for the houses.
And the speaking fees -- Hillary's highest was around 250k, most of which proceeds went to help HIV patients in Africa. The Obamas just donated 2 million to Chicago schools. Bernie? He bought himself a house, and banked the rest.
The Clintons were in fact broke. They didn't enrich themselves while in office, waited till he was out of office to sign book deals, the advances for which paid for the houses.
And the speaking fees -- Hillary's highest was around 250k, most of which proceeds went to help HIV patients in Africa. The Obamas just donated 2 million to Chicago schools. Bernie? He bought himself a house, and banked the rest.
16
This article is spot on. It is undemocratic for so many to be getting an edge at government expense. Too bad the people who most need a break can't find a candidate - gerrymandering has something to do with that. But another reason is that labor unions have lost their power. The "common people" have no recourse - except to give us an aberration like Trump.
17
In India, there's a tremendous feeling among the mostly upper caste upper class that their position is due to merit. I suppose we've borrowed from the Americans in this respect than the British. Your article is a nice framework for debunking that theory in India.
11
I am personally associated with an investment banker who, in his mid twenties, was grossing a quarter of a million dollars a year. Some will recall, a few years back, a Powerball lottery whose jackpot approached a near-billion dollars. This banker and his cohort had a sincere conversation about whether that would be enough money to support one's self (and impending family) for the rest of one's life. The verdict was "no".
Until this delusion and deranged lack of perspective is rectified in this country's "upper quintile" we will never see the pragmatic policy adjustments necessary to avert a class catastrophe. So long as these selfish people are lumped into the same top tax bracket as billionaires, we will never see those billions taxed progressively. In the long run, however, the change is inevitable. The only variable will be the violence.
Until this delusion and deranged lack of perspective is rectified in this country's "upper quintile" we will never see the pragmatic policy adjustments necessary to avert a class catastrophe. So long as these selfish people are lumped into the same top tax bracket as billionaires, we will never see those billions taxed progressively. In the long run, however, the change is inevitable. The only variable will be the violence.
17
Our society doesn't do a very good job of teaching children the difference between needs and wants. We also don't do a very good job of differentiating between equality before the law/equal human dignity, on the one hand, and economic equality, on the other. The former is at the core of the American idea; the latter will never be possible owing to human differences in drive, intellect, talent, etc. We need to try to break the perception that financial status has anything to do with the dignity of the human person.
23
A friend of mine from India just graduated with a Ph.D. from Georgia Tech. His wife lived here with him, and did not work. They both lived here on his $30k/yr stipend. They were not wanting for anything, and did not feel poor in the least. He told me he came from an upper middle class family in India.
He told me that there are many positive values he learned about the U.S. that he was happy to take back to India. But the one value from India he wished he could leave with us was a culture of savings.
We don't know how good we have it in the U.S.
The economic problems here are not the plight of the upper middle class, or those aspiring to join them. Rather, the tragedy is how we treat, and pay, the working poor. $20K/year or less for full time work is shameful in the richest country in the world. Half of Americans have less than $500 in savings, and are one missed paycheck or one unexpected bill away from destitution.
He told me that there are many positive values he learned about the U.S. that he was happy to take back to India. But the one value from India he wished he could leave with us was a culture of savings.
We don't know how good we have it in the U.S.
The economic problems here are not the plight of the upper middle class, or those aspiring to join them. Rather, the tragedy is how we treat, and pay, the working poor. $20K/year or less for full time work is shameful in the richest country in the world. Half of Americans have less than $500 in savings, and are one missed paycheck or one unexpected bill away from destitution.
5
Which country in the world enables millions of first-generation immigrants to join the upper class through hard work, perseverance and talent--even with their distinct "foreign" accents, Britain or the US?
8
Great article! This is exactly why we have The Orange One in the White House.
7
I don't care about how MUCH money my neighbor has. If I want to be friends with someone, I care about how much they GIVE. And to whom.
7
It's hard to believe that anyone is taking issue with this column. It matters little that England might be the worse offender of the two countries. The myth of America that allows the more fortunate to escape self reflection is the point that needs making.
34
I don't find it so hard to believe that people take issue here. Many of them fall within this income range (at least $200K) and you'll rarely find people online willing to self-reflect. Instead, they attribute words to the author that he did not use, such as that they're "supposed to feel guilty," or claiming that he's trashing the middle class.
14
how much is too little, how much is too much? More importantly, who will decide?
4
Two hundred thousand in income is not 80th percentile. That's 72k is that's hardly rich. I have no idea where the author is getting his calculators from.
5
The point that matters is how much wealth people hold.
3
Not sure what your point is Sea Star. I thought the point the author makes is that we should feel guilty for having money, we all pretend we don't and we should be ashamed for sending our kids to private school because so many others don't have that opportunity. Not a valid point but a point.
3
$200,000 is rich.
3
The guy around the corner from me owns two mansions side-by-side and the CA Angels... he grew up in the Tucson barrio. My grandmother came to America and met grandpa at a boarding house where she washed the men's clothes. My kid's working this summer for a black family that owns a car wash. Move out of New York and see how the rest of America lives.
13
Hey Jim, come to New York and see how the rest of America lives. I can give you a guided tour of the hidden poverty from the South Bronx to South Buffalo. So your grandfather achieved bourgeois status? Big deal. That's part of the con of capitalism; allow a few to come up the ladder and curse out the rest for their personal failure. Meanwhile the entire game is rigged for the top 001% to keep their money and power. And anybody who questions it is either a "commie" or worse, "a liberal".
33
I guess communism is the only real solution? Keep dreaming.
4
There's something better called socialism!
14
I am a little disappointed in reading most of these comments. While I'm not entirely surprised, I had hoped for more.
The readers seem to be unaware of what life is like for the majority of Americans. The national median household income is about $50,000 a year (for NYC it's surprisingly close to that, albeit a little higher). Half of American households are above that number, half are below. At about $120,000 the poorest of the top 20% makes nearly 2.5 times as much as the richest of the bottom 50%, they make nearly 6 times as much as the richest of the poorest 20%.
I think this is where the idea of "out of touch, liberal coastal elites" comes from. Your cries of "life is hard with only a $200,000 a year in income" will fall on unsympathetic ears because most of us are making a fraction of that. You come across as out of touch, and unable to truly understand what you have. For example, I grew up in a very large family making about the median income. We didn't think we were poor, people near us had it worse. Given my childhood, I am surprised that people making 4 times what my family made can believe that they aren't wealthy, or as one person audaciously put it "low income".
Your life might not be easy, but your finances make you wealthy. Ease of life isn't the measure of wealth, money is. If you have a lot of money relative to everyone else, you're rich. The top 20% is rich. Being rich might not be what you imagined it would be, but it is what you are.
The readers seem to be unaware of what life is like for the majority of Americans. The national median household income is about $50,000 a year (for NYC it's surprisingly close to that, albeit a little higher). Half of American households are above that number, half are below. At about $120,000 the poorest of the top 20% makes nearly 2.5 times as much as the richest of the bottom 50%, they make nearly 6 times as much as the richest of the poorest 20%.
I think this is where the idea of "out of touch, liberal coastal elites" comes from. Your cries of "life is hard with only a $200,000 a year in income" will fall on unsympathetic ears because most of us are making a fraction of that. You come across as out of touch, and unable to truly understand what you have. For example, I grew up in a very large family making about the median income. We didn't think we were poor, people near us had it worse. Given my childhood, I am surprised that people making 4 times what my family made can believe that they aren't wealthy, or as one person audaciously put it "low income".
Your life might not be easy, but your finances make you wealthy. Ease of life isn't the measure of wealth, money is. If you have a lot of money relative to everyone else, you're rich. The top 20% is rich. Being rich might not be what you imagined it would be, but it is what you are.
92
Here in CA we have an even worse case of denial with Proposition 13.
40 years of tax welfare for many Baby Boomers and now many enjoy second homes and cruises, while their children remain renters and roommates.
40 years of tax welfare for many Baby Boomers and now many enjoy second homes and cruises, while their children remain renters and roommates.
18
Maybe if you stopped believing everything you read you wouldn't be surprised. What makes you think everyone who makes over 200k a year thinks they aren't rich? Do you just assume this because somebody writes a op-ed in the NYT that reinforces your own belief it must be true? Sorry friend but many of us know we have plenty of money, are thankful for it, and help others get to the place where they can be wealthy too. Maybe stop trying to bring everyone else down to your level and start helping everyone get more. Now that would be surprising.
6
I have one thing to say to you: putting all sociopolitical posturing aside, coastal California and Tennessee might as well be in different countries when it comes to the purchasing power of the local currency.
9
The professional and managerial class earning around 200k,especially in blue states will find that their money,will after taxes,buy them at best a modest house and lifestyle.Once they pay down their educational loans ,save for their kids college (no need based aid)and put away something for retirement (no pension ) they will find they are very far from rich.
Progressives make a big mistake targeting these people for increased taxation and vilification.They will alienate a highly productive group ..not a good long term plan.
Progressives make a big mistake targeting these people for increased taxation and vilification.They will alienate a highly productive group ..not a good long term plan.
31
Well, the people on the other side in politics will cheerfully accept their votes. It's never too late to repent!
7
They are rich because they can afford to send their children to college, freeing their children from college loan debt, and because they will have the money to retire. Just these two facts separate them from the majority of Americans.
18
"Modest" lifestyle? Sounds pretty good to me. You validate Reeve's point.
10
There is much to consider here. However, many commenters seem to have a huge blind spot. The opportunities we have ultimately derive from two sources. The genes we inherited from our parents and the environment in which they reared us. Neither are chosen by us. If you are smart, hardworking, and have some creativity, good for you. But don't pretend that you had control over the genetic and cultural inheritance leading to these gifts. This is the starting point for having a conversation about the redistribution of wealth.
21
This is true, but not a useful contribution to a political discussion.
I could turn around and say that since each soul as an equal chance to be incarnated as the child of affluent parents, then these inequalities are fair. Of course, that is a deliberately satirical interpretation, but it will show you the problem with this line of argument.
I could turn around and say that since each soul as an equal chance to be incarnated as the child of affluent parents, then these inequalities are fair. Of course, that is a deliberately satirical interpretation, but it will show you the problem with this line of argument.
3
It is useful insofar as it raises the difficult problem of framing the meaning of "deserving" what one has. And it is useful insofar as acknowledging that all political discussion has a moral dimension.
So are you saying only people with good genetics and able to provide a good home should procreate?
Yes, the American "meritocracy" is largely a myth, and most Americans do buy into it.
But having lived in England for 15 years after moving from NYC it is my opinion that the upper and upper middle classes here feel just as entitled, although maybe for different reasons. You quote a lot of statistics showing how the American upper middle class can retain its advantage with (among other things) university legacy admissions and funding good schools in upper middle class neighborhoods.
But you can quote similar statistics for the UK: Oxbridge has a bit less than half of its students from private schools, yet only 7% are privately educated.
And the leading professions for example law, politics, medicine and journalism are dominated by this privately educated class.
I see absolutely no evidence that people like George Osborne, David Cameron or Boris Johnson think they are anything but entitled to their childhoods, education and political careers. Their policies have demonised the poor and disabled as benefit scroungers and fakers for the purpose of justifying shredding the social safety net and privatising public services, the very services the working poor rely on to get by in hard times.
But having lived in England for 15 years after moving from NYC it is my opinion that the upper and upper middle classes here feel just as entitled, although maybe for different reasons. You quote a lot of statistics showing how the American upper middle class can retain its advantage with (among other things) university legacy admissions and funding good schools in upper middle class neighborhoods.
But you can quote similar statistics for the UK: Oxbridge has a bit less than half of its students from private schools, yet only 7% are privately educated.
And the leading professions for example law, politics, medicine and journalism are dominated by this privately educated class.
I see absolutely no evidence that people like George Osborne, David Cameron or Boris Johnson think they are anything but entitled to their childhoods, education and political careers. Their policies have demonised the poor and disabled as benefit scroungers and fakers for the purpose of justifying shredding the social safety net and privatising public services, the very services the working poor rely on to get by in hard times.
18
The difference, as Reeves points out, isn't the feelings of entitlement, so much as that in the US, much of the lower 80% buy into the meritocracy lie, whereas in Britain, they don't.
10
Then let me tell you a secret that only the top 20% know: You work hard, no matter how dirt poor you start out, you'll end up in the top 20%. Let me reiterate: WORK HARD!!! Shh! Don't let the secret out.
19
Working hard is no guarantee of financial success when so many employers no longer offer benefits like health insurance, matching 401K funds, or even paid sick leave. They pay poverty level wages as well - you try existing on $8 an hour, even while working full AND part time while paying for your own rent, transportation, food and medical insurance.
24
Sorry, older and wiser, working hard doesn't guarantee you a spot in the 20%. Hard work is required , but not sufficient in and of itself. You also need brains education and sometimes a bit of luck. And having parents in the 20% helps with the education and is part of the luck.
19
I know plenty of people who work hard that will never end up in the top 20%. I have worked with people who had a full-time job and then left to work another shift at a fast food restaurant or cleaning buildings after hours. They were working very hard to provide for their families. Do you think every person earning less than $200,000 a year is a slacker?
10
Unfortunately for everybody, I see a lot of broad brushing in this article and in the comments.I don't think this accomplishes anything good but just polarizes people. If you want laws changed, talk to your elected officials. If you want to be happy, be happy. I have seen very happy people and very sad people in every color of the economic status rainbow. At the end of the day, we are all human beings with joys, loss, challenges, gifts, sadness, and intelligence. Don't waste the time you have here being angry at someone you don't know for reasons you have invented. Be the change, not the problem.
13
Kim: So to avoid 'polarization', the majority of Americans should buy into the lie that there's no such thing as advantage/disadvantage, or good luck/ bad luck?
7
Sadly, without campaign finance reform our dealings with our elected officials will always come to nothing. How many millions of people turned out for the Women's March in January in every part of this country? I think Sen. Mitch McConnell and all of the rest of them laughed.
8
An article like this just spreads the myth that all "rich" (whatever that means) people think in a certain way. It's the type of "single story" that if said about a minority group, would have everyone up in arms. The wealthy people I know are very grateful for what they have, and do a lot of good in this country. They are not bad people at all. Write an article about what is actually happening out there so that we are all on the same page, so that we can understand better rather than criticizing a group for doing something they're not necessarily doing.
2
Stephen J. Gould said, "Yes, [teach] Shakespeare foremost and forever (Darwin too). But also teach about the excellence of pygmy bushcraft and Fuegian survival in the world's harshest climate. Dignity and inspiration come in many guises."
A college education at the right school is one path to social mobility. But we in America place far too great of a weight on this narrow definition of "excellence," especially in how we pay people. We should equally value excellence (and hard work) among brick masons, plumbers, landscapers, janitors, and line cooks.
I say this as a Ph.D. candidate at a major university. I chose this path because it happens to suit my particular talents. But this does not make me better, or worth more money, than people who contribute to society in other ways. There are plenty of mediocre hacks who have earned multiple degrees at the best colleges. And there are plenty of great people who never went to college, but contribute at least as much to society as I hope to, by working hard and pursuing excellence in their chosen jobs.
The dignity of work should allow anyone in the U.S. who works full time and strives for excellence to achieve middle class economic security. Wages for the working poor are far too low in the richest nation in the world. Left unchecked, this will further tear our nation apart.
A college education at the right school is one path to social mobility. But we in America place far too great of a weight on this narrow definition of "excellence," especially in how we pay people. We should equally value excellence (and hard work) among brick masons, plumbers, landscapers, janitors, and line cooks.
I say this as a Ph.D. candidate at a major university. I chose this path because it happens to suit my particular talents. But this does not make me better, or worth more money, than people who contribute to society in other ways. There are plenty of mediocre hacks who have earned multiple degrees at the best colleges. And there are plenty of great people who never went to college, but contribute at least as much to society as I hope to, by working hard and pursuing excellence in their chosen jobs.
The dignity of work should allow anyone in the U.S. who works full time and strives for excellence to achieve middle class economic security. Wages for the working poor are far too low in the richest nation in the world. Left unchecked, this will further tear our nation apart.
57
Why does the author, and one assumes the NYT editors, assume that their readers are in the top 20 percent? Isn't that the sort of selfish, oblivious reference point of that the author rails against?
3
Good point. I'm a registered nurse and way below the top 20 percent. Way below - but I grew up in the bottom 20 percent.
1
The NYT collects demographic data on its subscribers and knows exactly what income bracket most of them come from.
4
Rich is always relative. But to me, more important is the source of the income. Not just legal, or otherwise. But in moral, or ethical terms. Who was harmed??? Elderly people scammed out of their Life Savings?? The hopelessly naive conned into a " university " ??? Hard working Tradespeople cheated??? It's called filthy rich, for a reason. I would rather be ( actual ) Middle Class. With dignity and self respect.
3
Fancy that. A Brit schooling Americans about white privilege. He knows of what he speaks. Maybe we can finally hear it coming from him.
2
I don't think white privilege has anything to do with the author's message.
7
So what?
4
Typical Times coverage — indict the many for the malfeasance of the few. When I was still working, my (just barely) 100 K income as a single male, no children put me in the top 20%, but very little "poshness" accrued to me, as I was struggling to pay off a mortgage on my only home & put more aside for my currently tenuous retirement. I must agree with other readers: I and those like me are not the problem. It is rather the multi-millionaires and billionaires whom we should be attacking ceaselessly for their avarice.
9
Vincenzo,
Ask yourself why your retirement is tenuous. Could it be the three market crashes since the mid 1980's due to poor regulation of Wall Street? The continual election of officials (since 1980) who promote cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy, erroneously thinking they would invest in our economy and create a "trickle down" effect (but instead took their money offshore)? The same officials who spend more on defense than infrastructure and education combined, and invade other countries on the taxpayers' backs? Tax credits for those already advantaged at the expense of those in poverty?
While I agree with your larger point, your tax bracket still benefited from these policies.
Ask yourself why your retirement is tenuous. Could it be the three market crashes since the mid 1980's due to poor regulation of Wall Street? The continual election of officials (since 1980) who promote cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy, erroneously thinking they would invest in our economy and create a "trickle down" effect (but instead took their money offshore)? The same officials who spend more on defense than infrastructure and education combined, and invade other countries on the taxpayers' backs? Tax credits for those already advantaged at the expense of those in poverty?
While I agree with your larger point, your tax bracket still benefited from these policies.
6
You don't have children, so you don't get it. If you saw the leaps and bounds the upper middle class goes through to keep their kids in the UMC, you would understand better.
6
So who is the author referring to with "You're"?
Does the New York Times really think that only "upper middle class, six figure earning, gated community" types read its paper"?
Wow !!! Maybe my republican brother was right when he said only elitist snobs read the New York Times.
Does the New York Times really think that only "upper middle class, six figure earning, gated community" types read its paper"?
Wow !!! Maybe my republican brother was right when he said only elitist snobs read the New York Times.
9
You Europeans I'll never understand. Why you gave the Nobel prize to Obama before he had accomplished anything is beyond me. Trust me his head is so swelled he didn't need any more accolades. Our press and your press assured him he could do no wrong. And did he diminish inquality in the U.S.? Did he improve race relations in the U.S.? Did he get universal reasonable healthcare for all? Instead we now have normalized a $12,000 deductible per family instead of standing up to the greed of the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. Did he knock the banks down to size? No, it was tough times. Excuses excuses. Great presidents do great things in spite of insurmountable odds. Now, let him and his family buy an $8.1 million house and vacation for 3 months straight with billionaires. Sir, the problem with wealth distribution lies entirely at the feet of our vampid, weak bought-and-paid for politicians.
18
I am the only one of my parents' 5 kids to finish college; my dad was a machinist and my mom stayed at home, and we had a big garden and preserved all our own fruits and vegetables. My mom sewed all our clothes, and I learned to sew when I was 8. I married my college boyfriend by dropping out and running away to join him where he was a Peace Corps volunteer in Ghana. He became a physician (yes, his parents paid his tuition, but I worked) and I finally earned a PhD with no help from my parents. Before we had kids, we lived and worked twice in Ghana for extended periods, and then volunteered in the Cambodian refugee camps in Thailand. Eventually, with both of us working, we earned enough to buy a house, and we sent our 2 kids to college. Our kids and their spouses now earn enough to own their own houses. The Cambodian refugees that we sponsored (who came to the US with nothing and half spoke no English) all finished college, and now they and their spouses earn the "6 figures" that let them buy their own houses and send their kids to college too. Why does anyone see anything morally reprehensible with any part of this story? And we all work in occupations that contribute to the common good--social worker, civil engineer, teacher, statistician. Nobody is a hedge fund manager or real estate developer. By the way, we all pay plenty of taxes, too.
24
Your choices are noble; however, your husband still benefited from parents who could afford to pay for his medical education. You don't mention his background, so one may assume his parents were within the upper middle class.
And it doesn't change the fact that you are allowed mortgage credits and tax free college saving plans.
And it doesn't change the fact that you are allowed mortgage credits and tax free college saving plans.
10
Nom---you too can have mortgage credits---buy a house with a loan from the bank. Guess what you can deduct the interest. Oh--minimum wage job you say--get some skills--then get a better job.
3
Small bone to pick re 529s:
We have no children but use 529s for grand-nieces & nephews whose parents are unable to save for college as they struggle to afford ... well, anything.
We have no children but use 529s for grand-nieces & nephews whose parents are unable to save for college as they struggle to afford ... well, anything.
7
Jack Cole,
Don't you think your nieces and nephews would feel better were they (and their children) able to afford to pay for their college through fair wages and benefits rather than relying on your generosity?
Don't you think your nieces and nephews would feel better were they (and their children) able to afford to pay for their college through fair wages and benefits rather than relying on your generosity?
11
There is only one definition of "rich." You are rich when your money works for you instead of you working for it.
There is only one definition of "class." You show class through your kindness to others.
You are not rich or classy if you are a lying cheat telling others that they are stupid for not understanding how to dodge taxes.
Let's give incentives for political economies where the words of John Wesley can flourish, “Make More, Save More, Give More,”--John Wesley
There is only one definition of "class." You show class through your kindness to others.
You are not rich or classy if you are a lying cheat telling others that they are stupid for not understanding how to dodge taxes.
Let's give incentives for political economies where the words of John Wesley can flourish, “Make More, Save More, Give More,”--John Wesley
19
We used to be jealous of the wealthy. Now we look at them like junkyard dogs who have hit the lottery. The great majority of them live like the Beverly Hillbillies. If you know them, if you've met them, if you've dealt with them; you don't want to trade places with them. Most of them are broken and shattered. Take a look at the guy in the Oval Office, if you don't believe me. He is a caricature of America's wealthy, but there is more than a grain of truth in that characterization.
18
4
You can forget that--sea star
Reading through these comments again, it just occurred to me how few people seem to be aware of how prejudice works, and what disadvantage really is.
Some examples: When you work hard and truly do something excellent, you run a significant risk of not being rewarded. In fact, you might be resented for it, and your accomplishment will be ignored or minimized. People won't congratulate you, they won't embrace you, they will discount what you did. This is not hard to do. It happens all the time. I am sure everyone here has seen it at least once.
When you tell the truth, you'll be doubted. Sure, you may be telling the truth, but after all, you may not; it is hard to sort things out, and easy to turn away. In any case, it's not that important.
When you make a mistake, it's not simply a mistake; we all make them sometimes, etc. When you make a mistake, it stems from who you are. It reveals your true nature. We now know to expect more of these from you.
If a big dose of this treatment starts to get under your skin -- well. Don't we have proof of how lacking in self-control you "really" are? It's a shame, but there it is. Obviously our merit-based system is working.
Some examples: When you work hard and truly do something excellent, you run a significant risk of not being rewarded. In fact, you might be resented for it, and your accomplishment will be ignored or minimized. People won't congratulate you, they won't embrace you, they will discount what you did. This is not hard to do. It happens all the time. I am sure everyone here has seen it at least once.
When you tell the truth, you'll be doubted. Sure, you may be telling the truth, but after all, you may not; it is hard to sort things out, and easy to turn away. In any case, it's not that important.
When you make a mistake, it's not simply a mistake; we all make them sometimes, etc. When you make a mistake, it stems from who you are. It reveals your true nature. We now know to expect more of these from you.
If a big dose of this treatment starts to get under your skin -- well. Don't we have proof of how lacking in self-control you "really" are? It's a shame, but there it is. Obviously our merit-based system is working.
15
This comment really stayed in my mind. It has to do with all the other factors- race, sex, fortune, circumstances- that come into play in life, other than privelege and class and inherited wealth or poverty. The spectrum is so wide. Some people may have greater ability, or work so much harder than others, or be smarter or more talented, yet still not be recognized or rewarded for it.
2
Your sweeping generalizations belie any claim to credibility, at all. With respect to standing, I work in M&A for an elite law firm in NYC because I worked my ass off to go from community College to Columbia Law school in three years and I make $200k a year. I am not rich. On the contrary, I'd imagine that uninventive and pedantic NYT columnists outside the City are far better off.
First, I pay collective federal, state and local tax at an effective rate of 50% leaving me with just under $10k a month in post tax cash. Second, I pay my rent (400 Sq ft studio) and utilities leaving me around $6k a month. Third, I make payments on the $250k in student debt I acquired in pursuit of my law degree which will take 15 years to pay off and I have around $3000 left. In other words, your definition of me being "rich" is that I have $750 a week to spend on literally everything else in my life? That is arrant nonsense. Also I don't own a car or have any children.
In closing, please don't tell me I'm rich when you have literally zero idea what you are talking about and don't insult me or yourself by predicting privilege thereupon. I'm one of the lucky ones that made it and frankly, unless I make partner in 8 years (2-4% chance) this whole endeavor will have been an epic failure from an economic standpoint.
First, I pay collective federal, state and local tax at an effective rate of 50% leaving me with just under $10k a month in post tax cash. Second, I pay my rent (400 Sq ft studio) and utilities leaving me around $6k a month. Third, I make payments on the $250k in student debt I acquired in pursuit of my law degree which will take 15 years to pay off and I have around $3000 left. In other words, your definition of me being "rich" is that I have $750 a week to spend on literally everything else in my life? That is arrant nonsense. Also I don't own a car or have any children.
In closing, please don't tell me I'm rich when you have literally zero idea what you are talking about and don't insult me or yourself by predicting privilege thereupon. I'm one of the lucky ones that made it and frankly, unless I make partner in 8 years (2-4% chance) this whole endeavor will have been an epic failure from an economic standpoint.
23
Voice of Reason - I believe you are illustrating the author's point precisely. I work at an elite consulting firm in Manhattan and my salary and expenses are almost identical to yours. Having $3000 a month at your disposal, that $36,000 a year, is indeed rich. There are households who live on less than that. I grew up dirt poor in the midwest, with my mom making about ~$26,000 a year for a family of four. There was no concept of spare money and we didn't have the comfort of paying off loans/creditors.
You're living comfortably. Just because you're not able to keep up with the Jones with a place in the Hamptons or a penthouse apartment on the UES with a view doesn't mean "this whole endeavor will have been an epic failure."
You're living comfortably. Just because you're not able to keep up with the Jones with a place in the Hamptons or a penthouse apartment on the UES with a view doesn't mean "this whole endeavor will have been an epic failure."
20
Hey dude, $36,000 is what you have left after all expenses? Dear God, you got it tough. Get a second job like all the rest of us who don't gross $36K/year.
15
Good stuff!
This is typical American behavior. And it permeates thru even those who were once poor, and are now rich and not wanting for anything. They demand to be seen as still from the old 'hood. Certainly exampled in the Rap and Hip Hop circles, where everyone is allegedly still the same as when they were roaming the streets of their childhood 'Hood. But its also in Hollywood, and sports...everyone is "keeping it real."
To them I say, You made it! You beat the odds, and in many cases worked real hard to get it. So own it! Dont get all down-homey with us, just to sell more. Be who you are now! (of course there's no need to be an arrogant jerk)
But even among the less earning demos, there is class. Don't be blue-collar and have a decent vocabulary. Don't be a laborer and read the NYT on your break...unless you can hide it on your tablet/phone.
Simply dont get all uppity around your lower-class 'mates. Don't save for a four-star hotel and rub it in others faces. Better you just claim you went economy the whole trip.
Class and classlessness. True Americanism.
This is typical American behavior. And it permeates thru even those who were once poor, and are now rich and not wanting for anything. They demand to be seen as still from the old 'hood. Certainly exampled in the Rap and Hip Hop circles, where everyone is allegedly still the same as when they were roaming the streets of their childhood 'Hood. But its also in Hollywood, and sports...everyone is "keeping it real."
To them I say, You made it! You beat the odds, and in many cases worked real hard to get it. So own it! Dont get all down-homey with us, just to sell more. Be who you are now! (of course there's no need to be an arrogant jerk)
But even among the less earning demos, there is class. Don't be blue-collar and have a decent vocabulary. Don't be a laborer and read the NYT on your break...unless you can hide it on your tablet/phone.
Simply dont get all uppity around your lower-class 'mates. Don't save for a four-star hotel and rub it in others faces. Better you just claim you went economy the whole trip.
Class and classlessness. True Americanism.
4
If one is searching for a solution to this vexing problem, and certainly most thinking people agree that it is a problem and that there needs to be a solution, then the way we select the people that make our laws might be one way to end the problem. If one wants to make the government more responsible to everyone, then everyone should have a hand in selecting their elected representatives. Our present system allows the rich people to hire the legislators. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to suggest who the legislatures will favor.
He who pays the Piper calls the tune.
We need to do away with privately financed elections. If the elections were financed publicly then the legislatures would be responsible to the public and not to their individual donors. Rich people will fight vigorously to defeat this notion because hiring legislatures is cheap and it certainly pays off. Look at the increase in wealth at the top 1% and look at who pays the most to elect the legislators. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that cause and effect.
If you want a fair system, then one must do away with private financing of elections. Otherwise, legislatures been usually wise, they will do what their bosses tell them.
He who pays the Piper calls the tune.
We need to do away with privately financed elections. If the elections were financed publicly then the legislatures would be responsible to the public and not to their individual donors. Rich people will fight vigorously to defeat this notion because hiring legislatures is cheap and it certainly pays off. Look at the increase in wealth at the top 1% and look at who pays the most to elect the legislators. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that cause and effect.
If you want a fair system, then one must do away with private financing of elections. Otherwise, legislatures been usually wise, they will do what their bosses tell them.
14
Tell me if I am Rich, I am a physician, I normally work 60+hours a week, every other weekend, every other holiday and take 10 days of vacation a year. I make around 300K. I started making money when I was 35 years old (I am now 50Y), prior to this I was making 30K a year in my 3 years of residency and 45k in 3 years of my fellowship. I have student debt of 315K that I am still paying
After the taxes and deductions, retirement plan, disability insurance I bring home around 11k, my educational loan payment is 2800 a month and I can not claim any tax deduction. My one child is going to the UC college this year and he will have to pay full tuition+boarding of around 36K. My other child will to college in 3 years. looks like they will have to take Loans sooner or later.
I live in a regular home my neighbors are teachers and nurses and forklift drivers etc. I am already feeling that soon I will not be able to work at this pace. I am very grateful for my job, family and the opportunity I had in life. I don't think my children have any advantage over anybody. If somebody thinks that taxing me more is the only way to improve American Society, they are wrong.
After the taxes and deductions, retirement plan, disability insurance I bring home around 11k, my educational loan payment is 2800 a month and I can not claim any tax deduction. My one child is going to the UC college this year and he will have to pay full tuition+boarding of around 36K. My other child will to college in 3 years. looks like they will have to take Loans sooner or later.
I live in a regular home my neighbors are teachers and nurses and forklift drivers etc. I am already feeling that soon I will not be able to work at this pace. I am very grateful for my job, family and the opportunity I had in life. I don't think my children have any advantage over anybody. If somebody thinks that taxing me more is the only way to improve American Society, they are wrong.
28
Thank you for such an explicit comment. Info like that is very useful. I suspect, however, that you mean that you bring home 11K per month, not per year?
3
I'm about the same age and earn about the same amount. I think the statistics tell us we are rich compared to the vast majority of people living in the US (or, as in my case, Canada).
Could we lose everything in a heart beat if we got ill or lost our jobs or both? Sure, that's why while we're statistically rich, we don't feel rich. We live comfortable lives but we know that our comfort is tenuous and with just a little bad luck we could lose everything we have.
Of course, it's better here in Canada because we have universal healthcare. Education is cheaper too. The entire safety net is better. I'd say my wages might be a bit lower here than in the states and my taxes a bit higher, but overall the feeling of security is much better and that, maybe, makes me feel a bit richer. And I'm sure it makes people earning less than I maybe not feel rich, but at least feel like their future isn't so perilous.
I suspect it's one reason we also have Trudeau and not Trump as our leader . . .
Could we lose everything in a heart beat if we got ill or lost our jobs or both? Sure, that's why while we're statistically rich, we don't feel rich. We live comfortable lives but we know that our comfort is tenuous and with just a little bad luck we could lose everything we have.
Of course, it's better here in Canada because we have universal healthcare. Education is cheaper too. The entire safety net is better. I'd say my wages might be a bit lower here than in the states and my taxes a bit higher, but overall the feeling of security is much better and that, maybe, makes me feel a bit richer. And I'm sure it makes people earning less than I maybe not feel rich, but at least feel like their future isn't so perilous.
I suspect it's one reason we also have Trudeau and not Trump as our leader . . .
8
I can take you to a neighborhood near me where they make on average about minimum wage and are not doing any of the things you describe. Richness involves more than just the money. You're idea of a "regular home" needs definition. Most of my nearby neighbors have whole families in very small two bedroom houses. Don't have any advantage, get out of your bubble if you can ever find the time and take a better look around.
2
This is a veiled justification for large tax increases on the middle class that would be needed to fund all the programs that the left wing of the Democratic party wants. Having realized that increasing the taxes of the ultra rich will not nearly generate enough income, this piece prepares us for tax increases much further down the income scale, something they have been unwilling to acknowledge. I happen to be in that 20% category. While I cannot deny that I have benefited from government in very significant ways, my parents were working class immigrants who struggled, in return for which I made choices and sacrifices that got me where I am or at least prevented me from getting derailed.
7
Yawn. Luxury tax anyone? Bring back an meaning full estate tax? We now that at this moment capital earns money more readily than does labor.
Curiously, even people who will never buy a 400 M boat or 1 20M painting. don't thaink there should be a luxury tax-- and think the gas tax,e.g. is fair.
They also think it's OK for all old people no matter their income to pay less for say the subway. My -question is WHY this attitude?
And PS why are charitable donationsdeductible items on the income tax.
Not quite as bleeding heart liberal when it comes to the old pocketbook.. And PS the whining MD and other in the medical trade -- a huge number of people-- all benefitting mightily from the current system.
Curiously, even people who will never buy a 400 M boat or 1 20M painting. don't thaink there should be a luxury tax-- and think the gas tax,e.g. is fair.
They also think it's OK for all old people no matter their income to pay less for say the subway. My -question is WHY this attitude?
And PS why are charitable donationsdeductible items on the income tax.
Not quite as bleeding heart liberal when it comes to the old pocketbook.. And PS the whining MD and other in the medical trade -- a huge number of people-- all benefitting mightily from the current system.
2
Plenty of people existing on modest incomes (like union workers) benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. Framing this as a benefit solely of the "rich" is a mistake. I'm not going to judge anyone who works hard for their money. The cost of living is too high in America wherever you go. Plus people go into debt paying for medical costs. Every little deduction counts.
4
The benefits flow almost exclusively to the upper middle class. Those in the bottom 80% are much more likely to rent, much less likely to itemize their deductions, and, if they do benefit from the mortgage interest deduction, it's likely to be a fairly small amount.
5
Before you eliminate the mortgage interest deduction, consider putting a cap on the deduction. The current "cap" is over $1 million in interest! How many homeowners have a mortgage with over $1 million in annual interest. That deduction is only for the mega-rich and doctors and dentists who invest in multiple real estate deals. Eliminate the deduction completely will destabilize the housing market. Just put a reasonable cap on the deduction ($10,000-$20,000?) and attach an automatic adjustment for inflation. Don't punish the strivers because of the tax-deduction manipulators.
7
The comments about accent in the UK are true, especially for those of us born in the north east of England. In England my accent marks me out as some sort of po-white neanderthal, no matter that I was a tenured full professor at 39. In America, my wife sends me to the hostess stand to get a table because Americans love my accent. Go figure.
When I retire, I've often wanted to write a book called "British class, American race." I would disagree with the author in that, to me, the real divisions that define America are race-based. It's nothing to do with "the upper middle class." If you work for a boss, you are working class whether you earn 50k or 250k. Those divisions in Britain are class-based, accent-based; like a bar code saying where you are born and to the class you belong.
The best example I can give in the USA is affirmative action. In the UK, as individual institutions, Universities are attempting a form of affirmative action that is based on how wealthy the child's parents were and the opportunities the child had at school. Race plays no part in this form of the helping hand. Contrast with America, where affirmative action is race-based. When liberals wake up to the fact that a middle class African-American kid gets the helping hand and a poor rural white kid does not, and then wonder why residual racism exists in those economically down-trodden white communities, then just maybe can America become a more decent society. But I'm not holding my breath.
When I retire, I've often wanted to write a book called "British class, American race." I would disagree with the author in that, to me, the real divisions that define America are race-based. It's nothing to do with "the upper middle class." If you work for a boss, you are working class whether you earn 50k or 250k. Those divisions in Britain are class-based, accent-based; like a bar code saying where you are born and to the class you belong.
The best example I can give in the USA is affirmative action. In the UK, as individual institutions, Universities are attempting a form of affirmative action that is based on how wealthy the child's parents were and the opportunities the child had at school. Race plays no part in this form of the helping hand. Contrast with America, where affirmative action is race-based. When liberals wake up to the fact that a middle class African-American kid gets the helping hand and a poor rural white kid does not, and then wonder why residual racism exists in those economically down-trodden white communities, then just maybe can America become a more decent society. But I'm not holding my breath.
487
Why aye man. But why do they think we're Australian?
2
How do poor rural white children receive any less of a "helping hand" than black children? Cite sources, please.
9
Funny you should mention the crazyness of "affirmative action" in the US. I am white. One of my university roommates was a black woman with two professional parents. She was upper-upper middle-class, and from a much higher-income background than I was. Yet she was getting a free ride at our top-ranked, hugely expensive, private college, via a basket of mostly race-based scholarships and grants. The thing was she could tick so many boxes, when it came to aid! Minority? Check. Single parent? Check (her affluent parents were divorced, and she lived with her mother, so I guess that was technically true). Troubled background? Check (she had done time in Juvenile Hall, through no one's fault but her own). She spent her grants lavishly, considering them to be free money. I, on the other hand, graduated with student loan debt. Yes, I resentful of the inequity of that situation, mostly because my roommate and her family had knowingly, cynically worked the system. On the other hand, I knew another black schoolmate who truly did come from a needy background, was brought up by a single mother (no father in the picture), and got his first foothold toward college in the Headstart Program. He, too, was on scholarship. He became a hugely successful man. So there are the two sides to the coin.
19
It is no surprise that members of the upper-middle class are able to give their children advantages that help them to stay in the upper-middle class themselves. The salient question is whether people who were not born to the upper-middle class are able to join this class and whether public policy is supportive of their efforts.
6
The upper middle class know, in their guts, that inequality exists, not just in income, but in education. They scramble to buy houses in the wealthiest communities because those typically have the best public schools. Everything revolves around getting kids into the best colleges so they can succeed in staying in that upper middle class. I know about those communities; I live in one.
But the reason this has happened here is simple: Americans can no longer rely on top tier public education. You see, most people in these affluent communities are well-educated. They believe that a nation’s key responsibility to its citizens is to educate them well. But they’ve witnessed such a dumbing-down of education in this country, coupled with a sense that being intelligent and well-educated makes one ‘elitist,’ that our upper middle class has become frightened. George W. Bush brags about graduating with a C average; silicon-valley types argue that no one needs to know the quadratic equation--just learn to code and come work for us like serfs. But, if you still insist on a decent education, be prepared to be saddled with debt forever.
You bet we’ll be kicking and screaming against losing those advantages you mention until every child in this country is assured of access to top tier, affordable, public educations at all levels. It’s not entitlement; it’s desperation. Our consciousness is quite raised. We see very clearly.
But the reason this has happened here is simple: Americans can no longer rely on top tier public education. You see, most people in these affluent communities are well-educated. They believe that a nation’s key responsibility to its citizens is to educate them well. But they’ve witnessed such a dumbing-down of education in this country, coupled with a sense that being intelligent and well-educated makes one ‘elitist,’ that our upper middle class has become frightened. George W. Bush brags about graduating with a C average; silicon-valley types argue that no one needs to know the quadratic equation--just learn to code and come work for us like serfs. But, if you still insist on a decent education, be prepared to be saddled with debt forever.
You bet we’ll be kicking and screaming against losing those advantages you mention until every child in this country is assured of access to top tier, affordable, public educations at all levels. It’s not entitlement; it’s desperation. Our consciousness is quite raised. We see very clearly.
12
Yawn. education is in the hands of the individual.. more than ever today. And frankly, an excellent education can be its own form of abuse. Most people even MDs and lawyers really do not know all that much in the end. Ask your MD if s/he remembers or has ever had any use for organic chemistry or calculus 1? We do this to weed out people!!
Certain things like foreign languages be begin way too late... A second languge should be taught from3rd or 4th grade on as in Germany in public school. (English first; Spanish or French added on in 5th grade.)
Going to a super difficult or a name college does NOT necessarily result in a happier or better educated or more successful person. I would like much more use to be made of the educational platforms-- free on the WEB-- EdX, Coursera, and Udacity. You too can take the famous Harvard computer course... for free!!
Certain things like foreign languages be begin way too late... A second languge should be taught from3rd or 4th grade on as in Germany in public school. (English first; Spanish or French added on in 5th grade.)
Going to a super difficult or a name college does NOT necessarily result in a happier or better educated or more successful person. I would like much more use to be made of the educational platforms-- free on the WEB-- EdX, Coursera, and Udacity. You too can take the famous Harvard computer course... for free!!
Any family earning $70,000 or less should pay no taxes. Any individual earning less than $40,000 a year should also pay no taxes. Everyone else should pay taxes on their total income, with reductions only for minor or elderly (over 65) family members.
Everyone earning more than the above-mentioned amounts should get no special tax breaks. Medical insurance for all should be government paid and provided by reputable doctors, clinics and hospitals.
All public employees, including Mr. Trump, should be required to disclose their yearly tax statements by the end of that tax year.
Our tax system is incredibly unfair to those who are at the bottom of the ladder and obscenely generous to those who are well-off.
Everyone earning more than the above-mentioned amounts should get no special tax breaks. Medical insurance for all should be government paid and provided by reputable doctors, clinics and hospitals.
All public employees, including Mr. Trump, should be required to disclose their yearly tax statements by the end of that tax year.
Our tax system is incredibly unfair to those who are at the bottom of the ladder and obscenely generous to those who are well-off.
16
While I agree our current tax system is not the greatest, I see no benefit to only tax "the rich" who make greater than 40k or 70k combined. I myself fall into that "rich category" as after 6.5 years of higher education I found an extremely satisfying job in the medical field, with an income of around 95k. Right now I see around $4500 per month out of the $8000 I earned after working 84 hrs per week in a rural hospital. I understand that this is more than many people make (which is why I volunteer and donate) but it is still sickening to see nearly 50% of my salary go to taxes, and leave me with roughly 60k a year. Yes, this is still a very nice income, but I fail to see how taxing me into poverty level will solve any problem. The government provides services for everyone, so everyone should throw something in the pot.
6
Inequality is the most important issue, whether that language is used by liberals or shows as anti-establishment lingo in the Republican base. Why are they mad at the establishment? Because the system is rigged in favor of the richest. It divides societies and puts our nation at risk.
Let's just look at tax expenditures (deductions and exemptions), the favored gift to the wealthy from Congress, which CBO says are roughly $1.5 trillion per year, roughly three times the budget deficit.
The top 20% get 50% of the benefit. So we in theory could balance the budget by removing the tax preferences for just that group, with some left over.
Or we could focus on the really rich, the top 1%. For example, simply treating capital gains and dividends as ordinary income for just the top 1% will bring the Treasury $100+ billion per year, roughly 20% of the federal deficit.
Here is the latest CBO report on the subject, highly informative.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43768
Let's just look at tax expenditures (deductions and exemptions), the favored gift to the wealthy from Congress, which CBO says are roughly $1.5 trillion per year, roughly three times the budget deficit.
The top 20% get 50% of the benefit. So we in theory could balance the budget by removing the tax preferences for just that group, with some left over.
Or we could focus on the really rich, the top 1%. For example, simply treating capital gains and dividends as ordinary income for just the top 1% will bring the Treasury $100+ billion per year, roughly 20% of the federal deficit.
Here is the latest CBO report on the subject, highly informative.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43768
9
This column is a good example of what's wrong with what passes for "critical thinking" in America.
Let me help you out here with a basic of human interaction, there are no absolutes.
Your sweeping indictment of the 19% is not only inaccurate, it is wrong headed and detracts from your very good points.
You lose your targeted audience by offending them in an inaccurate manner.
Deming would call that doing the right thing the wrong way.
I call it unfortunate.
We are in that 19%.
My wife is one of four children of immigrant deli owners in Brooklyn.
I'm one of four of an insurance salesman, who became a middle manager.
I owed on my college for years after I graduated.
We worked very hard and got good at what we do. We paid from savings for our daughter's college (and most of their post grad, it had them pay for some of it also).
There are many like us.
Don't tell me about your research, it's wrong. I know the people, there's plenty of us.
The real question is how do we lift more people and also what's the right way to mete out remuneration. The pay of execs in the US has become obscene. There should be a national discussion on this and shareholder pressure to move funds downstream.
That's a more important dialogue than the wholesale indictment of 19% of the population.
Let me help you out here with a basic of human interaction, there are no absolutes.
Your sweeping indictment of the 19% is not only inaccurate, it is wrong headed and detracts from your very good points.
You lose your targeted audience by offending them in an inaccurate manner.
Deming would call that doing the right thing the wrong way.
I call it unfortunate.
We are in that 19%.
My wife is one of four children of immigrant deli owners in Brooklyn.
I'm one of four of an insurance salesman, who became a middle manager.
I owed on my college for years after I graduated.
We worked very hard and got good at what we do. We paid from savings for our daughter's college (and most of their post grad, it had them pay for some of it also).
There are many like us.
Don't tell me about your research, it's wrong. I know the people, there's plenty of us.
The real question is how do we lift more people and also what's the right way to mete out remuneration. The pay of execs in the US has become obscene. There should be a national discussion on this and shareholder pressure to move funds downstream.
That's a more important dialogue than the wholesale indictment of 19% of the population.
21
I just finished rereading "Cannery Row" by John Steinbeck. I think all the characters, some more than others, had a perspective and outlook on life that we would all be well to imitate.
Interesting. My net worth is over one million dollars (thanks in no small part to the wondrous effects of California real estate) but I have a hard time mentally placing myself in the "upper class."
My ancestors did not live in lordly manors. They were struggling impoverished immigrants, as recently as my grandparent's generation. My parents lived through the Great Depression and transferred the survival habits of extreme cheapness to their children. I recently saw Ken Burn's documentary on the Great Depression and recognized my own family's lore of struggling as dry-land farmers.
My father told me about his childhood spent with his dad corralling and breaking wild horses on the Great Plains in order to sell them in hard times, and how the farmhouse was so small that he and his dad slept in the barn with the cattle as warmth during freezing winter nights while his mother and sisters slept in the house. Is this the family lore that the gentry class passes on to its children?
Maybe in a couple generations, my family line will start putting up their noses and regarding themselves as some sort of hereditary elite, but I think it's a bit early for people to be making that psychological leap, when this is all so very new.
And who says it's going to last? California real estate may be a big bubble. The next Great Depression could be just around the corner...
My ancestors did not live in lordly manors. They were struggling impoverished immigrants, as recently as my grandparent's generation. My parents lived through the Great Depression and transferred the survival habits of extreme cheapness to their children. I recently saw Ken Burn's documentary on the Great Depression and recognized my own family's lore of struggling as dry-land farmers.
My father told me about his childhood spent with his dad corralling and breaking wild horses on the Great Plains in order to sell them in hard times, and how the farmhouse was so small that he and his dad slept in the barn with the cattle as warmth during freezing winter nights while his mother and sisters slept in the house. Is this the family lore that the gentry class passes on to its children?
Maybe in a couple generations, my family line will start putting up their noses and regarding themselves as some sort of hereditary elite, but I think it's a bit early for people to be making that psychological leap, when this is all so very new.
And who says it's going to last? California real estate may be a big bubble. The next Great Depression could be just around the corner...
9
There is nothing unethical about being rich, and inequality is necessary to reward accomplishment. But, extreme inequality is both an ethical and pragmatic problem. Neither capitalism or democracy function properly when extreme wealth and power lies in the hands of a few. Being rich is a good thing, we should all be rich.
7
Your first sentence is absolutely correct then you go and undo it with your second. Wealth is capitalism's scorecard. As such, there can be no limit and we must accept any gap that develops. For every Bill Gates, the free market will leave tens of not hundreds of thousands living in refrigerator boxes under an overpass. This is just the nature of capitalism.
2
If we are "all rich," then nobody is "rich." "Rich" is a comparative measure. By "rich," are you referring to money? Do you mean that we should all live at a certain level of income, or financial security? What is that level - and should that level be enjoyed by all Americans, or all humans? And how is that wealth obtained? The great mass of the employed will never be rich, because that is the way that corporate wages are structured.
In an a society where people scorn sharing life's benefits and pleasures with anyone besides their families, the individualistic, economic definition of "rich" may be the only one we think of. But many societies and nations are structured so that all of their members share in the wealth of health, clean environments, public parks and green spaces, pensions, child care, excellent schools, paths to job training, and even, yes, the ability to get "rich" through endeavor and investment. Perhaps our society needs a broader definition of what it means to be "rich."
In an a society where people scorn sharing life's benefits and pleasures with anyone besides their families, the individualistic, economic definition of "rich" may be the only one we think of. But many societies and nations are structured so that all of their members share in the wealth of health, clean environments, public parks and green spaces, pensions, child care, excellent schools, paths to job training, and even, yes, the ability to get "rich" through endeavor and investment. Perhaps our society needs a broader definition of what it means to be "rich."
2
And you're okay with thousans of people living in boxes because . . . why, exactly?
3
There is much the author states that I agree with, but the very premise of his article is false. The top 20% of Americans are those who make $200k or more?? Don't make me laugh!! And, by the way, nice job making us all feel poorer than we are. In 2014, a household income of a mere $150k, would put you way up in the top 10%. To be in the top 1/5th, as he seems so concerned with, a family needs only $115k/year. If its taking two people working to make such a princely sum, and you are supporting 2 children, suddenly you are neither wealthy or stable, especially if housed on one of the U.S.'s overpriced urban centers. I absolutely am aware of the privilege that my family and income grants us in this bracket, but don't you dare try to suggest that we're rich.
When I immigrated to the States from Britain 36 years ago, I too was under the illusion that this was an entirely meritocratic society. One unfortunate psychological effect of this illusion (versus the reality) is that it can engender a dreadful sense of failure. More articles such as this one might eventually get people to wake up to the truth of George Carlin's claim that "The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."
10
There are a lot of smug, self-congratulatory comments here, and those who are so comfortably off should bear in mind the reversals of fortune that may beset even the most able and industrious
-- In my lifetime I saw a thrifty, thirty-something workaholic reduced to SSI penury by an injury. -- I currently know a professional couple who are pondering giving up one income to care for an autistic child. - - despite conservative business practices on my part, I was devastated by the recession of '90 which cost me much of what I expected to retire with.
-- In my lifetime I saw a thrifty, thirty-something workaholic reduced to SSI penury by an injury. -- I currently know a professional couple who are pondering giving up one income to care for an autistic child. - - despite conservative business practices on my part, I was devastated by the recession of '90 which cost me much of what I expected to retire with.
10
Harrison,
While I won't minimize what everyone about has gone through there are counter arguments.
You workaholic friend could have had disability insurance. I bought a policy when I started having kids and knowing that my employer policy could not be relied upon for life.
You friends pondering giving up an income. OK. Its a choice. A hard one. I understand it because my wife didn't work when we had three little kids. It was hard. We are past that.
Finally, you did what with your retirement funds? Your funds that could be been locked in an IRA or 401K? Your funds that cannot be taken in bankruptcy? Your funds that can't be taken in a law suit? Your funds that had the last 27 years to see the time value of money?
Time for some personal responsibility and reflection here.
While I won't minimize what everyone about has gone through there are counter arguments.
You workaholic friend could have had disability insurance. I bought a policy when I started having kids and knowing that my employer policy could not be relied upon for life.
You friends pondering giving up an income. OK. Its a choice. A hard one. I understand it because my wife didn't work when we had three little kids. It was hard. We are past that.
Finally, you did what with your retirement funds? Your funds that could be been locked in an IRA or 401K? Your funds that cannot be taken in bankruptcy? Your funds that can't be taken in a law suit? Your funds that had the last 27 years to see the time value of money?
Time for some personal responsibility and reflection here.
3
Please Note Harrison said "autistic child" which changes the situation in tremendous ways. The family will never be completely "past that" and society is currently not offering much support.
4
Dear Mr. Personal Responsibility,
Disability insurance isn't what it's cracked up to be. First thing that happens, the insurance company wants to force you back to work. They will offer counseling and undermine the extent of your illness/disability which in the case of a hurt/sick/disabled person can make things infinitely worse.
THEN, the next thing that happens, they say, "You need to apply for Social Security Disability."
If you're sufficiently disabled to qualify for Social Security benefits, which are a lot better than nothing but not enough to live on, really, they demand repayment for what they've paid out.
That's right. They will hit the disabled person with a bill once his SS payments come in.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Disability insurance isn't what it's cracked up to be. First thing that happens, the insurance company wants to force you back to work. They will offer counseling and undermine the extent of your illness/disability which in the case of a hurt/sick/disabled person can make things infinitely worse.
THEN, the next thing that happens, they say, "You need to apply for Social Security Disability."
If you're sufficiently disabled to qualify for Social Security benefits, which are a lot better than nothing but not enough to live on, really, they demand repayment for what they've paid out.
That's right. They will hit the disabled person with a bill once his SS payments come in.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
2
Without the people who pay most of the taxes, make the system at least functional America could not survive.
This is my America.
They are overworked over stressed and today depressed and disconsolate as the country they devoted all their energy into maintaining seems to be disintegrating.
Their psychiatrists and psychologists are on call 24/7 even as their psychiatrists and psychologists need 24/7 help.
The advice I offer is get off he treadmill. Your can not help anyone until you take care of yourself. I tell them the Mark Twain story of the good veterinarian who died because as much as he tried could not take care of all the dogs that needed food, shelter and medical attention.
Donald Trump is President because America's weakest link is also its most vital link.America is in trouble because it is an inverted pyramid and all its weight is focused on that 20% of society which can no longer bear the burden.
Many Americans know and understand the price they are paying for being the adults in the room with the 80% not being able to adapt to the world's new reality. They understand that the GOP serves only the 1% and more of the burden of maintaining order will fall on their shoulders even as they are now overburdened. They understand that if they dare step off the treadmill their society would collapse and they know it will be impossible to get back on the treadmill. My wife and I are too old to take care of our adult 21st century educated grandchildren and we are disconsolate.
This is my America.
They are overworked over stressed and today depressed and disconsolate as the country they devoted all their energy into maintaining seems to be disintegrating.
Their psychiatrists and psychologists are on call 24/7 even as their psychiatrists and psychologists need 24/7 help.
The advice I offer is get off he treadmill. Your can not help anyone until you take care of yourself. I tell them the Mark Twain story of the good veterinarian who died because as much as he tried could not take care of all the dogs that needed food, shelter and medical attention.
Donald Trump is President because America's weakest link is also its most vital link.America is in trouble because it is an inverted pyramid and all its weight is focused on that 20% of society which can no longer bear the burden.
Many Americans know and understand the price they are paying for being the adults in the room with the 80% not being able to adapt to the world's new reality. They understand that the GOP serves only the 1% and more of the burden of maintaining order will fall on their shoulders even as they are now overburdened. They understand that if they dare step off the treadmill their society would collapse and they know it will be impossible to get back on the treadmill. My wife and I are too old to take care of our adult 21st century educated grandchildren and we are disconsolate.
6
Had there been a draft all of the classist/family privilege you deplore might have prevented a US war or two.
3
The draft also favored the wealthy and privileged classes. If the sons of the upper classes served at all, they went in as officers and usually got cushy assignments that would give them advantages when they left the service. Even military families pass on class distinctions.
3
Wow, some of these responses are, to be polite, clueless.
Do some of you really believe that you have been able to accumulate so much through just your own blood, sweat, and tears; confident in yourself that you did it without help from anyone or anything. Really? Reminds me of the old adage of someone born on third base shouting they hit a triple."
If you made your wealth in this nation keep in mind that just having a governmental public health policy, highways, a strong defense, and public schools, all paid for by the rest of us contributed to your security and wealth. I would suggest, don't get above your raising.
For those of us who didn't achieve anything of measurable value in this consumer driven world no matter how hard we worked, sacrificed, or played by the rules; we salute you.
Do some of you really believe that you have been able to accumulate so much through just your own blood, sweat, and tears; confident in yourself that you did it without help from anyone or anything. Really? Reminds me of the old adage of someone born on third base shouting they hit a triple."
If you made your wealth in this nation keep in mind that just having a governmental public health policy, highways, a strong defense, and public schools, all paid for by the rest of us contributed to your security and wealth. I would suggest, don't get above your raising.
For those of us who didn't achieve anything of measurable value in this consumer driven world no matter how hard we worked, sacrificed, or played by the rules; we salute you.
17
Being born on third might not be a triple but SOMEONE'S efforts got you there. Why should you benefit from that effort? Who, for instance, has a clearer right to the proceeds of Walmart, Sam's kids and nieces/nephews or the guy collecting the shopping carts from the parking lot? Surely it's the former.
1
"Who, for instance, has a clearer right to the proceeds of Walmart, Sam's kids and nieces/nephews or the guy collecting the shopping carts from the parking lot? Surely it's the former."
Please remind me, what exactly did Sam's kids and nieces/nephews do to create value in Walmart?
Besides winning the lottery of birth?
Please remind me, what exactly did Sam's kids and nieces/nephews do to create value in Walmart?
Besides winning the lottery of birth?
9
One of the greatest fears of the rich is becoming poor then having to fly economy class on the airlines.
8
Ah, yes. Let's level economic outcomes is the cry. Please tell the bottom 10% in the US that they are in the top third of the world and will need to give up some of their benefits -- then we can talk.
6
hawk59:
You evidently didn't read the column or you would have realized 1) the author didn't promote "level economic outcomes" and 2) was addressing U.S. economics, not the world economy.
You evidently didn't read the column or you would have realized 1) the author didn't promote "level economic outcomes" and 2) was addressing U.S. economics, not the world economy.
1
I tutor smart 2nd graders in an economically depressed part of the city of Chicago. When we read together, some say "aks" instead of "ask" and "baff" instead of "bath". Sometimes when I try to correct their pronunciation, I see how difficult it is for them to do so. Truly difficult, as their ear is trained otherwise. Then I wonder if I should even be the arbiter of "correct pronunciation", when indeed it is just an accent - one of thousands from different regions of America. I fear these lovely youngsters will be judged by their accent instead of their intelligence, but then I realize the only ones who will be judging them may be folks they don't care to be in community with.
IF they aspire to expand their world across groups, they probably need to neutralize their accent in order to connect with more types of people. But it's entirely possible to be perfectly happy with the community you have, people who speak just as you do, and I can't be the judge of that.
IF they aspire to expand their world across groups, they probably need to neutralize their accent in order to connect with more types of people. But it's entirely possible to be perfectly happy with the community you have, people who speak just as you do, and I can't be the judge of that.
4
If the children are as smart as you say they are, they will realize that they will be judged on their ability to speak the accent associated with having been educated and not that it is 'correct.' We all are judged by our accents and most everyone speaks one way at home and with friends very differently that we do in formal or business situations. There is formal and informal. If your treated are to succeed, they need to know the difference. One of the vital role of teachers is to model that formal speech. It doesn't mean that they treat their informal speech as incorrect. But they need to know when it is inappropriate.
2
What you are talking about is not an accent, but a dialect or vernacular. It's widely recognized, in all its variations, as Black English. A British English equivalent would be Cockney. Should vernacular be corrected? I think that is the wrong way to think of teaching standardized pronunciation. As a teacher your role is to make the students understand the relationship between letters and phonetics. The word a-s-k does not contain an x. Therefore a student who is expected to spell the word correctly has to know that it is pronounced "ask," not "ax." How the student says the word in conversation is none of your concern. He or she needs to learn the phonetics.
5
Really? You're looking at me? Do not judge me by my income level. That is one of the persistent problems we face as a nation.
3
When a school is known as bad it is usually because of discipline problems, not academic ones. How is the well off sending their kids to such a school, where they will likely be targets, going to make the school less bad?
5
You don't realize the effect of economics upon education yet call yourself "observant"?
3
Its always nice to get an outsider's view of life in the US. However, I think the view described here is a bit like the blind man describing an elephant when he only touches the tail.
The Feds and states used to prioritize education and subsidized college so more people could afford it (example: the GI bill in the 50s (or 40s?)). With the challenging economy in the 80s, states started reducing their support of universities so more of the costs were borne by the students through higher tuition. The 529 plans were an attempt to subsidize tuition costs but it only works if you can afford to set aside money for your kids. In that respect, the 529 does contribute to the stratification. The old way was more egalitarian where the wealthy paid more taxes, the state forwarded many to universities, and all students benefited from lower tuition, regardless of their family wealth.
The mortgage interest deduction phases out if your income exceeds a certain amount so it doesn't contribute quite as much to stratification.
The US has always had classes, but it has been based on wealth rather than birth family. Because of that, there is an amount of mobility available to move between classes regardless of whether your family is wealthy or not. If someone works hard and climbs up to the next "class", they can feel entitled to the benefits. Its the American way.
The Feds and states used to prioritize education and subsidized college so more people could afford it (example: the GI bill in the 50s (or 40s?)). With the challenging economy in the 80s, states started reducing their support of universities so more of the costs were borne by the students through higher tuition. The 529 plans were an attempt to subsidize tuition costs but it only works if you can afford to set aside money for your kids. In that respect, the 529 does contribute to the stratification. The old way was more egalitarian where the wealthy paid more taxes, the state forwarded many to universities, and all students benefited from lower tuition, regardless of their family wealth.
The mortgage interest deduction phases out if your income exceeds a certain amount so it doesn't contribute quite as much to stratification.
The US has always had classes, but it has been based on wealth rather than birth family. Because of that, there is an amount of mobility available to move between classes regardless of whether your family is wealthy or not. If someone works hard and climbs up to the next "class", they can feel entitled to the benefits. Its the American way.
5
Two major points:
The Greatest Generation EARNED the GI Bill.
Why should anyone be forced to pay the tuition for anyone else's child? Someone I work for attended Ivys for undergrad and grad school. They grew up in a wealthy area of Long Island where their family paid property taxes that were 14 times what my father ever paid in a low income area of Queens NY. Why would we have ever had the same education, same opportunities or same wages?
The Greatest Generation EARNED the GI Bill.
Why should anyone be forced to pay the tuition for anyone else's child? Someone I work for attended Ivys for undergrad and grad school. They grew up in a wealthy area of Long Island where their family paid property taxes that were 14 times what my father ever paid in a low income area of Queens NY. Why would we have ever had the same education, same opportunities or same wages?
2
how telling that "leave capitalism alone" is from long island.
glad i left. we pay for others education because an educated SOCIETY is beneficial to all. somebody seems perfectly comfortable in their position of privilege and wants to keep it that and exclude others from rising up. telling.
again, glad i left. long island is full of this "screw you i have mine" mentality.
glad i left. we pay for others education because an educated SOCIETY is beneficial to all. somebody seems perfectly comfortable in their position of privilege and wants to keep it that and exclude others from rising up. telling.
again, glad i left. long island is full of this "screw you i have mine" mentality.
3
This piece seems to have created a category of "the wealthy" that simply doesn't represent where the largest percentage of wealth actually is. Upper middle class is sort of affluent but hardly wealthy relative to the infamous one percent or even ten percent. And it's not as if the upper middle class doesn't work hard to be where they are. There is no privilege for them. They can afford more, but in no way resemble the truly rich. The upper middle class isn't pretending it isn't rich. It really isn't.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
3
You made his point quite nicely! Maybe read it again?
If you haven't read Kevin Phillips' book "Wealth and Democracy" I highly recommend it for the historical perspective it gives on the concentration of wealth in America and how empires fall due to over leveraging.
6
Than you for this recommendation. I have not read this particular book, but those I have read by Phillips have been enlightening and I would expect nothing less. On my To Read List and those on Goodreads give it four stars!
1
Even for those of us who have ridden luck (and some hard work) to a college degree, we must start our professional careers in a hole of mega-debt. Those of us who don't have help from mommy and daddy or a huge donor, that is. What kind of society designs it's educational system to spit out young graduates who are burdened by mountains of debt? Educational debt is not only wrong, but also on an economic/policy level makes no sense at all, as it's harder for young professionals to afford a house, plan for children, spend money at local businesses, or even pursue a desired professional career- instead, it all goes to anonymous faraway lenders.
Invest in education from the ground-up, pre-K to higher-ed! Make it an equal (and therefore free) playing field for all children and young adults. Only then can we tackle income inequality and the societal evils that come with it.
Invest in education from the ground-up, pre-K to higher-ed! Make it an equal (and therefore free) playing field for all children and young adults. Only then can we tackle income inequality and the societal evils that come with it.
13
Young people trying to move upward are doomed from the start by the iniquitous college loan system. It lures naive young people to sign onto it, then enslaves them for life because most of them don't earn enough ever to repay these loans-- while interest mounts. I have former students now in their 50s who have been repaying loans all their lives, are still repaying $600 a month, live in rentals and don't have cars. I don't know if the outstanding loans bar them from getting Social Security, but I know the loans--unlike the ones our President walked away from--are not dischargeable by bankruptcy. This situation is the one most leaders have ignored, dooming the children while protecting the banks. Free educations propelled millions of us into the top 20%, allowing us to enter the work force debt-free and improve ourselves. But we're hobbling the children. Gov. Cuomo deserves much praise for making NYS one of the few islands of educational opportunity by offering free state educations for the lower and middle classes. If what Cuomo did were universal, it would make the classes able to rise.
13
All three of my kids carry student loans. A mix of federal unsubsidized and private. The federal loans are at about the same rate as my mortgage and the private loans at 1.9%.
Two of my kids completed undergrad school with 40k in debt. And #3 is tracking to the same.
All three went/go to residential state schools in NJ, CA, and AZ. Still clocking in at about 80k total in CA and AZ and 100k in NJ.
These loans are important. They covered the part of school I couldn't and well the part I didn't want to pay for, and they make the kids responsible for themselves. Every one of them makes regular payments. They work. They write checks. They monitor their credit reports. They all qualify for high-quality credit cards because they have established credit.
They are, adults.
None of these loans will last past age 30 under my coaching. And they have value to the kids that will be compounded for life.
Its all about responsible borrowing.
Two of my kids completed undergrad school with 40k in debt. And #3 is tracking to the same.
All three went/go to residential state schools in NJ, CA, and AZ. Still clocking in at about 80k total in CA and AZ and 100k in NJ.
These loans are important. They covered the part of school I couldn't and well the part I didn't want to pay for, and they make the kids responsible for themselves. Every one of them makes regular payments. They work. They write checks. They monitor their credit reports. They all qualify for high-quality credit cards because they have established credit.
They are, adults.
None of these loans will last past age 30 under my coaching. And they have value to the kids that will be compounded for life.
Its all about responsible borrowing.
3
Thank you David for making an often overlooked point about low student loan rates (although the rates vary depending upon the student's resources).
There are thousands (millions?) of us who took out Federal loans in the late 1970's through early 1980's at rates that ranged from 9 - 14 % so it's not just current students who incurred crushing debt. Remember, wages have been stagnant since the early 70's for middle and lower classes.
There are thousands (millions?) of us who took out Federal loans in the late 1970's through early 1980's at rates that ranged from 9 - 14 % so it's not just current students who incurred crushing debt. Remember, wages have been stagnant since the early 70's for middle and lower classes.
2
Real tax reform would be plain and simple. No federal taxes on low income earners below $200,000 for a family of four. Yes, that's what low income means. People making more than that can afford to hire a tax professional to game the system, and write off the expense. Tax the rich proportionally, educate the poor responsibly. This will get the money out of US politics.
4
There seems to be a lot of misreading of this article. The caim is not that you can't move up in America. The claim is that once you get there, the system is rigged to make it unikely that your children will fall down the ladder, regardless of thir merit or lack of it. Frankly, what's wrong with that, from a parent's perspective? Who wants downward mobility for their child?
For that matter, despite the 529s and mortgage interest deduction, the Federal tax system is actually more progressive than that of the UK or most European countries, for the simple reason that the income tax is by far the largest contributor to Federal revenues, and unlike the UK or Europe, we have no VAT, a highly regressive sales tax.
So, like most Brits, you still need more work to understand the complexities of the US class system. I recommend Paul Fussell's excellent book "Class", a little dated but still largely accurate.
For that matter, despite the 529s and mortgage interest deduction, the Federal tax system is actually more progressive than that of the UK or most European countries, for the simple reason that the income tax is by far the largest contributor to Federal revenues, and unlike the UK or Europe, we have no VAT, a highly regressive sales tax.
So, like most Brits, you still need more work to understand the complexities of the US class system. I recommend Paul Fussell's excellent book "Class", a little dated but still largely accurate.
8
The author's choice of "posh" makes relevant the etymology of that word, which sheds some further light on the degrees of inequality at issue. It just happens to be my favorite etymology:
In the days of Empire, with India being the "jewel in the crown," travel from England was a lengthy ocean voyage that could mean endless days of staring from one's cabin at nothing but ocean. But a classist society readily found a solution for some: High-priced tickets guaranteed cabins facing the continents rather than the ocean - that meant being on the left (port) side of the ship going to India and on the right (starboard) side returning to England - Port Over, Starboard Home tickets, P.O.S.H.
I wonder if it was already on those long voyages that the "posh" passengers displayed the "decency to feel guilty about their privilege." The close proximity (and the "we're all in this boat together" mitigated awareness) may have fostered recognition that half their fellow passengers were relegated to nothing but endless ocean views as well as potentially greater vulnerability to seasickness, etc.
Speaking of posh travel, another example in keeping with the author's important point here would seem to be the complicity of airlines in aggravating class privilege as they increasingly luxuriate first-class compartments at the same time they keep shrinking inches of legroom in coach, reductions that bring with them aggravated health risks (e.g., thrombosis).
In the days of Empire, with India being the "jewel in the crown," travel from England was a lengthy ocean voyage that could mean endless days of staring from one's cabin at nothing but ocean. But a classist society readily found a solution for some: High-priced tickets guaranteed cabins facing the continents rather than the ocean - that meant being on the left (port) side of the ship going to India and on the right (starboard) side returning to England - Port Over, Starboard Home tickets, P.O.S.H.
I wonder if it was already on those long voyages that the "posh" passengers displayed the "decency to feel guilty about their privilege." The close proximity (and the "we're all in this boat together" mitigated awareness) may have fostered recognition that half their fellow passengers were relegated to nothing but endless ocean views as well as potentially greater vulnerability to seasickness, etc.
Speaking of posh travel, another example in keeping with the author's important point here would seem to be the complicity of airlines in aggravating class privilege as they increasingly luxuriate first-class compartments at the same time they keep shrinking inches of legroom in coach, reductions that bring with them aggravated health risks (e.g., thrombosis).
11
According to Snopes, that is a false etymology for the word 'posh' and the word had long before been related to money and lots of money.
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/posh.asp
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/posh.asp
Port outStarboard home guaranteed that you were away from the sun going both directions...it was definitely about privilege once you hit tropical temperatures.
2
I think it is not the top 20%´s fault, that they vote in their own interest, speak low taxes for the rich, deduction of mortgage interest from their taxes. It is rather the problem that a majority of the lower 80% is thinking that one day they will belong to the top 20% and therefore vote against their own good.
9
More self-justifying thinking. America has very low turnout compared to other democracies because working class voters no longer vote. Having lost union representation and any representation in the media -- advertisers have little interest in them -- they have been locked out of the political conversation and actual representation in government. The voting booth is as class stratified as any other place in America.
The working class is talked about, but never heard. And that talk is mostly ridiculous and offensive cliches.
Joe-not-a-plumber (and not named Joe) was given a lot of air time; which is what he wanted. He wouldn’t have been given that media attention if he had spoke to the President about raise increases and stronger protections for unions.
No real plumber -- most important no real head of the Plumbers Union -- or any union -- would get that kind of media attention, now would they?
Or any representation in the endless Right/Left panel discussion cable news loves.
If you disagree, please point out the major media outlets, print, broadcast or cable, that devote time, participation and representation to actual working class representatives of working class interests. Rather than just, from time to time, granting time to the academics or graduates of elite colleges who deign to talk about, but certainly not for, the working class? (And, in fact, you don’t even see very much of that.)
The working class is talked about, but never heard. And that talk is mostly ridiculous and offensive cliches.
Joe-not-a-plumber (and not named Joe) was given a lot of air time; which is what he wanted. He wouldn’t have been given that media attention if he had spoke to the President about raise increases and stronger protections for unions.
No real plumber -- most important no real head of the Plumbers Union -- or any union -- would get that kind of media attention, now would they?
Or any representation in the endless Right/Left panel discussion cable news loves.
If you disagree, please point out the major media outlets, print, broadcast or cable, that devote time, participation and representation to actual working class representatives of working class interests. Rather than just, from time to time, granting time to the academics or graduates of elite colleges who deign to talk about, but certainly not for, the working class? (And, in fact, you don’t even see very much of that.)
4
Mike, I think that's a good observation. It goes a long way toward explaining why Trump got so much support from voters who would have been better represented (if imperfectly) by Hillary. During the run-up to the election, I remember seeing a guy in a feed cap and a workshirt with his name embroidered on it (in other words, a man who worked as a tradesman or mechanic) tell a reporter that he was voting for Trump because "He's just like me." When pressed by the reporter, the guy explained that he saw in Trump a hard-working, self-made man. As if.
It's aspirational thinking. The same thing that makes the Kardashians a thing. And Powerball.
It's aspirational thinking. The same thing that makes the Kardashians a thing. And Powerball.
4
My only disagreement: Most American upper-middle class families I have known go through paroxysms of guilt when it comes to the "public school/private school" decision for their children. It's like a horrible rite of passage. Typically, they reluctantly go with private school, or move into a wealthy neighborhood where the public schools are good. It's not done thoughtlessly, as the writer suggests here; but yeah, the outcome is the same: segregation by class.
11
I don't get why anyone would feel guilt over choosing private school. Do parents struggle over that decision when their child gets a need-based scholarship, or does this guilt come only with the ability to pay? Does that dichotomy make any sense at all?
There is so much hypocrisy in all this hand wringing. I live near a top-rated, college-prep charter school. It outdoes most of the private preps, and it is "free" to attendees (not really, since parents are expected to give a certain amount of cash as a "donation"). Public or not -- and even though the students are chosen by lottery, albeit with a legacy-based golden ticket if a sibling attended -- it is an elitist school without question. Its rigorous curriculum effectively forces lower performing students out and back into the regular public schools I know a kid who was pressured out). Even the most pedantically liberal or progressive, Bernie-loving parents cheer and boast when their kids get in here. I have never seen a hint of anguish over it. Yet while their kids enjoy advanced physics classes and state-of-the-art labs, other high schools in the district struggle to provide the basics. Charters steal money from the real public school system, yet for some reason this gets whitewashed into a twisted kind of populism. It's ridiculous.
There is so much hypocrisy in all this hand wringing. I live near a top-rated, college-prep charter school. It outdoes most of the private preps, and it is "free" to attendees (not really, since parents are expected to give a certain amount of cash as a "donation"). Public or not -- and even though the students are chosen by lottery, albeit with a legacy-based golden ticket if a sibling attended -- it is an elitist school without question. Its rigorous curriculum effectively forces lower performing students out and back into the regular public schools I know a kid who was pressured out). Even the most pedantically liberal or progressive, Bernie-loving parents cheer and boast when their kids get in here. I have never seen a hint of anguish over it. Yet while their kids enjoy advanced physics classes and state-of-the-art labs, other high schools in the district struggle to provide the basics. Charters steal money from the real public school system, yet for some reason this gets whitewashed into a twisted kind of populism. It's ridiculous.
3
Easy for me and my 2% and occasionally 1% income. Public Schools. In Super Zips.
2
By the way.....I have always steered myself to superzips and their equivalents; and I have always lived with and known poor and working class people living in the same towns. These are the smartest people I know. Their kids grow up with role models and connections. They attend great schools. They play on the same teams as the other kids and attend the same events. To go to good schools and churches and have good parks and police protection. They have food access. Most important they have poor but smart parents who work hard. If I was still poor, I would make sure to raise my kids in a rich neighborhood.
1
Few middle class dwellers will probably ever realize that they have won the most important lottery in life - that of birth. I've worked hard, I've battled adversity - but my foundation in life was a stable, middle class household. It's hard on some days to remember (bad bosses, long work hours, and grossly inflated real estate markets can get you down), but I was born firmly on third, and and I have to be wary not to mistake my singles for home runs. I'm not the 1%, but the advantages luck has afforded me are many and persistent.
28
Behold the amazing vanishing upper middle class! Without graduate degrees, my parents bought a modest house, afforded a membership at a modest country club and gave their kids camp, braces and college on about $35,000 a year in the 1960s.
With about $150K a year, we shop at Target, drive old cars, and have no idea how to send our kids to school: we make too much for financial aid. "Upper-middle class" is relative.
With about $150K a year, we shop at Target, drive old cars, and have no idea how to send our kids to school: we make too much for financial aid. "Upper-middle class" is relative.
27
Relative to where you live. You would be very wealthy here in western Massachusetts with $150k.
3
$35,000 a year in the 1960s was a lot, actually. The median household income was under 10k. My mother never made more than $20k a year in the 1970s, for example, and we had a three bedroom house in the suburbs.
In the 1960s, Joe Namath took home $142,000 a year as a top paid athlete.
In the 1960s, Joe Namath took home $142,000 a year as a top paid athlete.
6
There is a degree of truth to what you say about stickiness in the upper ranks of the wealthy but the great thing about the USA is still allowing the opportunity to join those ranks by hard work.
My parents were both immigrants who worked multiple jobs to provide for us but ALWAYS stressed education so that we could move up in the world and have easier lives. They also inculcated the need to show gratitude by way of giving back to the less fortunate. So by way of a meritocracy, the kids in my family worked tirelessly to get ahead... and we did. We continue to do so and to give back to those in need by tithing and then some.
Sadly, my children don't seem to have the same hunger to work so hard and seem willing to "coast" , victims of our success.
My parents were both immigrants who worked multiple jobs to provide for us but ALWAYS stressed education so that we could move up in the world and have easier lives. They also inculcated the need to show gratitude by way of giving back to the less fortunate. So by way of a meritocracy, the kids in my family worked tirelessly to get ahead... and we did. We continue to do so and to give back to those in need by tithing and then some.
Sadly, my children don't seem to have the same hunger to work so hard and seem willing to "coast" , victims of our success.
10
I am in agreement with much of Reeves conclusions. We do not make $200 K or even close, but our life style in this low cost rural area is probably close to that level. We collect social security as well as have medicare. We own and operate a small manufacturing business and pay our employees well above local wages. We pay for meal out via the business, car expenses, property taxes and maintenance etc. I know that we are in that top five percent Reeves talks about.
Though we hate Trump, voted for Clinton, we live in an area that voted about 70 percent for Trump. And incomes here are fairly low compared to most urban areas. Many local people now realize what a horror act Trump is but hold the attitude, there is nothing I can do about it so I don't want to talk about it. Sad to say racism and 'can't have a woman president' had a lot to do with how locals voted.
I have the attitude if you want to know who had a hand in the mess we are in politically, just look at the end of your arm. We know the enemy and it is us.
Though we hate Trump, voted for Clinton, we live in an area that voted about 70 percent for Trump. And incomes here are fairly low compared to most urban areas. Many local people now realize what a horror act Trump is but hold the attitude, there is nothing I can do about it so I don't want to talk about it. Sad to say racism and 'can't have a woman president' had a lot to do with how locals voted.
I have the attitude if you want to know who had a hand in the mess we are in politically, just look at the end of your arm. We know the enemy and it is us.
12
Oof. Guilty on all counts. We're probably even more guilty here in New York than anywhere else in the country and yet, why don't my husband and I feel like winners? We're certainly in the "favored fifth" but instead of feeling as though we are gaming the system - we're spending all of our resources trying to plug in the gaps of an intimidating, impersonal school system; making sure our kids are finding their voices, and living holistically; and trying to keep up with the ever rising costs of living in the city just so the family can be together at dinner. Which in reality rarely happens. The article seems to suggest somehow the favored fifth are responsible, even in control of an unjust class system but my experience is that we are just as beleagured, exhausted and just trying to do better for our kids as anyone else.
20
If you think being in your position is difficult, be happy you're not living below the "favored fifth" status. You are NOT "just as beleagured (sic) or exhausted" as those with fewer resources if you consider gathering the family together for dinner to be a benchmark.
5
But your beleaguered with a very good salary and dare I say bundle of assets. Other folks -- the 80% below you -- probably lack both a very good salary and that bundle of assets. Hence, their beleaguered-ness is probably more world-wearying and soul crushing than yours. Especially as their children will not have the advantages that your children too.
4
I bet you're not as "beleaguered & exhausted" as some people I know who work 2 & 3 jobs at minimum wage just so they can pay the rent & provide food which no one ever gets to eat together at dinner or anytime because they're always working. If you want a more relaxed lifestyle I'll bet you have the means to move out of the city to a more pleasant location. Lots of people I know have no potential for mobility, and no matter how hard they work their lives are static.
That the difference between you and the lower classes. It's a shame you can't enjoy your great privilege.
That the difference between you and the lower classes. It's a shame you can't enjoy your great privilege.
1
Making the cutoff at upper 20% of household income is an unfortunate distortion . . . that cutoff is a little above $90,000. Reeves touts an average $200 K, but that is a mean that really does reflect an exorbitant transfer of income and wealth to the upper 1% in our generation. Thus, Reeves' focus on zoning and education, while not unimportant, ignores the dynamic of the past several decades in accumulation of wealth and growing impermeable aspects of class and insecurity, even for those in the upper fifth of the income distribution, but outside the 1%.
12
Global median income: about $2,000. Threshold to be in the global %1: $34,000. So we should all stop pretending we're not rich, right?
But we don't compare ourselves to people in Haiti or the Sudan when we ask ourselves how well we are doing. We compare ourselves to our peers. That means our neighbors, our coworkers, and those with whom we grew up or went to college. We feel rich when we are doing better than our peers, and poor when they are doing better than us.
Choosing to compare oneself to US median income, or percentiles or what have you, is just as arbitrary as comparing yourself to your neighbors. In fact, it is exactly comparing yourself to your neighbors, if you consider all fellow Americans to be neighbors, and those in the global South not.
The solution is not to compare better. It is also not to avoid using your advantages to help your children, because that's a non-starter. It is to look at our society and its resources as a whole, and ask what is the best policy to help everyone else's children, too: because they are the future of all of us.
But we don't compare ourselves to people in Haiti or the Sudan when we ask ourselves how well we are doing. We compare ourselves to our peers. That means our neighbors, our coworkers, and those with whom we grew up or went to college. We feel rich when we are doing better than our peers, and poor when they are doing better than us.
Choosing to compare oneself to US median income, or percentiles or what have you, is just as arbitrary as comparing yourself to your neighbors. In fact, it is exactly comparing yourself to your neighbors, if you consider all fellow Americans to be neighbors, and those in the global South not.
The solution is not to compare better. It is also not to avoid using your advantages to help your children, because that's a non-starter. It is to look at our society and its resources as a whole, and ask what is the best policy to help everyone else's children, too: because they are the future of all of us.
25
And yet we have elected two Presidents in recent history, Obama and Clinton, who came from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Perhaps the problem is that we live in a meritocracy that now places an emphasis on intellectual skills, which may be passed down genetically?
The value placed on manual labor has fallen in recent years for a variety of reasons.
I think it's important to identify the problem correctly before developing potential solutions.
Perhaps the problem is that we live in a meritocracy that now places an emphasis on intellectual skills, which may be passed down genetically?
The value placed on manual labor has fallen in recent years for a variety of reasons.
I think it's important to identify the problem correctly before developing potential solutions.
14
The value placed on physical labor has fallen because those who had used their positions to run a scam on the people and pass laws that removed the protections we had for all of us which allowed them to then take apart our Profitable Industry and sell it over seas where more profit could be made. That if anything is an indicator of just how short sighted and Unintelligent they are.
2
Obama's parents both had earned graduate degrees, that is not "disadvantaged."
What is Past is Prologue-
Intelligence has less to do with "success" than cunning and a willingness to exploit others in order to gain traction, and is why so many in executive (and elected government) positions lack the ethical perspective needed to solve the issue of inequality.
Intelligence has less to do with "success" than cunning and a willingness to exploit others in order to gain traction, and is why so many in executive (and elected government) positions lack the ethical perspective needed to solve the issue of inequality.
2
An extremely important discussion, thank you.
You mention two specific things that could be changed, and I strongly agree with you on both:
-Get rid of the handout on mortgage interest
-Get rid of the present 529 system, which also benefits pretty much only the rich.
The third approach, of course, is to read your book--but I wish you'd provided a few more freebies in this column.
The myth of American meritocracy results in absurd arguments and, of course, at times like now, absurd presidents. Someone told me once how hard I'd worked, when I denied this, they became incensed. "You have a successful business. Of course you've worked hard. What makes you want to deny this?"
I tried to explain that what made me deny it was the real facts of life: luck, not work, explains 99% of success and failure in the USA. If I take credit for my so-called success, then I can also equally assign blame to those who are homeless or without healthcare.. Yes, there are the exceptions, and even though they do stand out, we know what they prove.
People do not get a fair chance in the USA. And with the very rich now able to buy elections (Citizens United, etc), the inequality will only get worse. Most Americans react with disdain when they see a the procession of a foreign monarch decked out in gold, with cheering crowds of subjects lining the sidewalks. But what is Margo-Largo and do we really think that the individual on the gold toilet seat has that much money because he's worked so hard?
You mention two specific things that could be changed, and I strongly agree with you on both:
-Get rid of the handout on mortgage interest
-Get rid of the present 529 system, which also benefits pretty much only the rich.
The third approach, of course, is to read your book--but I wish you'd provided a few more freebies in this column.
The myth of American meritocracy results in absurd arguments and, of course, at times like now, absurd presidents. Someone told me once how hard I'd worked, when I denied this, they became incensed. "You have a successful business. Of course you've worked hard. What makes you want to deny this?"
I tried to explain that what made me deny it was the real facts of life: luck, not work, explains 99% of success and failure in the USA. If I take credit for my so-called success, then I can also equally assign blame to those who are homeless or without healthcare.. Yes, there are the exceptions, and even though they do stand out, we know what they prove.
People do not get a fair chance in the USA. And with the very rich now able to buy elections (Citizens United, etc), the inequality will only get worse. Most Americans react with disdain when they see a the procession of a foreign monarch decked out in gold, with cheering crowds of subjects lining the sidewalks. But what is Margo-Largo and do we really think that the individual on the gold toilet seat has that much money because he's worked so hard?
32
If one is allowed to take a tax deduction for mortgage interest, in other words a deduction for one's shelter, why shouldn't renters be allowed the same privilege?
3
The bottom line is that those who've achieved success should be made to feel that they somehow now owe something. If you face for cruel reality of capitalism and the free market grants you success, status, wealth, fame and fortune, then it is yours and yours alone. Likewise, if the free market does not value my labor and fate finds me as a lowly enlisted in an assigned career field that only leads to a sub-minimum wage job, (as actually happened) then so be it. As my employer of over 35 years told me the day I started here, I get to have things that you don't because I'm the boss and you're not. Otherwise, what's the point of achievement if everyone can afford a home, raise a family, buy a car, take a vacation , go to college?
2
I make well under 90k and I pack money into my son's 529. I live in a small house in a relatively poorer neighborhood to be able to do that. So not everyone using the 529 is doing it because they are rich.
1
Sequestering affluent children in their own private K-12 school system is completely antithetical to American values; and in my view, the biggest factor in the widening economic disparity in our country.
33
Maybe we should all send our children to failing public schools?
2
Independent schools are rarely as homogenous as the phrase "their own" suggests. Even among the affluent, full pay students, a great number are international; and many, many students receive full or partial scholarship, offering one of the few real 'escapes' from a truly disastrous or socially unhappy home school district to academically motivated students. Thus, though there seems to be some widespread fantasy that if independent schools shut their doors, all students would be magically and immediately lifted up, the reality is far more complex, as there would be fewer options for students in poorer districts, not more; there would be more students in over-filled classrooms, not fewer; and the tax dollars would be the same. I think such comments reflect a lingering fantasy about outraged, vocal, affluent parents producing some wave of change that would lift all boats -- but that's a total fantasy. Individual affluence is irrelevant for general taxing purposes, so those voices are no more or less powerful than those of other district parents. No, it's not the actual private schools we have to worry about -- it's the very dangerous privatization of public schooling under Trump/DeVos that's quickly turning our country's most precious democratic resource into a very profitable 'market' for turning guaranteed quick bucks through questionable charters and online education shams.
3
There are many comments here from those who started from humble beginnings and made their way to the top quintile who feel attacked. The key passages in this column relate to our public education system. America has never stood for equality of outcome, but it does stand for equality of opportunity and we have to recognize public education is the key to that. It's a broken system in which local property taxes determine what kind of education you get, whether you are an African American in the urban center or working class white from rural Appalachia. There is a long line of inventors in America who came from the frontier from modest means. By all means, send your kids to private tutors, private schools, etc. But let's invest in education. It's not just a personal question of helping smart students make it. The solution to some of the world's vexing problems might be locked up in some kid's head, who because of economic circumstances doesn't get to fix it. - a college prof.
56
One of the best replies yet. Unfortunately I don't think Devos is going to move that forward.
2
Why should someone who has done it all right, excelled within the survival of the fittest system that is capitalism, have to pay for K-12 for a Walmart stocker whose job doesn't require a day of instruction beyond the sixth grade?
I think the latest election results should help answer your question. Democracy only works with an informed and educated electorate. An educated populace is better for everyone. Who knows, that Walmart worker may be writing poems worthy of Rilke in his off hours.
Personally, I don't want to live in a nation of ignoramuses.
Personally, I don't want to live in a nation of ignoramuses.
6
why would nyt make this whining article the top of the list of sunday review?? can't we get something more substantive??
Most people here realize that Bill Gates' kids are not going to end up in the bottom half of income distribution. Will they be happy if a regular millionaire's kid is forced into the bottom half? Just to be clear, half of the population will always be in the bottom half - never mind if everyone has smartphones, TVs and cars.
4
To those Twenty Percenters who are in absolute denial here on this thread today:
You've fallen for the same fairytale storyline that enables the denial the author writes about.
"America has allowed immigrants and hard working SBOs to join the meritocracy?"
How sweet and precious that you believe this! (for an example of this endorsed delusion please see the first "NYT Pick")
Yes, immigrant families have succeeded here financially, but just as they have in Britain as well. And just like in Britain, here they've hardly been welcomed into the top echelons of class and society.
How many South East Asian governors and senators can you count? How many Jewish, Irish, and Italian American presidents have we elected? Catholic? One out of 45!
How many Eastern European American Justices of the Supreme Court have we appointed? Just read the Style section of this very newspaper, and count how many non-white faces populate the parties and benefits of the rich and well born.
I'm sure you can think of a few (1 or 2) immigrant names who've truly penetrated upper class society here in the U.S., but these are symbolic and support the myth you believe in your comment here.
This country is still run by a core fifth class who have the right last names, religion, skin color and connections.
Remove the scales from your Twenty Percenter eyes, or accept the truth and just start taking some responsibility for your social rank and position, just as your upper class British brethren do.
You've fallen for the same fairytale storyline that enables the denial the author writes about.
"America has allowed immigrants and hard working SBOs to join the meritocracy?"
How sweet and precious that you believe this! (for an example of this endorsed delusion please see the first "NYT Pick")
Yes, immigrant families have succeeded here financially, but just as they have in Britain as well. And just like in Britain, here they've hardly been welcomed into the top echelons of class and society.
How many South East Asian governors and senators can you count? How many Jewish, Irish, and Italian American presidents have we elected? Catholic? One out of 45!
How many Eastern European American Justices of the Supreme Court have we appointed? Just read the Style section of this very newspaper, and count how many non-white faces populate the parties and benefits of the rich and well born.
I'm sure you can think of a few (1 or 2) immigrant names who've truly penetrated upper class society here in the U.S., but these are symbolic and support the myth you believe in your comment here.
This country is still run by a core fifth class who have the right last names, religion, skin color and connections.
Remove the scales from your Twenty Percenter eyes, or accept the truth and just start taking some responsibility for your social rank and position, just as your upper class British brethren do.
23
You have got this exactly right.
Great stylistically, too.
As for your advice, we best not hold our breaths. All the excuses, coming thick and heavy, are designed to make sure that never happens. But just imagine if we were to have broad-based solidarity across all the groups you mentioned -- scary!
Great stylistically, too.
As for your advice, we best not hold our breaths. All the excuses, coming thick and heavy, are designed to make sure that never happens. But just imagine if we were to have broad-based solidarity across all the groups you mentioned -- scary!
4
The "Rigged system" mantra is SO tiresome, whether it is pandered by liars like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders for their profit, or by insipid OpEd writers in the NY Times.
Half-truths and innuendo lead me to believe that so many of these people merely want to hold people down so they can pose as saviors.
As Lucy Van Pelt might have said, "Bleah."
Half-truths and innuendo lead me to believe that so many of these people merely want to hold people down so they can pose as saviors.
As Lucy Van Pelt might have said, "Bleah."
4
No one should have heirs. All money should go into a giant pot and given to everyone who never even work.
There seems to be an important error here: the top 20% in the US have a household income of above $95k (approximately), not $200k. You are not sending your kids to private school on that. I suspect private school is really for the top 1-2?
I am in the top 1% and still struggle to send my kids to private school. Ashamed? Are you nuts? If your kid got sick would you seek out a mediocre doctor for equality? I vote to increase taxes and would love for all schools to be improved. My own parents were in the bottom 5% and I do believe my income reflects merits though I of course appreciate that the author has a point. But do you want to have a meritocracy where you cannot use your rewards for your kids? Then there are no rewards in my books. Spending it on education is to me one of the nicest things you can do with that money. I send my kids to private because their school then can be surrounded by forest and have a nonaggressive atmosphere. I am happy to increase taxes so everyone can do it, but in the meantime I will do everything I can to get my children the best environment I can.
I am in the top 1% and still struggle to send my kids to private school. Ashamed? Are you nuts? If your kid got sick would you seek out a mediocre doctor for equality? I vote to increase taxes and would love for all schools to be improved. My own parents were in the bottom 5% and I do believe my income reflects merits though I of course appreciate that the author has a point. But do you want to have a meritocracy where you cannot use your rewards for your kids? Then there are no rewards in my books. Spending it on education is to me one of the nicest things you can do with that money. I send my kids to private because their school then can be surrounded by forest and have a nonaggressive atmosphere. I am happy to increase taxes so everyone can do it, but in the meantime I will do everything I can to get my children the best environment I can.
18
For better off minorities being in the 20% helps overcome the racism. Although obviously the racism hobbles trying to get there
3
Any self-proclaimed Liberal who sends their children to private school is a hypocrite. Apparently, there are a LOT of hypocrites in NYC.
17
Amen to that. About half of the white school aged children go to private schools. Just about split evenly between Catholic and Jewish. The white kids that do go to public schools attend schools that are overwhelmingly white.
Now, show those stats to a liberal from NY City and tell them they (the stats) are from flyover country or the south and they will carry on endlessly about those racists! It seems like W. Virginia is Krugman's favorite target.
Point out the stats are from NY City and you'll hear a lot about that's just the way thing turned out.
Now, show those stats to a liberal from NY City and tell them they (the stats) are from flyover country or the south and they will carry on endlessly about those racists! It seems like W. Virginia is Krugman's favorite target.
Point out the stats are from NY City and you'll hear a lot about that's just the way thing turned out.
6
Because America is all about struggling, studying, working yourself stupid for decades so you can afford to buy a nice house in an "inclusive" community where the neighbors blare mariachi music day and night, work on their defunct car collection in the front yard, and leave their used baby diapers all over the beachfront.
Right. Tell us about your council housing again?
Right. Tell us about your council housing again?
8
Yep, those awful middle class Americans with their posh health care premiums they can't afford and their big college loan bills! Tell me again where you live. Very few middle class Americans making 200,000 a year can send their children to Harvard! Have you looked at those fees recently.
The calcified .00000001 who make millions and avoid taxes are the problem not the working middle class.
As I read this article I thought this is hilarious. He went to Oxford and he's worried that the American Middle class is the problem. He doesn't think the fact that fund managers pay less taxes than a secretary and that GE pays zero taxes or that middle class workers are being replaced by special visa workers who are jetted in and trained by the Americans they will replace. He doesn't think CEO pay at 400 times what workers make is a problem. Wow, how blind.
Yep it's this awful middle class humans they are the problem. I say coswallop, sir, pure codswallop!
The calcified .00000001 who make millions and avoid taxes are the problem not the working middle class.
As I read this article I thought this is hilarious. He went to Oxford and he's worried that the American Middle class is the problem. He doesn't think the fact that fund managers pay less taxes than a secretary and that GE pays zero taxes or that middle class workers are being replaced by special visa workers who are jetted in and trained by the Americans they will replace. He doesn't think CEO pay at 400 times what workers make is a problem. Wow, how blind.
Yep it's this awful middle class humans they are the problem. I say coswallop, sir, pure codswallop!
17
Imagine a world where the Times publishes opinion pieces that actually propose solutions to our problems, instead of mush that flogs the mortgage deduction for the x-millionth time. The writer is right, the US appears to be moving toward a bifurcated society of the "Pretty rich to Insanely Rich" and 80% "the rest", but just grumps at the NY times readership (mostly "pretty rich"). There is a solution out there, it's called taxes and/or redistributing wealth on a wide scale that helps everyone - like Health Care for All (like Britain), Childcare /Family Benefits that reward having kids (France) Free/Low Cost University, Equalizing public schools (most good suburban schools are good because they have much more $$) But no, it's just some individual family who doesn't want the mortgage deduction eliminated.
8
This aims to deflect attention from the fact that the "1%" (more accurately, the .01%) have increased their wealth the most, while all others are flat or declined. This also aims to provide life support to the zombie American dream, to keep holding out the Horatio Alger carrot that all can aspire to be part of this 20%. The only reason this 20% has survived is that they are the lackeys of the 1%, just somewhat better paid worker bees, functionaries, subject to termination with everyone else. In a New Yorker cartoon of two swells talking, the caption said "I used to want power, now I'll settle for the trappings." The .01% (think they) have the power, this 20% are settling for a few minor trappings. It's getting harder to fool the people, who have always had the actual power and still do. I saw two little neighbor girls of ours, one had a candy bar but wasn't sharing. The other girl grabbed the candy bar, broke it in half, gave half back and said, "She wanted to share." From the mouths of babes.
8
"I'm not depending on the bourgeoise. You never know when something might happen to them." Waga Eiryo, a character from Seicho Matsumoto's - Inspector Imanishi Investigates
3
The USA may not be a meritocratic paradise, but here at least social mobility is theoretically possible, however difficult. In the UK, as some have found out, mere success and money is not the way to the "top". There are ghettos among the top layer of British society where they put the merely wealthy while the power structure, composed of the descendants of those who slaughtered for or paid cumshaw to the royals, remains largely intact. It doesn't help that the rising middle class of the UK committed seppuku by abolishing selective education in favor of one-pot recipes that dragged down the able to mollify the stupid. Now the govt. consists of Eton and Oxford, just as in Victorian times.
3
jealousy is a terrible emotion. Seems like every day all I read in this publication is how terrible America is. What's the endgame? We are heading down a horrible path with this idiotic self loathing. America is by far the greatest country in human history. Sure there are flaws but it is childish to compare us to utopia, just compare us to all other countries and it is abundantly clear that the world would be far worse off without us.
9
You can tell how great a country is by how many people it incarcerates, how much it spends on its military might and how often it resorts to using force, and how militarized its police are.
Those three facts tell you a lot right there. Oh, and anyone who brings them up is just jealous! I knew that.
Those three facts tell you a lot right there. Oh, and anyone who brings them up is just jealous! I knew that.
6
This family favoritism is prolly universal,
throughout the Animal Kingdom.
throughout the Animal Kingdom.
2
Americans can stop pretending they are poor too. Most have AC, cell phones, free stuff
This is a great place to highlight an article from several years ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/end-college-legacy-preference...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/end-college-legacy-preference...
When I read these pieces from think tanks (Richard Reeves is now a Brookings Institution appratchik), I wonder: who's pushing for this policy change and why?
We can dispense with the nonsense that either Reeves or Brookings is concerned with income inequality. The Brookings Institution Board of Trustees is dominated by powerful bankers who rose to their positions in society by figuring out ways to divorce people from their money. And what better way to do this than by altering government policy so that trillions in home equity flow out of people's net worth and into investment vehicles of their own design?
Keep your eye on the BI and ask yourself: cui bono? Are they actually interested in raising government revenue, which has a remarkable history of NOT benefitting poor folks, or are they just getting access to a new income stream? After all, if the home mortgage exemption is killed, you'll surely move your money into...what else?..."new" tax-free investments developed by these very same folks.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Brookings_Institution
We can dispense with the nonsense that either Reeves or Brookings is concerned with income inequality. The Brookings Institution Board of Trustees is dominated by powerful bankers who rose to their positions in society by figuring out ways to divorce people from their money. And what better way to do this than by altering government policy so that trillions in home equity flow out of people's net worth and into investment vehicles of their own design?
Keep your eye on the BI and ask yourself: cui bono? Are they actually interested in raising government revenue, which has a remarkable history of NOT benefitting poor folks, or are they just getting access to a new income stream? After all, if the home mortgage exemption is killed, you'll surely move your money into...what else?..."new" tax-free investments developed by these very same folks.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Brookings_Institution
7
I sure hope all the folks proclaiming their lack of guilt for their privilege take a day to rest their arm from patting themselves on the back.
Please, get over yourselves and read the article again (while resting). A lot of working people sacrifice, make good choices, don't abuse drugs/alcohol, and work very hard. There isn't some magical causality between these behaviors and being among the privileged group that Mr. Reeves is describing.
Please, get over yourselves and read the article again (while resting). A lot of working people sacrifice, make good choices, don't abuse drugs/alcohol, and work very hard. There isn't some magical causality between these behaviors and being among the privileged group that Mr. Reeves is describing.
10
I smell hypocrisy here... how much do you earn annually Mr. Reeves? How nicely does your portfolio bounce along? What 'class' (as you put it) does that put you in?
Many of us are comfortably off in the United States-- and trust me, it's a much easier 'rank' to achieve (being comfortably off) here rather than in the UK, I can testify from personal experience (as a Scottish born American).
It be true, many of us are not comfortably off, and many have no idea about how to remove themselves from such poverty. It's the same everywhere-- the same old... have's, have nots, and sorry cases.
To be in the top 20%, or earning 500k+ p.a. - however you want to pigeon-hole folks is irrelevant. Rich, is having your feet hit the floor each morning, rich is enjoying good health, rich is being able to look your friends, family and neighbors (perhaps, customers) in eye and know they see you for what you are. Do you respect yourself?
It's only money, what measure of a man is money, without first taking into account his nature?
You're looking at me? Maybe we're looking at you.
Many of us are comfortably off in the United States-- and trust me, it's a much easier 'rank' to achieve (being comfortably off) here rather than in the UK, I can testify from personal experience (as a Scottish born American).
It be true, many of us are not comfortably off, and many have no idea about how to remove themselves from such poverty. It's the same everywhere-- the same old... have's, have nots, and sorry cases.
To be in the top 20%, or earning 500k+ p.a. - however you want to pigeon-hole folks is irrelevant. Rich, is having your feet hit the floor each morning, rich is enjoying good health, rich is being able to look your friends, family and neighbors (perhaps, customers) in eye and know they see you for what you are. Do you respect yourself?
It's only money, what measure of a man is money, without first taking into account his nature?
You're looking at me? Maybe we're looking at you.
7
#CLASSIC BROOKINGS PROPAGANDA. You neglect to mention what percentage of your one-fith arrived with no portfolio but belief in The American Dream (meritocracy).
2
The NYT seems to have moved beyond race provocateurs to class anger provocateurs. This will surely annoy most of its readership but what the heck, as long as we get clicks! My point of contention with this article is the following: "This favored fifth at the top of the income distribution, with an average annual household income of $200,000". How much does the median of the top 1/5th make. I am sure that it is much lower than this as the top 1% is skewing the result. But then of course, you know this. It's all about annoying and exciting readers, never about making good common sense to benefit the country.
6
White mans burden Lloyd..my man....White mans burden...........
The Merits of luck at birth is the only determination of how high on the ladder you roost.
The degree of work determines how you move on that ladder and its harder to clamber over the masses when starting at the bottom.
Thank you for your perspective Richard and all due respect for Mr. Kubrick
The Merits of luck at birth is the only determination of how high on the ladder you roost.
The degree of work determines how you move on that ladder and its harder to clamber over the masses when starting at the bottom.
Thank you for your perspective Richard and all due respect for Mr. Kubrick
2
And how goes those remedies to the white man's burden in Vermont?
...
That's what I thought.
...
That's what I thought.
It took a Brit to bring up and articulate one of America's dirty little secrets. I'll bet most of the comments are from the non meus mendum crowd.
6
More than money what makes the upper middle class in America are the notions of accountability, responsibility, hard work, delayed gratification and investment (in time, money and emotional intelligence) into one's children.
I am going to bet Reeves that any "lower middle class" family that sticks to the above will make it into the "upper class" within one half a generation.
What is trickier still is his between-the-lines suggestion that the professional class does not deserve their "privileges" ( a nasty word, these days). Anyone buying this bunkum might want to move to Venezuela, that paradise of redistributionism.
I am going to bet Reeves that any "lower middle class" family that sticks to the above will make it into the "upper class" within one half a generation.
What is trickier still is his between-the-lines suggestion that the professional class does not deserve their "privileges" ( a nasty word, these days). Anyone buying this bunkum might want to move to Venezuela, that paradise of redistributionism.
5
Good manners never go out of style. Mr. Reeves should be thankful his mother wanted him to have social graces to mix and mingle with everyone. I wish other parents were so thoughtful. Instead today we have tattooed, pierced, cursing and boorish young people who can't even manage their own lives.
6
Seriously?
What happens in called inbreeding.
The rich avoid it because they do not have borders.
Upper-middles perpetuate it.
I see American kids all the time.
Smartest come from the south.
The rest are, generally, fumble-musters. Feeble-misers, mother-wishers.
What happens in called inbreeding.
The rich avoid it because they do not have borders.
Upper-middles perpetuate it.
I see American kids all the time.
Smartest come from the south.
The rest are, generally, fumble-musters. Feeble-misers, mother-wishers.
Why do we allow the term "middle" (or even "upper middle") to refer to the UPPER 20%? That's another reflection of our indulgent view of our own classlessness. Upper 20% is Upper, and we should admit it.
3
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, class.
It's part of being a tribe.
And, speaking of elocution, many six figure income individuals still "tawk" like "Queens".
It's part of being a tribe.
And, speaking of elocution, many six figure income individuals still "tawk" like "Queens".
2
With a tip of the hat to Ray Charles:
"Them That Got"
"That old sayin them that's got are them that gets
Is somethin I can't see
If ya gotta have somethin
Before you can get somethin
How do ya get your first is still a mystery to me
I see folk with long cars and fine clothes
That's why they're called the smarter set
Because they manage to get
When only them that's got supposed to get
And I ain't got nothin yet
Whoah, I tell you all
I ain't found nothing yet.”
"Them That Got"
"That old sayin them that's got are them that gets
Is somethin I can't see
If ya gotta have somethin
Before you can get somethin
How do ya get your first is still a mystery to me
I see folk with long cars and fine clothes
That's why they're called the smarter set
Because they manage to get
When only them that's got supposed to get
And I ain't got nothin yet
Whoah, I tell you all
I ain't found nothing yet.”
3
Wow, I only needed to read a few responses to see utter ignorance and if say blind to ones privilege. So, stop pretending your rich and at the same time stop patting yourself on the back, "we've earned this" . Of course you have, however no need to defend yourselves as victims of class privilege while on the upper rung. Its unsightly. The ugly American, well written in the 50's is alive and well in the upper middle class present day. Cheers!
5
I grew up in the southern midwest, in a lower middle class family. Public school with a strong FFA and at 9 pm the single traffic light became a blinker. When I took the SAT I was under the impression that studying for it was cheating, so I took it cold and got a middling score. When I applied to college I didn't apply to my grandfather's alma mater, Harvard. I didn't want to take advantage of the legacy thing. College didn't work out a first, but in the end I got my BA as a continuing ed. student and my advanced degree at a public school. And I'm proud to have done all without the benefits of the right accent or the right high school name.
Boy am I naive.
Mr. Reeves's observations fit my experience. The Ivy people have a Social Darwinian sense about them. They like to pretend that they deserved all the perks and tend to forget that many of the most despicable of the moral degenerates of our time are Ivy graduates.They bank and consult and protect the interests of corporations and develop real estate. They drive SUVs and shop at Whole Foods. They gentrify neighborhoods and forget about those who got gentrified. They are limo liberals and straight up Gorden Gekko creeps. They support centrist candidates and are clueless about how TRUMP got any votes. They drive in the left lane more often than not.They run this country, so if you are smart you had better get elocution lessons and take advantage of that distant relative who went to Yale.
Or eat them in the revolution.
Boy am I naive.
Mr. Reeves's observations fit my experience. The Ivy people have a Social Darwinian sense about them. They like to pretend that they deserved all the perks and tend to forget that many of the most despicable of the moral degenerates of our time are Ivy graduates.They bank and consult and protect the interests of corporations and develop real estate. They drive SUVs and shop at Whole Foods. They gentrify neighborhoods and forget about those who got gentrified. They are limo liberals and straight up Gorden Gekko creeps. They support centrist candidates and are clueless about how TRUMP got any votes. They drive in the left lane more often than not.They run this country, so if you are smart you had better get elocution lessons and take advantage of that distant relative who went to Yale.
Or eat them in the revolution.
12
One leg at a time, no matter how you cut it!
1
It seems that many miss the underlying point, massive white mastodon that it is: many people in the USA make too much* money.
[* "too much." Much more than minimum wage; more than one needs*.]
[* "need." Monies necessary to feed, clothe, and house oneself in a reasonable* manner.]
[* "reasonable." Far, far less than you desire, but still far more than many working individuals make and have.]
[* "too much." Much more than minimum wage; more than one needs*.]
[* "need." Monies necessary to feed, clothe, and house oneself in a reasonable* manner.]
[* "reasonable." Far, far less than you desire, but still far more than many working individuals make and have.]
5
Marx had a useful distinction. The haute bourgeoisie were what we call today the 1%. The petit bourgeoisie were -- oh how times have changed! -- what this article would call the top 5th. The petit bourgeoisie seek the exact same symbols of status and social standing that the haute bourgeoisie array themselves in, but of course, struggle much harder to maintain and attain. Additionally, the petit bourgeoisie tend to affect certain signifiers so as to show that, heavens no, they are not a bunch of wannabe Jay Gatsby's!
I find 1%'ers much more tolerable. They tend to be more honest about their astronomical privilege. The petit bourgoisie, at least in America, often seem in deep, deep denial as to their still exceedingly great, if difficult, privilege.
I believe David Brooks dubbed them "Bourgeois Bohemians." I have very, very often found that to be spot-on.
A friend once, when I asked her what was up, told me she was upset because her child did not get into a premier k-6 private school. I laughed because I thought she was feigning dismay, being ironic.
But she was being dead serious. That awkward moment in our relationship has never quite been overcome.
One thing I have learned is, you can tell the fantastically privileged they are fantastically privileged, but heaven help you if you tell the merely very privileged they are so. As I say, at least in America, an essential point of that class identity is that that is not their distinguishing feature.
But it is.
I find 1%'ers much more tolerable. They tend to be more honest about their astronomical privilege. The petit bourgoisie, at least in America, often seem in deep, deep denial as to their still exceedingly great, if difficult, privilege.
I believe David Brooks dubbed them "Bourgeois Bohemians." I have very, very often found that to be spot-on.
A friend once, when I asked her what was up, told me she was upset because her child did not get into a premier k-6 private school. I laughed because I thought she was feigning dismay, being ironic.
But she was being dead serious. That awkward moment in our relationship has never quite been overcome.
One thing I have learned is, you can tell the fantastically privileged they are fantastically privileged, but heaven help you if you tell the merely very privileged they are so. As I say, at least in America, an essential point of that class identity is that that is not their distinguishing feature.
But it is.
11
Finally!
The 99% theme over the past few years has only given many amongst these Comfortables a safe haven from scrutiny and their complicity in hoarding their wealth.
They are literally stopping their own children from advancing in financial security.
Its time to have a public discussion about a wealth tax to right our sinking society!
The 99% theme over the past few years has only given many amongst these Comfortables a safe haven from scrutiny and their complicity in hoarding their wealth.
They are literally stopping their own children from advancing in financial security.
Its time to have a public discussion about a wealth tax to right our sinking society!
7
Mr. Reeves has missed the number one reason the top fifth get away with their class privilege, identity politics. The great, historic blunder of American progressives has been to make everything about race. Because of our obsession with race – we have conversations about having conversations about race for God’s sake and go crazy every time a third rate white comedian uses the n-word – means that problems, like policing, mass incarceration and especially income inequality are only seen and discussed through the prism of racial inequality. When we talk about privilege we talk about white privilege, lumping poor and lower middle-class whites into every discussion of inequality and precluding any united front across racial divides to fight class privilege and tax the rich more.
And that is how progressives play right into the hands of the Republican Party, and hand them their base.
And that is how progressives play right into the hands of the Republican Party, and hand them their base.
9
"Most disturbing, we now know how firmly class positions are being transmitted across generations."
Clearly, that's evident in the resistance to Trump, who's grandfather, just three generations ago, ran a brothel in the Yukon. Shame, America! Your snob is showing.
There are even suggestions that WH45 is trying to replicate Grandpa Trump's formula. I don't know, that's what somebody told me. Check back in a week of so, maybe sooner. Sometime. "Next!"..to quote a regular Yukon expostulation from the down market past...
Clearly, that's evident in the resistance to Trump, who's grandfather, just three generations ago, ran a brothel in the Yukon. Shame, America! Your snob is showing.
There are even suggestions that WH45 is trying to replicate Grandpa Trump's formula. I don't know, that's what somebody told me. Check back in a week of so, maybe sooner. Sometime. "Next!"..to quote a regular Yukon expostulation from the down market past...
The working class perspires
for the upper middle class,
the middle class aspires
to the upper middle class,
The upper class inspires
the upper middle class,
America requires
the upper middle class,
democracy expires
without the upper middle class:
Sing, sing ye heavenly choirs
of the upper middle class.
for the upper middle class,
the middle class aspires
to the upper middle class,
The upper class inspires
the upper middle class,
America requires
the upper middle class,
democracy expires
without the upper middle class:
Sing, sing ye heavenly choirs
of the upper middle class.
2
Only the Times would print (put on website) this trash.
4
This is an excellent article. We all know this class system exits. The brilliance of this meritocratic myth Ranks up there with Disney and the family.
Everyone in the world knows the definition of an American: a millionaire with a cash flow problem. That in itself is a myth.
And now you have your mythical President.
And you shove down people's throats these self serving l
Everyone in the world knows the definition of an American: a millionaire with a cash flow problem. That in itself is a myth.
And now you have your mythical President.
And you shove down people's throats these self serving l
1
This is a true story.
In my honors class in elementary economics at the University of Missouri, I required a "getting to know you" paper at the beginning of the semester. It had to be delivered to my office, and we discussed it. For one student after our discussion of the paper we had the following exchange.
Student. Professor, Can I ask you a question?
Professor, Sure I will answer it if I can.
S. Do you think my family is poor?
P. From what you've written and what you told me, I don't think your family can be classed as poor.
S. Mmmm. All I have been told for my whole life is, "how poor we are."
P. That is one strategy of raising children.
S. I’m not going to tell my sister. She still thinks we are poor.
In my honors class in elementary economics at the University of Missouri, I required a "getting to know you" paper at the beginning of the semester. It had to be delivered to my office, and we discussed it. For one student after our discussion of the paper we had the following exchange.
Student. Professor, Can I ask you a question?
Professor, Sure I will answer it if I can.
S. Do you think my family is poor?
P. From what you've written and what you told me, I don't think your family can be classed as poor.
S. Mmmm. All I have been told for my whole life is, "how poor we are."
P. That is one strategy of raising children.
S. I’m not going to tell my sister. She still thinks we are poor.
4
Talking openly and honestly about money is as taboo as talking about sex was before the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's. This country needs a class revolution to blow open the shame, secrets, and hypocrisy of capitalism and economic inequality. Most of the people I know who have money (usually inherited) will never reveal anything about their finances. what keeps you from telling others how much you make or how much you inherited? Is it shame, guilt, fear, or something else.
3
I have found, R., that the "trustafarians" around me frequently live up to the adage, "he was born on third base but he believes he hit a triple." I suspect the numerous people of inherited wealth prefer we think their success is due to their own efforts.
2
The author, over at Brookings hosts something called social mobility memos
If mobility is zero but we all get richer, why do I care that some ELSE got richer, and if my increase is x% and yours is 2x%, oh the horror the horror,
We are most of us better off than our parents
Best to not compare, live your own life, there is always someone richer to envy and despise
Spare me skin color, our country is filled with poor white trash currently in suicide mode, coincident with Mr Obama's eight years
Spare me inherited wealth, our country is filled with LEGAL immigrants, came with nothing and prevailed, in their own lives or one or two generations
Spare me the tax code's inequity, the poor got THEIR tax breaks when the tax tables were set up, they got to walk away from the table, the rest eat what we are served
Spare me redistribution, it is theft following envy, confiscation disguised as moral preening, theft only works when the thieves leave some money behind, like seed corn, to grow more
=
MY luck was a mensa IQ, in your face belligerence (genetics) (random), consumerist constipation, a great GF, bill paying probity, giving me 800 credit scores, (learned) and no medical catastrophes, dad died young, mom a school teacher, most of this is available to all,
I renovated two apts lately, contractors make $1000/ day, diligence and some cultivated manual skills
as the many letter writers say at length
merit comes in many forms, envy only in one
If mobility is zero but we all get richer, why do I care that some ELSE got richer, and if my increase is x% and yours is 2x%, oh the horror the horror,
We are most of us better off than our parents
Best to not compare, live your own life, there is always someone richer to envy and despise
Spare me skin color, our country is filled with poor white trash currently in suicide mode, coincident with Mr Obama's eight years
Spare me inherited wealth, our country is filled with LEGAL immigrants, came with nothing and prevailed, in their own lives or one or two generations
Spare me the tax code's inequity, the poor got THEIR tax breaks when the tax tables were set up, they got to walk away from the table, the rest eat what we are served
Spare me redistribution, it is theft following envy, confiscation disguised as moral preening, theft only works when the thieves leave some money behind, like seed corn, to grow more
=
MY luck was a mensa IQ, in your face belligerence (genetics) (random), consumerist constipation, a great GF, bill paying probity, giving me 800 credit scores, (learned) and no medical catastrophes, dad died young, mom a school teacher, most of this is available to all,
I renovated two apts lately, contractors make $1000/ day, diligence and some cultivated manual skills
as the many letter writers say at length
merit comes in many forms, envy only in one
6
No, the point is most of us are NOT better off than our parents. That's because they lived in a post WWII society that valued human rights, families, and children and government and tax policies that supported those structures- good schools, clean water and air, safety in the streets, and fairness in broadcasting and banking. That is the attractive Great America we wanted Again. The root of our multi-cultural success was workers' Unions, destroyed by Reaganomics in the 1980's. We are NOT better off than our parents.
4
Upper middle class Americans pretend they're not classist, while Brits pretend they're not racist. Potato, po-tah-toe.
2
Brits pretend they don't hate us and want to recapture that which they believe we stole.
not to worry... it's all going to come to a dismal end (our way of life) sooner than later as our $18 trillion debt (and that's not counting the many many trillions more for unfunded liabiliities) sucks all the monetary oxygen from the room.
1
David Brooks has been flogging this same horse for years and Paul Krugman has been refuting it handily for years. As Krugman demonstrates, it's really just an attempt to make excuses for the super-rich who have sucked up nearly all the wealth by pointing the finger at others.
"If you look at the bottom 4 percent of the top 5, you see good but not spectacular income gains. These are the kinds of gains that you might be able to explain in terms of skills, assortative mating, and so on. But the top 1 percent is in a different universe altogether. And in fact the gains within the top 1 percent are concentrated in an even smaller group: this is a Pareto distribution thing, in which the higher the income the greater the percentage gains. The point is that using wider definitions than the one percent is, in effect,diluting the wolves of Wall Street by lumping them in with the upper middle class. Not the same story at all."
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/why-we-talk-about-the-one-p...
"If you look at the bottom 4 percent of the top 5, you see good but not spectacular income gains. These are the kinds of gains that you might be able to explain in terms of skills, assortative mating, and so on. But the top 1 percent is in a different universe altogether. And in fact the gains within the top 1 percent are concentrated in an even smaller group: this is a Pareto distribution thing, in which the higher the income the greater the percentage gains. The point is that using wider definitions than the one percent is, in effect,diluting the wolves of Wall Street by lumping them in with the upper middle class. Not the same story at all."
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/why-we-talk-about-the-one-p...
4
Which shows quite well how both Republicans and Democrats are, generally, in denial about their being quite well off.
Hence, my disgust with both parties, if not many Americans.
Hence, my disgust with both parties, if not many Americans.
2
Ridiculous article. That 'vast sucking sound' you hear is more and more families pulled backwards into the lower class, more and more middle class families falling into poverty, and yes, more and more upper middle class families losing sight of sending their kids to the college THEY graduated from.
I don't believe I am the only one that feels that my own rug of success may be pulled out from under my feet at any moment - by shifting markets, automation, another financial market crash, a major health issue, or a bad career choice. We upper middle class folks are here by our wits alone, and we count ourselves extraordinarily lucky to have stayed in the good life.
We all got here because of the liberal social programs created by our grandparents after world war 2. We are slipping backwards because these gains are being pulled away by a 'global superclass' of wealthy elites.
Nobody should feel guilty about where they are, unless they've done something truly evil to get there. What we all must recognize is that our society is a product of the systems we have created, based on what we truly value. If we want a growing, healthy middle class again, we must institute the liberal and progressive policies we had back in the 60s. We can also decide, as a society, whether we want people or computers to have happy, productive lives.
I don't believe I am the only one that feels that my own rug of success may be pulled out from under my feet at any moment - by shifting markets, automation, another financial market crash, a major health issue, or a bad career choice. We upper middle class folks are here by our wits alone, and we count ourselves extraordinarily lucky to have stayed in the good life.
We all got here because of the liberal social programs created by our grandparents after world war 2. We are slipping backwards because these gains are being pulled away by a 'global superclass' of wealthy elites.
Nobody should feel guilty about where they are, unless they've done something truly evil to get there. What we all must recognize is that our society is a product of the systems we have created, based on what we truly value. If we want a growing, healthy middle class again, we must institute the liberal and progressive policies we had back in the 60s. We can also decide, as a society, whether we want people or computers to have happy, productive lives.
The Upper Quintile is divided into two kinds of people:
Conservatives believe that everyone should work hard and that help retards initiative.
Liberals believe that everyone should have the same opportunities, after Liberals themselves have secured their status in the top ranks (from which to make sure everything happens as they direct).
Lower class Conservatives cling to the work ethic belief, even when it fails to produce measurable results.
Lower class Liberals have cashed out and now vote for those who will treat them as victims.
It's sad. Because the truth is in the middle.
Conservatives believe that everyone should work hard and that help retards initiative.
Liberals believe that everyone should have the same opportunities, after Liberals themselves have secured their status in the top ranks (from which to make sure everything happens as they direct).
Lower class Conservatives cling to the work ethic belief, even when it fails to produce measurable results.
Lower class Liberals have cashed out and now vote for those who will treat them as victims.
It's sad. Because the truth is in the middle.
I truly believe that the real problem with economic inequality is a complete lack of understanding how wealth, once accumulated, is the instrument of social equality. Once a person has reached the level of financial security that allows for a secure home, health, and retirement of a modest but sustainable amount, the remaining wealth is not to be horded but used to encourage those around us to to attain the same. Barbara Streisand, in the movie "Hello Dolly", and then Walter Matthau, had the lines that have always been most memorable, "Money is like manure, it isn't worth a thing unless it is spread around to help young things grow.".
4
The short response to Reeves is: So what? It is natural for parents to seek to advantage their children & grandchildren--and often they spend lavishly to do so. They should feel guilty about that? C'mon, that's ridiculous. *** As to jettisoning the mortgage interest deduction (and, unmentioned by Reeves, the deduction for state and local taxes)--it's just not going to happen. Nor is exclusionary zoning. All politics is local, and legislators are not going to take those goodies away from those who elect them. *** The article is a massive waste of space and newsprint. Let's turn to issues we can do something about.
1
Very interesting. My income is nowhere near that of the top 20% he mentions, but I've been emailing and snail-mailing and phoning my senators for higher taxes for a couple of years at least. Higher taxes on my family as well as anyone richer than us. We can afford it--and I want the CDC, the FCC, the NEA, the ACA, and all the other government services we benefit from, to be well-funded. Raise the damn taxes, already! A skinflint government is not the way to go.
4
Now the truth is out. The Left knew full well that it would not be "Wall Street millionaires and billionaires" who would finance Bernieworld, it is the upper middle class, because that is where the money is. Having vilified the 1%, the Left is moving on to the top 20%. Enough is enough! You want my tax dollars to fund your utopian vision, come and get them, but don't dare tell me that my life is the result of a rigged system. My upper middle class existence, repugnant as it may be to you, Mr. Reeves, was built by grandparents who came to this country with nothing, but the willingness to work hard and do right by their children. My father had only a high school education, but worked two jobs to put his four children through college. And yes, I am damn well going to perpetuate the cycle of providing the next generation with all of the advantages at my disposal, because that it what responsible people do. What's next, vilifying people for instilling a work ethic in their children? Stop. Now. Please.
9
This piece goes off base too many times. For example, regarding rising income inequality, the truth is that most of it has been concentrated in the Top 1% and within that the Top 0.1%.
Also, wealth and privilege are not about having a handful of high income years during middle age. Wealth and privilege are about inheritance - including the vast tax advantages vs. earning and investing for oneself - and about security and access. A 20-something kid with a $70,000 salary for a nice job at a non-profit in downtown San Francisco is sometimes much wealthier than a 40-something lawyer making $250,000 in Santa Clara. For example, if the 20-something has a trust fund, plus will receive another tax-free inheritance windfall and has access to the family vacation houses and the connections of an upper-middle class family vs. the lawyer who came from nothing, supports one of his parents and a sibling, paid for college and law school, and spent a decade grinding 80 hour weeks just to get to a decade of earning $250,000 - fully taxable - before burning out at 57.
Also, wealth and privilege are not about having a handful of high income years during middle age. Wealth and privilege are about inheritance - including the vast tax advantages vs. earning and investing for oneself - and about security and access. A 20-something kid with a $70,000 salary for a nice job at a non-profit in downtown San Francisco is sometimes much wealthier than a 40-something lawyer making $250,000 in Santa Clara. For example, if the 20-something has a trust fund, plus will receive another tax-free inheritance windfall and has access to the family vacation houses and the connections of an upper-middle class family vs. the lawyer who came from nothing, supports one of his parents and a sibling, paid for college and law school, and spent a decade grinding 80 hour weeks just to get to a decade of earning $250,000 - fully taxable - before burning out at 57.
3
One worthwhile observation. It is indeed the top 20% that have become entrenched and the policies advocated by centrist parties, like the Affordable Care Act, designed for this group.
But I fail to see how tweaking the tax code is going to do much except make the lives of folks on the margin harder. Why not Single Payer and free college for all?
But I fail to see how tweaking the tax code is going to do much except make the lives of folks on the margin harder. Why not Single Payer and free college for all?
2
There’s a lot of misguided, outdated smugness in these comments.
In the late 19th century, U.S. society was far more mobile than Great Britain’s. Our Horatio Alger myths persisted, but a lot has changed since then.
The fact is, there have been a number of studies in the last few years showing that social mobility today is greater in Europe than the United States -- and much of that is due to the stronger social safety net in Europe and the greater egalitarianism there.
In the United States, what political scientist Michael Harrington wrote in 1962 is still true: most people who are poor are poor because “they made the mistake of being born to the wrong parents.”
In the late 19th century, U.S. society was far more mobile than Great Britain’s. Our Horatio Alger myths persisted, but a lot has changed since then.
The fact is, there have been a number of studies in the last few years showing that social mobility today is greater in Europe than the United States -- and much of that is due to the stronger social safety net in Europe and the greater egalitarianism there.
In the United States, what political scientist Michael Harrington wrote in 1962 is still true: most people who are poor are poor because “they made the mistake of being born to the wrong parents.”
7
As a retirees, each of us is lucky enough to have a pension which combined with Social Security and rmd's from IRA's puts us clearly in the top 20%. We both attended State Colleges after small town public schools, our parents were clearly working class and my wife would likely have easily qualified as poor. We lived well but within our income, sent two children through college and graduate school without borrowing and managed to accumulate savings of $2.5 million (not inherited). Perhaps some of that is due to luck but mostly due to the values we were raised with and our own work ethic. We vote Democratic, endorse progressive programs and understand we should be happy to pay our effective tax rate of about 20%. We do resent that the tax system that allows those with multi-million dollar income pay effective taxes of 15% or less. Another reason to vote Democratic.
2
I think the problem isn't the benefits that go to the top 20%. It's the lack of benefits, and all of the burdens, imposed on the lower 80%. The cost of being poor is tremendous. The government would do far better over the long term if it provided good health care, safe and comfortable housing, decent education from pre-K through college, and food subsidies for those in need (including the middle class) ... as the citizens (and non-citizens) who benefit would live more meaningful, productive, and healthy lives. The costs to the tax base and to society are huge when the populace is ill, under educated, and struggling to make ends meet. Will some people take advantage of a socialist system? No doubt. Just as the rich take advantage of a capitalist system. Morally, though, there's no question which system is superior.
1
It might be interesting to see if the point of the regressive cap on social security assessments is the location of the "wealth gap". While there are some areas of Boston, New York, and San Francisco that are unaffordable to someone making $127,200, for most people that is enough, especially in a two-income family.
Do the math, a 40-hour week at $10 per hour (higher than minimum wage) is
$20,800. That's not enough for a full time worker to afford even decent housing and other necessities (most of which are more expensive and less useful in poor neighborhoods, like transportation (slow) and food (unhealthy)).
We all get NIMBY when it comes to the basics for us and our children, no matter how do-gooder we may intend to be. People who are willing to give up their material comforts for public welfare are feted as saints, they are so rare.
OTOH, there is a vast wasteland of need between the Trump kleptocracy's kind of wealth and an ordinary mid-level employee able to afford a reasonable lifestyle, and those people encounter lots of prejudice.
Jared Kushner is almost a perfect poster boy for privileged access to education, as shown in this story:
https://www.propublica.org/article/jared-kushner-isnt-alone-universities...
Then, he makes a lot of his bucks by being a slumlord and employing lawyers to lie for him to steal from the poor to inflate his wealth.
Blame and self-blame can be counterproductive, We can all do better.
Do the math, a 40-hour week at $10 per hour (higher than minimum wage) is
$20,800. That's not enough for a full time worker to afford even decent housing and other necessities (most of which are more expensive and less useful in poor neighborhoods, like transportation (slow) and food (unhealthy)).
We all get NIMBY when it comes to the basics for us and our children, no matter how do-gooder we may intend to be. People who are willing to give up their material comforts for public welfare are feted as saints, they are so rare.
OTOH, there is a vast wasteland of need between the Trump kleptocracy's kind of wealth and an ordinary mid-level employee able to afford a reasonable lifestyle, and those people encounter lots of prejudice.
Jared Kushner is almost a perfect poster boy for privileged access to education, as shown in this story:
https://www.propublica.org/article/jared-kushner-isnt-alone-universities...
Then, he makes a lot of his bucks by being a slumlord and employing lawyers to lie for him to steal from the poor to inflate his wealth.
Blame and self-blame can be counterproductive, We can all do better.
4
Note that other sources put the top 20% at a much lower figure -- $110K as the bottom of the top 20%. Ohio, where I live, it's only $98K. A lot more of us can pretend they aren't the subjects of this article since we don't make $200K. http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/latest/measure/state-income-qu...
1
The only true aristocracy is a matter of character not wealth or privilege.
4
The author has certainly hit a nerve. The question is do we want to keep the door open to others and make the opportunity widely available or do we say I have mine under the rhetoric of I built it and ignore the common good that benefits all and make success possible.
The denial that underlies the individual blind spot of privilege also underlies that denial in business and politics. The infrastructure, government structures, laws and regulations that create the opportunities for success are alternately sought out by business to protect and grow their business and then called the problem when business does not get its way.
Companies like Apple who offshore profits and then complain that there are not enough programmers coming from our schools own the problem they have created and illustrate the interconnectedness of our social and business responsibilities and success.
The denial that underlies the individual blind spot of privilege also underlies that denial in business and politics. The infrastructure, government structures, laws and regulations that create the opportunities for success are alternately sought out by business to protect and grow their business and then called the problem when business does not get its way.
Companies like Apple who offshore profits and then complain that there are not enough programmers coming from our schools own the problem they have created and illustrate the interconnectedness of our social and business responsibilities and success.
2
"Most states also allow savings up to a certain level to be deducted from state income tax. Almost all the benefits of 529 plans go to upper-middle-class families."
While I wouldn't disagree with Reeves that the 529 is most used by the middle class - the 529, minor Roth IRA, and Coverdell plans are available to anyone (ok there's a income limit to the Coverdell but it can be easily circumvented via gifts) and there is no minimum contribution threshold. Also since the 529 is considered in determining financial aid I would say that it's not exactly quite the unfair advantage that Reeves purports. Put bluntly - the less you save in 529 the more aid you would be awarded. It's best to be destitute or really really rich when it comes to college because the upper middle class gets the short end of the stick when it comes to the tuition/income ratio.
While I wouldn't disagree with Reeves that the 529 is most used by the middle class - the 529, minor Roth IRA, and Coverdell plans are available to anyone (ok there's a income limit to the Coverdell but it can be easily circumvented via gifts) and there is no minimum contribution threshold. Also since the 529 is considered in determining financial aid I would say that it's not exactly quite the unfair advantage that Reeves purports. Put bluntly - the less you save in 529 the more aid you would be awarded. It's best to be destitute or really really rich when it comes to college because the upper middle class gets the short end of the stick when it comes to the tuition/income ratio.
2
It is a true fact that disasters like the Great Depression and World War II have sometimes ended up bettering the lives of poor and middle-class Americans. Donald Trump being another great disaster, it is possible that things may improve if we survive him. I personally, however, am not betting on this.
4
"... am not betting my ranch on this."
It strikes me that to be truly rich, one must be able to maintain an upper middle class lifestyle (or better) without having to work. Most making hefty six figure salaries can't do that—and in fact, often are quite vulnerable if they lose their jobs. Still those of us in the top 20% have much to be thankful for, and whatever we have done to create our own success we must recognize that we have been greatly helped by much beyond ourselves and also that many who are less successful have worked just as hard but haven't had all the same advantages or good fortune we have had.
4
Texas resolves the class divide with its Top-10 Percent Rule, which guarantees admission at state universities to any student who finishes in the top 10 percent of his or her high school graduating class. This puts students who attend poor inner-city schools or poor rural school on equal footing with students who attend rich suburban schools.
5
That's a good start, but I wouldn't call it a resolution; the students from poor families / poor school districts are still walking into college at a serious disadvantage and facing pressures -- in particular, economic pressures -- that the students from more prosperous families don't have to deal with.
I moved down a quintile after my divorce and you’ve motivated me to share my new-found deeper understanding and compassion for the worker class with those I grew up with in the bubble. I’ve always worked in urban schools with struggling families, but now my understanding goes deeper. Here's what the quintile above me doesn't know: most people don't have a washer/dryer in their home and go to a basement or laundry mat paying $5 per load or more, dragging their family's clothing and children enduring hours unable to get anything else done; living in food deserts with only bodegas available - forget organic and antibiotic-free; riding buses and trains – which cost money, or walking for free, often taking more than an hour to get to minimum wage jobs and blamed for not being educated enough to rise above, while those at the top pull their children out of public schools, as I did; those lucky enough to have a car are faced with the cost of required insurance and no garage or convenient parking, walking blocks with their children carrying groceries with enough food for their family; nannies can't live on what they earn in a decent way and struggle to find care for their own children while caring for others’ children. There is so much more that the top quintile doesn't ever consider while judging parents (parent?) who doesn't spend enough time supervising their child's homework. The gap between the 80% and the 20% is growing exponentially. Thanks for waking people up.
17
The upper middle class is hanging on by its fingernails. Many have an immigrant mentality that puts their legacy, the next generation, above their own welfare. Their view is that the only people who are secure are the 1% and they will mortgage themselves to put their kids there. It seems absurd that people with six figure incomes should feel enslaved, while the poor seem to get all the support and sympathy.
4
Thank you, thank you! It's about time we stopped pretending we're all one big happy meritocracy, a classless democratic land of opportunity - because we're not.
Yet, talking about money is considered crass in America, generally by the people who have it. Poor and working class and lower middle class people who talk about money in terms of class are "jealous," and "need to take personal responsibility," in fact one sees the latter really nasty sideswipe frequently directed at women who need health care, at people who are disabled, sick or old.
America has an entire and quite Orwellian syntax for reinforcing the class system: "freedom," "taxation is slavery," "personal responsibility," all are code for "we intend to strip mine your talent and your labor and put the proceeds in our pockets and pass it along to our kids and their kids and if you complain about it you are lazy takers and also, freedom! because Medicare is socialism which is bad and minimum wages are worse, being Communism and also, you're a taker."
Did I mention we have emergency rooms for that?
Yet, talking about money is considered crass in America, generally by the people who have it. Poor and working class and lower middle class people who talk about money in terms of class are "jealous," and "need to take personal responsibility," in fact one sees the latter really nasty sideswipe frequently directed at women who need health care, at people who are disabled, sick or old.
America has an entire and quite Orwellian syntax for reinforcing the class system: "freedom," "taxation is slavery," "personal responsibility," all are code for "we intend to strip mine your talent and your labor and put the proceeds in our pockets and pass it along to our kids and their kids and if you complain about it you are lazy takers and also, freedom! because Medicare is socialism which is bad and minimum wages are worse, being Communism and also, you're a taker."
Did I mention we have emergency rooms for that?
8
great comment, Sophia. They can't actually come out and say we intend to strip mine your labor and pocket the proceeds (and use some of that profit to pay off lawmakers in campaign donations). So they use words like Freedom, Choice, Individualism, Personal Responsibility....low taxes, small govt.
But if we the people are the govt, that means keeping our power weak.
But if we the people are the govt, that means keeping our power weak.
3
Americans are indeed clueless about class. Well said.
3
And another idea:
Since "Good schools make [wealthier neighborhoods] more desirable, further inflating the value of our houses" we should change the way public schools are funded. Let's do away with the apartheid of funding schools by districts, and instead make all school funding state-wide.
Since "Good schools make [wealthier neighborhoods] more desirable, further inflating the value of our houses" we should change the way public schools are funded. Let's do away with the apartheid of funding schools by districts, and instead make all school funding state-wide.
8
I like this idea, but you also have to get rid of the tax deduction for educational gifts. Otherwise, the rich just give "gifts" to the local schools, which perpetuates the system even worse
1
Wow, a lot of denial in these comments. I married up a class, and trust me, this guy is right.
7
Ditto, Amanda. I married up several classes, and whoa is the view different from up here. I am shocked at the obliviousness of some of these commenters, notably one who remarks that the poor get all the sympathy. Ha!
2
Insightful article, but you left out the Roth IRA, which is the epitome of welfare for the middle class.
1
Back in college I took a course on communism. The professor was an ivy-educated partly-reformed 1960s hippie who knew Marx and admired, for their good intentions, the many attempts at communism that were experimented (but ended badly; not much said about that) around the globe. He lectured passionately against capitalism and meritocracy. He also drove a BMW and lived in a Tudor-styled detached home in a wealthy suburb. His wife ran a business. Perhaps to support his eccentric lefty bond fides, he kept a goat in his backyard. He was a really nice guy and his students, myself included, loved him. For my final grade, I wrote an essay about him and entitled it The Grand Hypocrisy of American Liberalism. To his eternal credit, he gave me an A.
13
I hate to tell you this, but communists are right-wingers, like you. Or do you believe Putin is a liberal?
A compelling piece, complementary to Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-first Century."
1
This is an ugly article that indicts 20% of the population for the inequality that exists. Inequality is a huge problem. But just because some people succeed in the face of it does not mean they are part of the problem. There are a lot of people in that top 20% who vote against their own economic interests, who vote for changes in tax laws that would reduce inequality, who vote for economic programs that help the less advantaged. And there are a lot of people in the lower quintiles who vote against their own economic interests also, who help perpetuate the inequality.
11
And the converse of the top 10% being convinced that they deserve their position in America's fake meritocracy is that the people below feel their lack of merit keeps them below. We are all getting what we deserve!
Perfect, a class system without the threat of the peasants rising. How'd we do it?
American democracy- the best on the planet.
Perfect, a class system without the threat of the peasants rising. How'd we do it?
American democracy- the best on the planet.
5
If only we had A-Levels in the US....
2
Stop being politically correct. "Rigged system"? Give me a break.
I grew up in a dysfunctional, poor, immigrant family on Long Island in the late 60s and 70s. Neither of my parents graduated high school, and they did not create a loving or stable home for their children. BUT they bought into the Holy Grail -- the American Dream -- and worked three jobs each; borrowed money for the down payment on a miserable old house house; repaid the loan and the mortgage; fixed the house; and prospered -- not a huge amount, but enough. I was a diligent student, got a scholarship and worked my way through the rest of college, and, despite lack of mentoring or Ivy League diploma, earn in the low six-figures and live in a fine home overlooking the Hudson River.
Hard work and opportunity (or luck, or the grace of God... call it what you like) are very much alive and kicking open doors to better lives in the US. It's not a rigged system.
Finally, stop lumping all Americans into one basket. A family income of $100K or $300K in places like New York City or San Francisco does not afford a lavish lifestyle and certainly doesn't qualify as "rich."
I grew up in a dysfunctional, poor, immigrant family on Long Island in the late 60s and 70s. Neither of my parents graduated high school, and they did not create a loving or stable home for their children. BUT they bought into the Holy Grail -- the American Dream -- and worked three jobs each; borrowed money for the down payment on a miserable old house house; repaid the loan and the mortgage; fixed the house; and prospered -- not a huge amount, but enough. I was a diligent student, got a scholarship and worked my way through the rest of college, and, despite lack of mentoring or Ivy League diploma, earn in the low six-figures and live in a fine home overlooking the Hudson River.
Hard work and opportunity (or luck, or the grace of God... call it what you like) are very much alive and kicking open doors to better lives in the US. It's not a rigged system.
Finally, stop lumping all Americans into one basket. A family income of $100K or $300K in places like New York City or San Francisco does not afford a lavish lifestyle and certainly doesn't qualify as "rich."
Along these lines, the book "Success and Luck:Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy" (by Robert Frank) has much to say.
Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute wants to school us on our selfishness. A losing strategy of taking away from some rather than lifting up all doesn't seem to be in keeping with the purported mission of Brookings. Then again maybe it is.
2
My background is working class (Dad a bricklayer from Bottle, Liverpool; mum a factory worker) British-Australian, with childhoood background in both. I have lived and worked in both the UK and the USA (teaching at a university in NYC).
Although the USA is a class stratified society it disdains to call itself as such. Why is this so? I think it goes back to the days of its creation and the false assertion that "all men (sic)" are "created equal"; a bogus statement crafted by a fellow who inherited slaves at the age of 11 and who - like many of his ilk - used one (or more) as his mistress. This statement was a mischievous and an explicitly deceptive cover up, saying to people "we are all equal" but plainly where some were "more equal than others." Explicitly so in the case of women and slaves of course but also true in terms of class, as I would argue Toqueville came to recognise. In fact, the so-called American Revolution was more like a split between elites, those representing the domestic and off-shore.
It continues on. For some unaccountable reason working class people in the USA call themselves 'middle class' - although their income base is fragile and dependent. It has become more so since the 1970s (in pay, benefits, and sense of self worth).
This is first article in a US paper I have read on this topic which nails the argument. Odd, isn't it, that it was written by someone (I might add, 'just like me') who was born in old class-stratified England.
Although the USA is a class stratified society it disdains to call itself as such. Why is this so? I think it goes back to the days of its creation and the false assertion that "all men (sic)" are "created equal"; a bogus statement crafted by a fellow who inherited slaves at the age of 11 and who - like many of his ilk - used one (or more) as his mistress. This statement was a mischievous and an explicitly deceptive cover up, saying to people "we are all equal" but plainly where some were "more equal than others." Explicitly so in the case of women and slaves of course but also true in terms of class, as I would argue Toqueville came to recognise. In fact, the so-called American Revolution was more like a split between elites, those representing the domestic and off-shore.
It continues on. For some unaccountable reason working class people in the USA call themselves 'middle class' - although their income base is fragile and dependent. It has become more so since the 1970s (in pay, benefits, and sense of self worth).
This is first article in a US paper I have read on this topic which nails the argument. Odd, isn't it, that it was written by someone (I might add, 'just like me') who was born in old class-stratified England.
More class warfare nonsense from the NYT. Since it considers the top 20% to be rich, that is the target group for higher income taxes to pay for non producers. Readers should be aware that using the average income of $200k for top quint income is very misleading however.that is the average income. You actually join this elite club at about $100k for the household. That can be a two earner household of two teachers that make $100k together. Feeling rich now?
9
Doesn't that just underscore how poor so many Americans are? If the top 20% starts at about $100,000 and we think that's poor, what about the bottom 80% all making less than that?
https://stanfordpolitics.com/the-aristocracy-that-let-me-in-f9c4a3695b1b
A classmate of mine wrote this article. If you appreciated Reeves piece--or, more importantly, if you were unconvinced by Reeves--read it. A massive gulf of opportunity exists in this country, and our approach--collectively, but particularly comfy liberals, many of whom read The Times--must change if we're to close it.
A classmate of mine wrote this article. If you appreciated Reeves piece--or, more importantly, if you were unconvinced by Reeves--read it. A massive gulf of opportunity exists in this country, and our approach--collectively, but particularly comfy liberals, many of whom read The Times--must change if we're to close it.
3
This is brilliant -- truly outstanding.
1
My thought has always been that if one owns their own home and never has to worry about missing mortgage payments and being foreclosed, then, arguably, one is relatively rich. And if one never has to go hungry--and never worries about being hungry, then one is also relatively rich. To put things in perspective--to understand if you are truly rich--contemplate James Baldwin's piercing assessment of living on the other side of the mountainous divide:
"Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor."
And remember Theodore Dreiser's take on class in "An American Tragedy," wherein it was deftly noted:
"The line of demarcation and stratification between the rich and the poor…was as sharp as though cut by a knife or divided by a high wall."
And lastly, to understand the WHY of class division everywhere--so that we might eventually ameliorate its downside through more supportive social netting--mull over the pronouncement of a poor working woman in my satirical novel: "American Dreaming: The Odyssey of Yew," wherein she notes wryly:
"Capitalism without a socialistic bed and a rainproof roof over its self-centered head is a system that systematically divides us into uneven sides and leaves the one side with too much for too few and the other side with too little for too many."
For this meager effort, you shall be richer--not monetarily, of course, but certainly in spirit.
"Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor."
And remember Theodore Dreiser's take on class in "An American Tragedy," wherein it was deftly noted:
"The line of demarcation and stratification between the rich and the poor…was as sharp as though cut by a knife or divided by a high wall."
And lastly, to understand the WHY of class division everywhere--so that we might eventually ameliorate its downside through more supportive social netting--mull over the pronouncement of a poor working woman in my satirical novel: "American Dreaming: The Odyssey of Yew," wherein she notes wryly:
"Capitalism without a socialistic bed and a rainproof roof over its self-centered head is a system that systematically divides us into uneven sides and leaves the one side with too much for too few and the other side with too little for too many."
For this meager effort, you shall be richer--not monetarily, of course, but certainly in spirit.
2
This is not particularly enlightening or well-supported with citations. Certainly there are some elements of truth. College "legacy" preferences are ugly and should go. Still the idea that making 200k per year means you are rich (no matter what) is simply dumb. In the NYC area and with substantial grad school debt, this is hand-to-mouth break-even so yes I will vote to keep the mortgage interest deduction and the decent schools that cost 10k in local taxes each year.
America is and always was a place where you get what you pay for. Payment can come in many forms and others can pay on your behalf but this is not calcified, British class stratification.
America is and always was a place where you get what you pay for. Payment can come in many forms and others can pay on your behalf but this is not calcified, British class stratification.
I understand why you want to paint with a broad 20% brush. Income and wealth increase exponentially with every percentile in the USA. Someone inside the top 1 percentile and the 20th percentile have little in common financially. The net worth of the top 1% BEGINS at $7.2M and the 80th percentile begins at 0.603M. These cohorts are not at all similar.
Second, there is no contradiction between advocating equitable policies for the society at large, and doing the best for your own children. It is not hypocrisy, and slandering liberals in this way suggests you do not have children of your own, or that you are somewhat childish yourself.
Second, there is no contradiction between advocating equitable policies for the society at large, and doing the best for your own children. It is not hypocrisy, and slandering liberals in this way suggests you do not have children of your own, or that you are somewhat childish yourself.
3
Wealth and income are entirely different, and you can be in very different percentiles. There are many people who make $200K, and are in the top 5% in income, who have no wealth or negative wealth.
There are other people who live on their $50K salary, but have $3 million in their 401K.
There are other people who live on their $50K salary, but have $3 million in their 401K.
The socialism continues. Note to successful people. Do not get married to another successful person! That will breed wealth. Don't stay married either. Don't work hard in high paying industries. Succeeding in school? Avoid at all costs. Make sure you go to the worst college you can get into too. Try to find the worst possible town to live in with the worst schools.
Remember the goal is bottom up poverty!
"You rich people making $200K have been pretty lucky". -- some former president
Remember the goal is bottom up poverty!
"You rich people making $200K have been pretty lucky". -- some former president
To all of those in the top 20 percent who do not feel rich when they compare themselves to the top 1 percent I remind them of the old adage: "Comparison is the thief of Joy."
I wish the author would have left his left wing class warfare driven viewpoints back in Britain. No sir, the upper middle class didn't get to where they are in live by "luck". They succeeded because they studied harder, worked harder and deserve all the fortune they created for their families. The type of socialist egalitarianism you are peddling has been around for over a century and resulted in such spectacular successes as the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block countries. No Thanks!
4
We all need to support public schools starting in kindergarten so that ALL students receive the best possible educations. Students in poor neighborhoods are disadvantaged because their schools aren't up to standards, educationally and physically. They are told they are worthless from the beginning.
Often they are given teachers fresh out of school who are still learning how to teach. The schools aren't given the same equipment and supplies as schools in middle and upper middle class are.
How do we expect them to learn/know how to work to achieve anything if they aren't taught and given the tools? They see all the advantages on TV but don't how to earn them.
Often they are given teachers fresh out of school who are still learning how to teach. The schools aren't given the same equipment and supplies as schools in middle and upper middle class are.
How do we expect them to learn/know how to work to achieve anything if they aren't taught and given the tools? They see all the advantages on TV but don't how to earn them.
3
The children of affluent professionals are already miles ahead by the time they reach kindergarten. They accelerate and take off from there.
1
Welcome to Planet Earth! Perhaps now you have just learned that there are universal laws in nature. Perhaps - oh, wishful thinking - you realized now that it is not about countries: A healthy, sanguine economy necessitates the possibility of distancing oneself into the asymptotic limits.
Or you can let mediocre, unelected bureaucrats, or failed politicians be the architects of boundaries, and leave everyone in this somnolent, depressed, helpless state Europeans live in.
And don't pretend you are surprised for one second about the hypocrisy of your liberal friends taking their kids to a Friends School like the Obamas while preaching redistribution of wealth.
Or you can let mediocre, unelected bureaucrats, or failed politicians be the architects of boundaries, and leave everyone in this somnolent, depressed, helpless state Europeans live in.
And don't pretend you are surprised for one second about the hypocrisy of your liberal friends taking their kids to a Friends School like the Obamas while preaching redistribution of wealth.
2
Yes!!! I agree with everything you're saying!
The lower classes are usually tossed the race wedge issue bone to chew on.
The wealth inequality one is rarely, if ever, discussed. Keep it going.
The wealth inequality one is rarely, if ever, discussed. Keep it going.
4
Solution:BERNIE SANDERS...
4
Well said.
ask a group of young people how many come from 'working class' backgrounds...and almost no hands will go up. ask how many come from 'middle class' backgrounds, and the majority of hands will...
this is the true state of class conciousness in the united states.
this is the true state of class conciousness in the united states.
1
Work hard. Choose a lifestyle below your means. Save and invest the difference. Be charitable.
3
The tax code must be changed so that the rich and super-rich pay more. It's as simple as that. You don't need paragraphs of comment showing how intelligent you think you are.
1
Seattle to the core.
When presented with an argument about how wealthy individuals making the best deciisions for themselves and their families DO get government assistance that then cements systemic inequality, there will always be commenters to announce "not me!". I got news for them: It is not about YOU. It's about society and policy and recognizing our own hypocrisy.
1
It is called American Exceptionalism. Work hard, have goals, and you too can become the 20% or better yet , the 1%. Of course, having parents who are there to start life with is a big leg up. Biggest indicator of educational success? Who are your parents.Kiddies be smart and be born to those special, loving parents. Helps to be born with a silver spoon.
The collapse of unions parallels the growth of Exceptionalism. Is there an inverse ratio at work? Who needs a union if you have the right stuff? Unionization has taken on an illegitimacy just as American Exceptionalism is celebrated as a religious doctrine.
Who need organizations or groups to aid you if you have the right stuff? Super wealthy-Koch Brothers, corporations have promoted ideas, laws to make unionization harder as well as unpalatable to the very people who would benefit the most. Why do Kansans elect those who serve them least?
Of course, Liberals, Democrats are attacked for diversity politics that deny American Exceptionalism for the masses. Surveying the last election, did HRC lose because she and Democrats were 'giving' OTHERS benefits and a hand up they deserved? Forget, that hand up extends to these very constituents who reject those very politicians in state and local elections year after year.
A mythology has developed that only America is Exceptional, OTHERS are getting what we've earned and our taxes are the highest in history. Did I leave out that American healthcare is the best in the world?
The collapse of unions parallels the growth of Exceptionalism. Is there an inverse ratio at work? Who needs a union if you have the right stuff? Unionization has taken on an illegitimacy just as American Exceptionalism is celebrated as a religious doctrine.
Who need organizations or groups to aid you if you have the right stuff? Super wealthy-Koch Brothers, corporations have promoted ideas, laws to make unionization harder as well as unpalatable to the very people who would benefit the most. Why do Kansans elect those who serve them least?
Of course, Liberals, Democrats are attacked for diversity politics that deny American Exceptionalism for the masses. Surveying the last election, did HRC lose because she and Democrats were 'giving' OTHERS benefits and a hand up they deserved? Forget, that hand up extends to these very constituents who reject those very politicians in state and local elections year after year.
A mythology has developed that only America is Exceptional, OTHERS are getting what we've earned and our taxes are the highest in history. Did I leave out that American healthcare is the best in the world?
Why shouldn't people with the means to do so send their kids to good schools? That's not something to feel guilty about. You have it backwards....you can help your own family and self and also be an upstanding, socially conscious citizen of your community. I get the point you're trying to make but the way you thought it through and phrased it is wrong, in this instance anyway. I will never understand the depreciation people show to challenging academic institutions simply because they give an edge to people who take advantage of the opportunities they offer. Education and culture are good things...we need more of them not less.
2
This is a column in search of a problem.
You are right and wrong. Part of America--our current corrupted political and business class-defines class as wealth. There is no barrier or distinction in terms of how that wealth was acquired. If you are rich, you are upper class (Trump, De Vos, Koch, banker, drug dealer, tech Creator, Fox News Shill, etc.). Ancestral wealth is nice, but is not any better than new wealth, unlike in the Great Britain of Masterpiece Theatre. The United States also has a multitude of ethnic, religious, gendered, and educated classes on the edge of the money umbrella, but nothing they say, believe, want, or need penetrates the money bubble. The uber rich typically ascribe to the odd Calvinistic belief that if you are rich, you are better than others, and that if you are poor or middle class, you deserve your hard life, you are inherently less favorable to God, fat, ugly, lazy, stupid, to be jeered and spat upon, robbed and snickered at. They actually attend sermons where their ministers, like many of their toady congressmen, reinforce their circular logic. Like any religious cult, what the self-serving rich believe is beyond truth. Americans prospered during the New Deal and after WWII, because the government helped people to help themselves through massive social net, health, education, and jobs programs. We paid in and got something back for workers. With straight out robbery and lies from the top, all systems are crumbling, and the not-yet-squashed class strive to keep any privilege.
How are you going to tell a black man who has arrived at the pinnacle of power in America not to send his two daughters to private school, or for his elder daughter not to go to Harvard just because daddy and mommy both went to Harvard Law, or not to buy a $8 million home in an exclusive section of D.C., or to accept not to speak to Wall Street firms, or not to raise $500 million for a library and museum dedicated to himself, when all his white predecessors have done the same, and when all his white successors will continue to do the same?
Why should the black man who's finally made it sacrifice it all in the name of equality?
wink. wink.
Why should the black man who's finally made it sacrifice it all in the name of equality?
wink. wink.
4
Kind of a half-right piece. Yes "legacy" university programs and the mortgage interest deduction are unfair, perpetuate class distinctions, and should be eliminated. No it's not wrong to send your kids to the best school you can afford (and they can legitimately get into).
Hear, hear. I am so tired of hearing that people make 200K a year need tax breaks. If 100K a year is well-off. Boo-hoo.
It seems to me that we would all do better as a society if more people adopted the attitude "there but for the grace of (God, Allah, Jehovah, Batman... choose your Deity) go I".
We could do with a lot less of the attitude that boils down to "Hey, you should've chosen better parents".
We could do with a lot less of the attitude that boils down to "Hey, you should've chosen better parents".
You are looking at me! 30 thousand dollars for a private school- pish tosh, the one I went to is now 60 thousand dollars per annum. This posh Connecticut school has stables for your horseys for riding and dressage lessons. Too cute. Add that to a 26 million dollar gym, private art gallery, dedicated art building (most schools have art carts if they are lucky), a separate theater building, ballet lessons, a symphony orchestra, band, glee-club and lessons in count 'em NINE languages including Farsi and Chinese last I looked. Guess whose child is going into international business, the diplomatic core or international law.
People have no idea. It is criminal. It is America. It disgusts me.
People have no idea. It is criminal. It is America. It disgusts me.
3
Entry into many blue-collar unions is predicated by one's family affiliation. This should be illegal.
How many non-white non-British upper-middle class families do you see in Britain? I used to work in NYC and when I first moved to London I was and still am surprised by how white and male everyone is in the City of London. Give me a break.
2
Legacy admissions? Are you kidding? My wife and I both graduated from a well-known university at the top rank in the Ivy League pecking order. When our daughter applied to our alma mater, we received an exquisitely tactful letter that said, in substance, "We're pleased your daughter applied here to Old Ivy. But if you think that even having two alumni parents will make a difference in the admissions decision, forget about it." Of all our contemporaries at college with whom we're still in touch, precisely 1 had a child admitted.
6
With two largely equivalent applicants, admissions will typically take the legacy applicant. That is a fact. It will not get a kid into a school if they are not equivalent to other applicants, but it does give them a tiny boost. Even at public Universities. Legacy parents are, obviously, alumni, and more likely to donate than non-legacy families.
1
I believe you missed the point.
"most of the people on the highest rung in America are in denial about their privilege" oh go jump in the lake. I am not 'privileged'. I am where I am because of intelligence and hard work. Most people are dumber and lazier than I am, and they have bad values and bad habits, so it is right and proper that I am top-class and they are not. They deserve to be where they are, and so do I.
4
you are joking, right?? The idiot-king Donald J Trump has expressed similar drivel.
1
Same here. But consider how much of your intelligence and hard work habits have been inherited from your parents. IQ is to some extent genetic. I know it's not PC (and I'm not saying this is race based) but it's been proven to be true and the rest of intelligence is determined by upbringing so either way, it comes from your parents. My parents survived the Great Depression and were stingy as heck. And they taught me to be stingy and work hard and save too. Now I have a million dollars. And I know I have my parents to thank for this.
The question really is: is there something wrong with this? What, exactly? Aren't people supposed to raise their children to reflect their own values of sacrifice and hard work? I'm really struggling to figure out what my parents did wrong. Or is it that other parents are the ones screwing up, and screwing up their unlucky offspring in the process?
The question really is: is there something wrong with this? What, exactly? Aren't people supposed to raise their children to reflect their own values of sacrifice and hard work? I'm really struggling to figure out what my parents did wrong. Or is it that other parents are the ones screwing up, and screwing up their unlucky offspring in the process?
You just made the author's point for him. Plenty of poor people--let alone middle-middle class people--work extremely hard. And they are not stupid, either. What they lack are opportunities. It may be one small decrement stacked upon another: a lesser public school; parents who work all the time and don't have time to read to children; a need to work at McD's to help contribute to family income instead of studying, etc. That's before you get to serious events like a parent too sick to work.
The idea that someone in those circumstances has an equal chance to end up in the same spot as a kid who had good schools, involved parents, free time for athletics and broader interests, SAT prep classes, as well as an expectation to go to college and the means to do that, is laughable. Not to mention parents who know how to navigate the system (and teach their children how).
It's not impossible, and people do it, but they are by no means on an equal footing. This is the very definition of privilege. And if you think it doesn't matter, then why do most parents of any means take every possible measure to get their own children ahead?
The idea that someone in those circumstances has an equal chance to end up in the same spot as a kid who had good schools, involved parents, free time for athletics and broader interests, SAT prep classes, as well as an expectation to go to college and the means to do that, is laughable. Not to mention parents who know how to navigate the system (and teach their children how).
It's not impossible, and people do it, but they are by no means on an equal footing. This is the very definition of privilege. And if you think it doesn't matter, then why do most parents of any means take every possible measure to get their own children ahead?
Reeves is a bit over the top, don't you think? In reading this piece, at the very least (according to Reeves) one should feel guilty if your household income is over $200k. Give me a break. College saving plans and tax write offs for mortgages are available and open to everyone. Following Reeves' logic, then there should be no tax benefit for dependents either since not everyone has children, right? There is no grand collusion or secret backroom deals being brokered by 'The 20%' to perpetuate income. The vast majority are too busy working to even pay much attention to public policy let alone being a position to actively shape it.
1
But half of households pay no net takes, so by definition this (and the mortgage interest rate deduction) are most advantageous to those who have the highest tax liability -- i.e., people who earn a lot of money.
I agree, it is basically definitional that somebody will have money - there is no valid inference that they got that money in any particular way. There will ALWAYS be a 20% and a 1%, always always.
I agree, it is basically definitional that somebody will have money - there is no valid inference that they got that money in any particular way. There will ALWAYS be a 20% and a 1%, always always.
1
College saving plans and tax write offs for motgages are available to everyone - that is, everyone who can afford college and a mortgage in the first place. These tax breaks are to encourage higher education and home ownership. If a person can afford to go to an elite college, why should they get a tax break for it? Set the limit to the average cost of a state university. The average home cost in the US is around $200,000. If someone can afford a house more than that, then they can afford to pay taxes on it (I include myself). I know there will be some whining from people in New York, San Francisco, etc. so I suppose the amount should be adjusted regionally.
1
The concept of a "meritocracy" seems to me to conflate three ideas, which really need to be evaluated individually:
First is the idea that people succeed or fail on their own merits. This I think is generally true in any western-style free-market economy where most people's wealth derives from what they earn through work or investment and not through inheritance.
Second is the idea that our merit is something that each of us creates for ourselves and that we all can either choose to acquire or forego. Of this, I am skeptical. I believe that one's merit or lack of merit is due mostly to the traits one is born with, to one's upbringing, and to the experiences one has through life. Even if we do have some ability to cultivate merit for ourselves, our genetics, upbringing, and experience almost certainly influence who we become at least as strongly as our free will.
Third is the idea that the kind of merit for which we are rewarded is always virtuous and that all virtuous behaviour is rewarded. I have known many highly successful people who merit what they earn, but only because ruthlessness is often very profitable. And of course, I know plenty of people who work very hard, but earn very little. So we may be rewarded on merit, but merit and virtue are not the same thing, and virtuous behaviour may not merit reward while unscrupulous behaviour may.
So we may indeed operate in a meritocracy, but our success may still not be our own nor proof of our virtue.
First is the idea that people succeed or fail on their own merits. This I think is generally true in any western-style free-market economy where most people's wealth derives from what they earn through work or investment and not through inheritance.
Second is the idea that our merit is something that each of us creates for ourselves and that we all can either choose to acquire or forego. Of this, I am skeptical. I believe that one's merit or lack of merit is due mostly to the traits one is born with, to one's upbringing, and to the experiences one has through life. Even if we do have some ability to cultivate merit for ourselves, our genetics, upbringing, and experience almost certainly influence who we become at least as strongly as our free will.
Third is the idea that the kind of merit for which we are rewarded is always virtuous and that all virtuous behaviour is rewarded. I have known many highly successful people who merit what they earn, but only because ruthlessness is often very profitable. And of course, I know plenty of people who work very hard, but earn very little. So we may be rewarded on merit, but merit and virtue are not the same thing, and virtuous behaviour may not merit reward while unscrupulous behaviour may.
So we may indeed operate in a meritocracy, but our success may still not be our own nor proof of our virtue.
19
I don't deny that privilege exists, I'm counting on it.
We pay for private tutors and private coaches for their academic, athletic and musical achievement. It is common in our circle.
Our children volunteer instead of working summer jobs. They've experienced international study abroad programs and SAT prep courses. We've saved for college and we'll provide down payment support as they buy their first homes. They will inherit our accumulated wealth when we die.
Our goal is to give them every advantage. We want them born on third base, after we've worked so hard to get here. We want them to experience more life than we've been able because of so much work.
I grew up in poverty. It included welfare, food stamps, and Thanksgiving from St. Vincent de Paul's. Our power would get turned off for days, or our water, and the refrigerator was always empty. My mother would send me to the neighbors to "borrow" milk for the baby or a loaf of bread for dinner. There were no school lunches, so I would only watch other kids eat, and imagine what it tasted like.
And today, after I've relentlessly pursued my education and worked 60-80 hours a week to get and stay here, I know it is still precarious. I work hard out of fear of falling backwards, and to provide a safety net and advantage for my children.
We hope the privilege we've earned for them gives them a better life. We want a new legacy without poverty for generations. Anyone in our position would do and does the same.
We pay for private tutors and private coaches for their academic, athletic and musical achievement. It is common in our circle.
Our children volunteer instead of working summer jobs. They've experienced international study abroad programs and SAT prep courses. We've saved for college and we'll provide down payment support as they buy their first homes. They will inherit our accumulated wealth when we die.
Our goal is to give them every advantage. We want them born on third base, after we've worked so hard to get here. We want them to experience more life than we've been able because of so much work.
I grew up in poverty. It included welfare, food stamps, and Thanksgiving from St. Vincent de Paul's. Our power would get turned off for days, or our water, and the refrigerator was always empty. My mother would send me to the neighbors to "borrow" milk for the baby or a loaf of bread for dinner. There were no school lunches, so I would only watch other kids eat, and imagine what it tasted like.
And today, after I've relentlessly pursued my education and worked 60-80 hours a week to get and stay here, I know it is still precarious. I work hard out of fear of falling backwards, and to provide a safety net and advantage for my children.
We hope the privilege we've earned for them gives them a better life. We want a new legacy without poverty for generations. Anyone in our position would do and does the same.
12
While I admire your tenacity and motivation in overcoming such abject poverty to capture a level of comfort, I would think that someone like yourself would appreciate that the playing field was never level, and you are the exception, not the norm. You struggled and overcame adversity; it made you the person you are. Do you really think you are doing your kids a service by handing them every privilege on a silver platter, & raising them in a bubble?
2
Thus proving the point of the article.
1
All of us will always fight to keep our superiority - be it in class or wealth or status, it is genetic in humans, and we would want our genes (off-springs) to get the same or better treatment. Question is, would we be welcoming to others to join us.
6
I think Mr. Reeves is on a page similar to that of the Black Lives Matter movement. We privileged white people need to wake up and see that the ways in which our privileges our safeguarded by structures that necessarily disenfranchise "others" need to be changed. (I almost wrote disenfranchise our neighbors, but that's precisely the point. They are not our neighbors - we are in our enclaves.) The fact that a particular person or couple has been able to move up the social ladder is because our laws and policies have been deliberately set up for many decades, if not centuries, to create a pipeline for some people to the deliberate exclusion of others. Housing and education policies are rigged. Reread the last three sentences of the article and take them to heart. And take another look at Black Lives Matter.
14
Yep, BLM and now this. There goes the Democrats' biggest voting bloc...
1
$200K in NYC is NOT upper middle class, it's solidly middle middle class. Living here I'd say $600K might put you in the upper middle.
4
Indeed - NYC has to be one of the few places where a $200K income guarantees you to get financial aid if you apply to a private school! :)
Your choice. Quit crying.
Very true -- and look how that skews the national average for folks in Moss Point or Coos Bay or Bozeman. Solidly middle-middle is painfully far out of reach for tens of millions of Americans.
1
Why do we Americans equate money with class?
My wife and I make $86,000, and live quite well in Atlanta (saving $20k+/yr after taxes). We are not jealous of the "upper middle class". More importantly, we are not better than the working poor, or people doing valuable work that doesn't require a college degree.
Class to me is defined by being an honest person who works hard and contributes (not just financially) to your your community. If you have children, class is instilling these values in them, including but not limited to the curiosity to learn about the world.
Money is not a metric of class. There is nothing wrong with making an upper middle class income. But there are far too many Americans who believe their own hype, and equate their income with a false sense of social and even morality superiority.
My wife and I make $86,000, and live quite well in Atlanta (saving $20k+/yr after taxes). We are not jealous of the "upper middle class". More importantly, we are not better than the working poor, or people doing valuable work that doesn't require a college degree.
Class to me is defined by being an honest person who works hard and contributes (not just financially) to your your community. If you have children, class is instilling these values in them, including but not limited to the curiosity to learn about the world.
Money is not a metric of class. There is nothing wrong with making an upper middle class income. But there are far too many Americans who believe their own hype, and equate their income with a false sense of social and even morality superiority.
33
Same here. My net worth is over a million dollars, but to me this isn't upper class at all, and who cares. I care about classy people not class. That's the big dividing line for me. Some people are inherently worthwhile as people and some are not. All money does really is to make it clearer because people then have more opportunity to show just how much they lack class.
1
Nearly everyone who "can afford it" will choose to send their children to private school. That's here in the United States of America, where each and every person is guaranteed by the constitution to public education.
That any American would shun this hard-fought right is a travesty of epic proportion.
That any American would shun this hard-fought right is a travesty of epic proportion.
6
I disagree, after experiencing private preschool and kindergarten, I chose to send my son to public school and to actively engage in those public schools to help all children and youth, for that is the surest way to improve our society. Not building exceptionalism because a few can afford it.
5
Isn't the problem the fact that public school budgets are being continually undermined. Take for example my grandchildren's middle school.
New Jersey requires "enrichment" programs for academically successful kids, but then doesn't actually fund them. So the result is they only get enrichment for 1.5 hours a week, half the year (because the one enrichment teacher is shared across multiple schools). At least they get some enrichment - but where is the investment to create truly exceptional intellects. The only choice is to just cope, home school, or pay the private school costs. How do you break this cycle? You have to decide to double down and make a public education better than anything you can pay for. The Finns do this. Why can't we?
New Jersey requires "enrichment" programs for academically successful kids, but then doesn't actually fund them. So the result is they only get enrichment for 1.5 hours a week, half the year (because the one enrichment teacher is shared across multiple schools). At least they get some enrichment - but where is the investment to create truly exceptional intellects. The only choice is to just cope, home school, or pay the private school costs. How do you break this cycle? You have to decide to double down and make a public education better than anything you can pay for. The Finns do this. Why can't we?
3
Nope. There are still many of us who resist the social pressure to flee from public schools; and in staying behind, we come to realize that the fears of those who do are largely unfounded. Public school is the best tool we have for correcting the huge economic disparities in this country, and we should all be supporting the public system if at all possible. In our case, our kids did just fine sharing their high school experience with low income students.
2
This is second article this week I've read about the real problem being the top 20%. I suppose the socialists must not be getting the desired outcomes by targeting the 1%, or their occupy wallstreet or whatever victim mentality they peddle next.
Inequality in America is a result of progressive entitlement programs that lead to perpetual poverty for inner city minorities and is further propogated by the alarming percent of babies being born to single moms.
Inequality in America is a result of progressive entitlement programs that lead to perpetual poverty for inner city minorities and is further propogated by the alarming percent of babies being born to single moms.
5
@JM: You say: "the alarming percent of babies born to single moms." Please provide a reference or statistics to back up your claim.
1
Nothing was more evident of the class structure in the USA than this:
the Obamacare coverage presented a choice between a designated bronze, silver, gold, & platinum. That's right, the better the coverage plan, the more expensive & therefore more accessible to those with solid financial resources.
How about ONE plan for everyone!
The USA as classless, egalitarian society? Hardly. It's never been that from the time it was founded. Just keep the illusion alive with the would-be lottery millionaires who defend tax cuts for the rich.
the Obamacare coverage presented a choice between a designated bronze, silver, gold, & platinum. That's right, the better the coverage plan, the more expensive & therefore more accessible to those with solid financial resources.
How about ONE plan for everyone!
The USA as classless, egalitarian society? Hardly. It's never been that from the time it was founded. Just keep the illusion alive with the would-be lottery millionaires who defend tax cuts for the rich.
7
It's funny, I'm a millionaire but I opted for that bronze level and never considered anything else. All I need is protection against catastrophic expenses. If I need to pay a $6000 deductible some day, I'm fine with that. Just not $60,000 or $600,000.
And you know what? The mentality that "I'll take the bronze, please," repeated in every situation over many decades, is how I built up a million-dollar fortune. Too many people take every opportunity to spend. That's not how you get rich.
And you know what? The mentality that "I'll take the bronze, please," repeated in every situation over many decades, is how I built up a million-dollar fortune. Too many people take every opportunity to spend. That's not how you get rich.
2
I think this is a brilliant point - it never occurred to me before, and it's so true! What kills me is people in that 20% who think they don't have a lot of money - I guess comparing themselves to the upper echelons of the income bracket. I live in Manhattan on about $45,000/yr. More than half of my income goes to rent. But I am a whiz at making a silk purse out of a pig's ear, so I manage and still live a pretty good life, all things considered. I am highly educated and, if I may say so myself,(!) intelligent and gifted. But I chose to go into the arts (sigh) and live a bohemian life. I chose that - not complaining. But it's laughable to me when friends or acquaintances who are in the 20% act like they aren't doing so well. Someone I know who used to make 1 million/yr, owns an apt on Central Park West and has a place in the Hamptons was bemoaning the cost & quality of medical care now that he is retired. His idea of not having money, which he claims quite often, is very different than mine. He came from an upper middle class family and his children are now part of the 20% - their children go to those $30,000/yr schools. I think my friend helps pay - maybe that's why he's so "broke." The rich get richer...and yet they think they are hard-done by.
21
I live a similar lifestyle to you, also by choice, but in upstate new york. I think the real squeeze here is that the ability to CHOOSE a modest but livable lifestyle is shrinking or nearly disappearing. That is, the very possibility of being middle class and NOT upper middle class, because cost of living has far outpaced wages. This increases competition at the top, even for people who would be content with a job that provided different incentives aside from money (arts, social work, urban public school teacher) but cannot afford to live on it.
I am wary of Reeves. This is the second op-ed I've read by him, the first in the Guardian, all part of a carefully crafted PR campaign to sell his book intended to look like breaking news/ideas. I am as socialist as they come, and I gave up my own ticket into the upper echelons years ago when I transferred from an elite undergrad institution to a public university. But to me this feels like political distraction from the absolute corruption at the tippy top, of people who are accumulating wealth off of capital gains, hoarding and hiding money, buying politics, etc. An attempt to further divide the 99%, encouraging the upper middle class now to identify with the persecuted 1% in a defensive and self-protective gesture, building an even more cynical coalition of wealth. Lets take some breaths and keep our eyes on the big picture.
I am wary of Reeves. This is the second op-ed I've read by him, the first in the Guardian, all part of a carefully crafted PR campaign to sell his book intended to look like breaking news/ideas. I am as socialist as they come, and I gave up my own ticket into the upper echelons years ago when I transferred from an elite undergrad institution to a public university. But to me this feels like political distraction from the absolute corruption at the tippy top, of people who are accumulating wealth off of capital gains, hoarding and hiding money, buying politics, etc. An attempt to further divide the 99%, encouraging the upper middle class now to identify with the persecuted 1% in a defensive and self-protective gesture, building an even more cynical coalition of wealth. Lets take some breaths and keep our eyes on the big picture.
6
It is the educated establishment who were Clinton's strongest supporters under the guise that we are smarter than you. In reality they want to maintain their privileged educational, housing and earning opportunities. Class is well established in the US and is used for political gain at the expense of those who need opportunity most.
4
It is possible to read the New York Times--to even pay for a digital subscription--and not be a member of the top 20% nor have benefitted from private schools or legacy college admissions. So I can pretend I'm not rich all I want to. By the author's definition, I am not.
1
But in practice, highly educated people tend to read the NY Times. And in the US, if you are highly educated, you can usually make a very good salary.
If the maximum annual mortgage interest deduction were to be lowered to $15,000.00, red states wouldn't notice, and people in relatively wealthy blue states on the coasts would scream bloody murder.
There are two deductions in the tax code that disproportionately favor the wealthy liberal blue states: the mortgage deduction and the deduction for State income taxes. By hiding these simple truths, wealthy liberals protect their privilege.
There are two deductions in the tax code that disproportionately favor the wealthy liberal blue states: the mortgage deduction and the deduction for State income taxes. By hiding these simple truths, wealthy liberals protect their privilege.
9
How very "conservative" of them to object to paying higher taxes and making sure there are laws that seem to benefit the average person but really help them exponentially more than anything the average Jane gets. Losing that deduction would take away most homeowner's ability to keep their home forcing sales and bankruptcies akin to the 0i8 crash on steroids.
1
Yeah, otherwise all their money would be shipped to states like Alabama and Ohio, which are full of evil rednecks who voted for Trump.
However most of the blue state federal taxes still end up end up in red states. Also, those deductions are equally available in all states.
So give us a break.
Heroin/opioid addition is now a rural red state problem. Let's face the problem together (and all the other problems) as one country and not a bunch of whiny states.
So give us a break.
Heroin/opioid addition is now a rural red state problem. Let's face the problem together (and all the other problems) as one country and not a bunch of whiny states.
Let's look at the other end of the spectrum for a moment. California in general, and San Diego in particular have jumped on the living wage band wagon. San Diego raised the minimum wage in its city limits to $11.50 / hr, this year. Now a study reported in the local paper "The San Diego Union Tribune" is showing that this wage raise is costing restaurant works their jobs even when compared to the California market which is also raising the minimum wage. Restaurant jobs in California rose 2.4% in April and in San Diego they declined by 1.4%. There is also evidence that the minimum wage raise is contributing to the turn over in restaurants, with weaker restaurants being priced out of the market.
This might be 'collateral damage' as the military likes to call it. The inevitable effect of helping the majority of workers is that some will be hurt. That easy to say when you are a tenured professor of economics at a major university. The gritty reality is not an abstract concept when you are a minimum wage dishwasher in a restaurant who has just lost his job because the boss can't/won't pay the new wages.
San Diego has launched what may turn out to be a large study in Unintended Consequences. Stay turned, our minimum wage is scheduled to reach $15 / hr. in a couple of years. If this study is true, it could be really ugly.
This might be 'collateral damage' as the military likes to call it. The inevitable effect of helping the majority of workers is that some will be hurt. That easy to say when you are a tenured professor of economics at a major university. The gritty reality is not an abstract concept when you are a minimum wage dishwasher in a restaurant who has just lost his job because the boss can't/won't pay the new wages.
San Diego has launched what may turn out to be a large study in Unintended Consequences. Stay turned, our minimum wage is scheduled to reach $15 / hr. in a couple of years. If this study is true, it could be really ugly.
The logical extension of your second paragraph is to have no minimum wage limit, just as we have no maximum wage limit -- and just leave it to the good nature of employers to pay all their workers well. Really? History shows us how well that works out.
@Betsy - Employers pay what have to in order to get the workers they need, and no more. Unlimited immigration of people who are willing to work hard for very low wages have lowered what employers need to pay. If there were no illegal immigrants, native US citizens with no skills would probably have to be paid $12-15 an hour to get them to show up.
3
I'm upper middle class if you look at national averages, but living in a rural area, I'm probably wealthy. I retired at 52 and have no debts. I own my house, have a good pension I can live on, and don't even know what to do with the 7-figure savings I've amassed. I'm planning to travel more.
A lot of my money came from getting a good education and a good job, plus living frugally throughout my life as my parents taught me. I'm not kidding that I have to learn how to spend now.
Unfortunately, an even larger part of my money came from inheritance, life insurance and death benefits ... from my parents, and my husband. Everyone I loved most has died. I wasn't a wealthy wife, but I'm a wealthy widow.
Oh, how I wish we were still fussing over how we were going to pay off the bills!
A lot of my money came from getting a good education and a good job, plus living frugally throughout my life as my parents taught me. I'm not kidding that I have to learn how to spend now.
Unfortunately, an even larger part of my money came from inheritance, life insurance and death benefits ... from my parents, and my husband. Everyone I loved most has died. I wasn't a wealthy wife, but I'm a wealthy widow.
Oh, how I wish we were still fussing over how we were going to pay off the bills!
6
I have to agree with this article. I live in a gated, dateless community, my children went to top notch schools, now they are going to good universities and I see the inequalities that surround me. I am not rich. I don't live beyond my means. I invested and saved early to afford a decent life. I even bought my home at a good price. However, these days, I tell this to my greedy neighbors whose only thoughts are more, more, more and they don't believe me. They think I'm from Mars or somewhere else. There only concerns are to drive the biggest SUV's or send there kids to UCLA or USC, even though most of the offspring are too dumb to get accepted. The competition and mistrust exhibited by this lot is astounding. Meanwhile, the population that surrounds our neighborhood struggles on and I think, they are there to serve on one of Trumps future wars.
9
A fine column. As an ancillary point: it explains many or not most of the conservative opposition to any programs that benefit the less fortunate (i.e. the GOP), and the lack of awareness on the part of people whom these programs benefit to acknowledge that they depend on for support. That is: because our American myth is individualism--the upward climb of Horatio Alger--that means that anyone who isn't successful is to blame for their own "failure" to thrive. Those the war on the poor and most vulnerable of us has a moral base: in Europe, people know very well what class they were born into, and don't on one hand pretend that institutionalized classism doesn't exist, and on the other have a fantasy that just given a break or two, they'll be on the top of the heap, and everyone they leave behind is a loser (but not them). And those on the top--whether it is Donald Trump, who is just a rich boy because his father, actually was a self-made man--or an Ivy League blue-blood, think they've made it on their own merits.
This explains why so many people who are supported by government programs--Medicaid, food stamps, etc--continually vote against their best interests. They are in denial that they RECEIVE those benefits. And why those of us lucky enough to be in the top twenty percent continually pretend we got their on our own.
The stories we tell ourselves are powerful. And this one has led us to this unholy mess.
This explains why so many people who are supported by government programs--Medicaid, food stamps, etc--continually vote against their best interests. They are in denial that they RECEIVE those benefits. And why those of us lucky enough to be in the top twenty percent continually pretend we got their on our own.
The stories we tell ourselves are powerful. And this one has led us to this unholy mess.
6
Maybe the people who vote that way would prefer to have jobs and pay for what they use with the money they earn. That may or may not be feasible in our society, but that is apparently what they want.
Probably the largest factor in wealth stratification in the US is intelligence. Like it or not intelligence is not distributed evenly throughout the population, it is more of a normal curve. Those to the right of the mean are likely to do much better than those to the left.
3
Then all the privileges he mentions such as legacy admissions and mortgage interest benefits should be tossed out right? Your point, as I understand it, is smart folks are just smart folks. Thus they don't need extra help from our institutions, yes?
5
The whole point of the article is to address the fallacy you are promoting here.
I doubt those factors you mention have much to do with who becomes financially successful. The biggest fallacy of the left is the idea that social engineering can result in equal outcomes. We all don't have the same traits and abilities, we are not social insects. Those to the right of the mean will generally do better than those to the left.
1
While the writer makes valid points, using the average income in the top 20 percent skews the numbers considerably. The median income in the upper fifth is about $150,000, a large income but not if you're living in New York, San Francisco, D.C. Or a number of other large cities.
5
This explanation of the perpetuation of upper middle class status is telescoped. Many of us have working class parents that raised us with the mantra: "Go to school. Become a professional. Make more money than we do. Aspire to more than what we have." That is the story for me and the vast majority of my friends - we are professionals who went to public colleges and graduate schools, financed by loans. We are raising our children with the same mantra - what are they doing ? Going to school to become professionals so they can have lucrative careers and decent lives. None of our children have trust funds. My children went to state schools. No one can go to school for you. No one can study for tests for you - this is, in effect, a meritocracy. You have to have drive and ambition. That may be the missing link.
16
Your sense of entitlement is showing. Drive and ambition can help a lot. However, it does not help as much if you are the wrong color, or if you were born in the wrong neighborhood. Then, it takes the drive and ambition of your parents to help you overcome those first, negative strikes against you. If your parents are holding down two jobs each as they struggle to give you more ways to exercise your drive and ambition, it becomes difficult for them to sit with the more enabled parents, whose kids then look down at you. I suspect you did not have to overcome all those obstacles with your drive and ambition. Perhaps you can volunteer to help some kids in less fortunate circumstances than you to overcome them. However, this country, more than ever, is suffering from a paucity of empathy and grace. That is what is really driving inequality.
2
What do you mean 'if you are the wrong color'? If you happened to be a polite, articulate black teenager from a poor household, and you had high grades and test score, the president of Harvard would send his private plane to pick you up!
1
I'm the type of person and in the type of family you describe. But my husband and I vote Democrat in a swing state and donate regularly to progressive causes, like a non profit that helps people get IDs in states that require them to vote. Meanwhile, people who could benefit from having my benefits taken away are voting GOP. What more can I do? I'm not going to stop taking advantage of the benefits offered to me by our system, and I'm not going to feel bad about it when so many people don't even vote in their best interests.
10
The many e-mails to the editor by individuals who protest a little much about all the hard work they had to go through to reach the upper quintile (be it at 100K or at 200K) prove the author's point only too well. As a parent and educator, I can say with confidence that the children of the privileged perform objectively better (as a group) than the children of the non-privileged (in contrast to what happens in traditional aristocratic societies where performance doesn't really matter). Unfortunately, their hard work tends to let them forget the incredible advantages which they have had and to make them less compassionate towards others whom they perceive as their potential competitors.
15
I think the author looks at the wrong points (and some right ones like private K-12).
EVERYTHING in the US is tied to money much more than in Europe: housing prices, health care, university cost, real estate taxes.
If in the US the general public was supplied with public services like in Britain, with a cap on educational cost, and real estate taxes not connected to to school funding - and instead, taxes would be higher then you would create a more even financial landscape.
EVERYTHING in the US is tied to money much more than in Europe: housing prices, health care, university cost, real estate taxes.
If in the US the general public was supplied with public services like in Britain, with a cap on educational cost, and real estate taxes not connected to to school funding - and instead, taxes would be higher then you would create a more even financial landscape.
11
Sending children to a good private (or public) school is not, all by itself, a recipe for their success, as the various affirmative action programs demonstrate.
Once the child is in the school, many other "upper middle class" skills (and environmental conditions) are decisive. Does the child show up to school on time, rested and well fed, in a condition to do the work? Has the child been taught to obey orders, or does he/she speak out of turn, bounce around the room and ignore the teacher? Do the parents police attendance? Do they show up at parent/teacher conferences? Does the homework get done? People of whatever income level who have kids in good schools will testify that a LOT of that homework energy comes from the parents. (This is one of the drivers behind the complaints about Common Core math: because the parents cannot understand the work, they cannot collaborate with the kids in getting it completed.) Is the home life in general chaotic, or do the kids have time and quiet space to study? Do the parents limit "screen time" so that the work actually gets done?
A kid with these qualities and this kind of backup is far more likely to succeed than one who is without them, expensive schooling or no. These qualities too are class-linked, but it's not all about money. Everyone can name high-achieving adults from modest circumstances, but an awful lot of them had upper middle class values taught them when they were very small.
Once the child is in the school, many other "upper middle class" skills (and environmental conditions) are decisive. Does the child show up to school on time, rested and well fed, in a condition to do the work? Has the child been taught to obey orders, or does he/she speak out of turn, bounce around the room and ignore the teacher? Do the parents police attendance? Do they show up at parent/teacher conferences? Does the homework get done? People of whatever income level who have kids in good schools will testify that a LOT of that homework energy comes from the parents. (This is one of the drivers behind the complaints about Common Core math: because the parents cannot understand the work, they cannot collaborate with the kids in getting it completed.) Is the home life in general chaotic, or do the kids have time and quiet space to study? Do the parents limit "screen time" so that the work actually gets done?
A kid with these qualities and this kind of backup is far more likely to succeed than one who is without them, expensive schooling or no. These qualities too are class-linked, but it's not all about money. Everyone can name high-achieving adults from modest circumstances, but an awful lot of them had upper middle class values taught them when they were very small.
13
what you describe seems circular. if parents have the time resources, organizational capablities and meta-reasoning to encourage and help their children in this way then it's quite likely they are already in that top 20%, or on the way there
1
While the values you list are indeed important, we can likely name many more successful students from upper middle-class homes than ones from modest (and worse) circumstances.
Upper middle-class families have much more of the time, money, energy, stability, parental values regarding education, and social reinforcement necessary as the "infrastructure" which enables hard work.
It would be a rare (and heroic) kid who could succeed brilliantly in school, and tackle the homework, look after the younger ones, possibly go to bed hungry while parents worked at their second jobs to put a roof over everyone's head.
To me, the takeaway from this article is not that the wealthy don't necessarily work hard; it's that they often have blinders on about just what underpins their ability to do so successfully.
Upper middle-class families have much more of the time, money, energy, stability, parental values regarding education, and social reinforcement necessary as the "infrastructure" which enables hard work.
It would be a rare (and heroic) kid who could succeed brilliantly in school, and tackle the homework, look after the younger ones, possibly go to bed hungry while parents worked at their second jobs to put a roof over everyone's head.
To me, the takeaway from this article is not that the wealthy don't necessarily work hard; it's that they often have blinders on about just what underpins their ability to do so successfully.
1
Class has been part of the system from the start. After 1929 the remedies that FDR managed to implement corrected for many of the inquities of class (the foundation of the machinations that caused the 29 collapse, he knew he was one of them) and pointed us toward meritocracy. Since 1980 those attracted by the lies in justification of the fad for de-regulation have been systematically deconstructing that meritocratic system. These people are the heirs of those who hated FDR and the limited amount of meritocracy and protection from predation he managed to give the average citizen.
The "solutions" whatever they turn out to be for each situation have to be based in countering the propaganda system that has miseducated so many that they no longer have the common sense to be able to properly question a thing to determine its validity.
The "solutions" whatever they turn out to be for each situation have to be based in countering the propaganda system that has miseducated so many that they no longer have the common sense to be able to properly question a thing to determine its validity.
5
Me, and my friends are well aware why we were well off. We were born into the right situation. That is why we support for tax increases, and vote for property tax increases that support our schools even though we are all past the age of having children in schools.
My husband's family has started a scholarship fund at a local community college.
I don't know how prevalent this attitude is but my guess is most wealthy Democrats have no illusions about why they're well off and others aren't. Republicans may be another matter.
My husband's family has started a scholarship fund at a local community college.
I don't know how prevalent this attitude is but my guess is most wealthy Democrats have no illusions about why they're well off and others aren't. Republicans may be another matter.
17
The decline in wages and its transfer of this wealth to the Investor class is the foundation of our income inequality.
Many of the Comfortables are literally asking their children to wait until they die to transfer some of this inequity.
While wages adjusted to cost of living have still not returned to the peaked again since 1974.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages
...the Dow Jones continues to break all records:
http://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart
Many of the Comfortables are literally asking their children to wait until they die to transfer some of this inequity.
While wages adjusted to cost of living have still not returned to the peaked again since 1974.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wages
...the Dow Jones continues to break all records:
http://www.macrotrends.net/1319/dow-jones-100-year-historical-chart
Why are Asian students (even first generation) the most upwardly mobile group in America? Culture. They may live in poverty, their parents may have low education levels, they may be refugees, and they face discrimination. But they continually outperform everybody else on the whole. Why? It's the culture of hard work, self-discipline, delayed gratification, and competition.
Yes, social programs can make a huge difference, but don't forget that many poor people don't take advantage of the opportunities that are available. I've seen it as a manager, teacher, and friend. I'm not blaming the victim, I get that, but after a life of teaching and mentoring many people, some step up to the task, but just as many don't.
Culture has a huge impact.
Yes, social programs can make a huge difference, but don't forget that many poor people don't take advantage of the opportunities that are available. I've seen it as a manager, teacher, and friend. I'm not blaming the victim, I get that, but after a life of teaching and mentoring many people, some step up to the task, but just as many don't.
Culture has a huge impact.
20
Actually, I believe that African immigrants and their children hold that position, if you drill down beyond race, and closely examine the groups that make up our racialized categories. Some researchers actually have so done this, and African Immigrants and their children are the most educated group in both the US and the U.K., with rapid upward mobility following fast on the heels of the educational achievements of this group (who are disproportionately represented at elite institutions like the Ivies and Stanford).
6
What's the evidence that social programs can make a huge difference? The experience of the past 60 years suggests otherwise.
1
Ajuan- so true, and your comment I think reinforces the original comment. It's about culture, whether Asian or African. Same work ethic and drive, same success. Kudos to them.
1
I take serious issue with this. I grew up lower middle class, went to medical school at enormous personal cost, and now enjoy a level of income as a Pediatrician that you define as "rich." It's true that I don't sweat things like car repairs, but the car I drive is an economy model that I've had paid off for years. My worries and concerns are very middle class: paying of my student loans, saving for retirement, sending my three kids to college, etc. My kids will certainly enjoy a standard of living beyond what I experienced, but I had to mortgage my 20s and take on 200K in student loan debt to make that happen.
My decision to attend medical school and pursue a career in primary care is good for me and good for society. Don't act like I'm some sort of villain or like I'm the member of some oppressive upper class.
My decision to attend medical school and pursue a career in primary care is good for me and good for society. Don't act like I'm some sort of villain or like I'm the member of some oppressive upper class.
23
Hey doc, I think you missed the point. He was addressing the false sense of having earned a place many hereditary members of the upper middle class have and how that allows them to do things that a real meritocracy would discourage. If anyone in your family might be affected by this mistaken view of themselves it would be your children but that cannot be known until they have their own families.
6
I don't think he's talking about you.
The average salary of a pediatrician in California is $220K. You should be able to pay off the $200K student loan pretty quickly.
I am living proof that Mr. Reeves theory is not universal. When my husband and I married, neither of us had a degree, and we lived in a trailer house. Fast forward, we each have master's degrees, six-figure incomes, and a retirement. Neither of us is Ivy-leaguers or investment bankers, but we are in that mythic 5%.
10
The mortgage-interest deduction is definitely regressive. It divides people into three groups: (1) Those who can afford houses without it, (2) those who can afford houses only with it, and (3) those who will never be able to afford a house (renters).
The intended beneficiary, group (2), is probably by far the smallest.
Group (1) is able to buy more expensive homes at the expense of group (3).
It also distorts the market, raising prices, but not enough to counter its effects.
Clearly regressive.
The intended beneficiary, group (2), is probably by far the smallest.
Group (1) is able to buy more expensive homes at the expense of group (3).
It also distorts the market, raising prices, but not enough to counter its effects.
Clearly regressive.
12
Well stated. And to those who are feeling defensive, I would like to clarify. Ive been seeing a lot of comments that say they and multiple others have gotten to where they are due to hard work, and that's great; you should be proud. However, the author is not criticizing those folk, but rather those who achieved where they are using the right connections, familial wealth, and pure luck, yet complain about and criticize those who do those exact things. Its a criticism of the hypocrisy found in many of the vocal upper middle class in the US.
13
He should have left room for that in his article but he did not. The insinuation is that people of wealth, by and large, have not earned it. That is patently false.
Hm. That's not what I took from the piece. He is actually quite clear: many of us in the top 20 per cent 1) do not see how many advantages our earnings have gifted us with and 2) don't see how that creates both a material class difference from those with less income (perhaps an obvious point) and an accompanying lack of awareness of how advantaged we are (i.e., we don't see that we are part of the upper crust).
The result is that many of us fight to maintain our own levels of comfort and exclusivity without confronting the ways in which that fight maintains and may even make worse the material conditions of those below us on the economic ladder. He isn't saying it is bad to be successful (as you clearly have been); rather he is saying that many of us who have been successful then use our new wealth in ways that advantage ourselves and our families. Which is ok except when (often unintentionally) our behaviors disadvantage and create barriers for those below us on the ladder who seek to have the same success we have had. So (for example) by all means send your kids to good schools, but support equal funding for ALL schools, not just those like the ones your kids attend.
The result is that many of us fight to maintain our own levels of comfort and exclusivity without confronting the ways in which that fight maintains and may even make worse the material conditions of those below us on the economic ladder. He isn't saying it is bad to be successful (as you clearly have been); rather he is saying that many of us who have been successful then use our new wealth in ways that advantage ourselves and our families. Which is ok except when (often unintentionally) our behaviors disadvantage and create barriers for those below us on the ladder who seek to have the same success we have had. So (for example) by all means send your kids to good schools, but support equal funding for ALL schools, not just those like the ones your kids attend.
4
If you “earn” your wealth by exploiting others, you are part of the problem. People in the “bottom half” of that 5% wealthiest may well feel they are not rich. After all, $500,000 is 50% of a million; but one million is 1/1000 of a billion dollars. Those of us who make less than $100,000, on the other hand like to think we are middle-class. The vast majority of us never socialize with those whose incomes range from $500,000 and up. “Classless” society? We are highly class-segregated.
“Old Money” looks down on those who manage to break into the ranks of the wealthy.
“Old Money” looks down on those who manage to break into the ranks of the wealthy.
1
My wife and I have Canadian friends with whom we have met on our vacations over the course of years.
One couple chooses to live in Canada, though they have lived for years at a time in both Florida and in Arizona, as well as in other places in the U.S. for shorter periods. They have also visited and spent significant periods of time in other countries, on other continents.
I once asked them if they had encountered anything in the U.S. which surprised them. Husband and wife agreed that our rigid class separation - separations by money - surprised and upset them.
One couple chooses to live in Canada, though they have lived for years at a time in both Florida and in Arizona, as well as in other places in the U.S. for shorter periods. They have also visited and spent significant periods of time in other countries, on other continents.
I once asked them if they had encountered anything in the U.S. which surprised them. Husband and wife agreed that our rigid class separation - separations by money - surprised and upset them.
19
I guess no such thing exists in Canada? Please, these kinds of fake stories are annoying.
We now have a political system where both parties curry favor with the wealthy (Dems with the upper middle class, Reps with the 1%) while making just enough noise about social reforms to garner support from the working class - but never taking actions that would hurt their donors. It is the inevitable outcome of a capitalist democracy.
8
200K seems so arbitrary. in NYC that's not a lot. In Iowa it goes a lot further. and yes, many things here make it easier to succeed when you have money. and there are plenty of penalties for the poor -- the cost of college high among them.
7
But once your household income is over $150k, you are shut out from financial aid, meaning you will literally need to come up with tens of thousands more than other families. The Obamacare cliff operates the same way. This is part of the reason we hang on to advantages like the mortage deduction.
I have thought for a long time that my biggest advantage in life came from my Belgian immigrant grandparents who put their two daughters through college and imbued them with a can-do spirit and the sense that in America, anything is possible. Yes, we worked hard and felt that we didn't have anything given to us. But twhile it seemed invisible at the time, I now know that the State of Michigan subsidized my education at Michigan State at a level that when I graduated, neither my family nor I was saddled with crippling debt. Today's students, by comparison, get very little State help in supporting their Universities and they pay the whole cost of their education --and graduate with the debt to prove it.
But we are now a Republican state and our legislators can boast about our great universities all they want, but when it comes time to put their money where their mouths are, the money never shows up. One wonders where the money goes. Our roads are abysmal, our colleges defer maintenance and raise tuition, our public schools are starving.
But we are now a Republican state and our legislators can boast about our great universities all they want, but when it comes time to put their money where their mouths are, the money never shows up. One wonders where the money goes. Our roads are abysmal, our colleges defer maintenance and raise tuition, our public schools are starving.
37
And so it goes on all the same fronts in ultra-liberal, almost purely Democrat, relatively high tax Oregon. So what is the plan? Why are doing this to our selves? Where does the money in fact go?
2
Please don't make your state school funding a Republican problem because California has always been a Democratic run state and our schools are starved as well. Democrats continually cut funding ( while bolstering their pensions ) on the elementary and high school level, and constantly raise tuition on the college level. Once again Democratic run state.. California has the highest cost of living, highest taxes, largest population, highest paid government employees, lowest $ per student spent on education, all Democrats... So I laugh when Dems pretend to be champions for the lower and middle classes!!
4
The state budget is not classified information.
Fair points raised, but a great deal of generalization. A seat at the trailing edge of "upper middle class" hasn't dimmed awareness of our origin story. I certainly didn't start here. Blessed with an extraordinary, sprawling family who does not forget they are only a generation or so removed from Dust Bowl Okie poverty. Some struggle more than others, but all count on family, whatever the need. I'll gladly pay more taxes to help lift the lives of others. That's the way things should work.
9
The reason they are able to get away with it is that the majority of all Americans sincerely believe they are going to be wealthy at some point in their lives. That's why issues like the "death tax" and capital gains are routinely resolved in favor of the rich, the 99% support the repeal so it won't affect them when they hit it big.
So, once again, they defiantly vote directly against their own economic interests. Their choice. Trump is the inevitable result.
So, once again, they defiantly vote directly against their own economic interests. Their choice. Trump is the inevitable result.
14
What, in these days, is the definition of "rich"? It keeps changing, depending on which financial magazine or advisor one consults. Oh, and most of the wealth here is earned and is only a couple of generations old, not inherited.
1
This is patently false. In recent years IPOs have generated huge new sums of wealth but the reality is most wealth historically has been handed down through the generations. When they looked into the large gap between white and black Americans of same class they discovered the white Americans had a huge boost through inheritances that accounted for almost all of the gap. The inheritances, of course, would have been gained at a time of even more economic imbalance and serve in effect to reinforce those imbalances generations into the future. That pesky myth of meritocracy...
1
@Aujus - Most white people don't inherit anything, or get the money so late in life it is not of much use. The bulk of the people in the top 20%, discussed here, are living solely on their salary as a professional. Their net worth comes from their accumulated savings.
I am one of those you write about and I have some wealth to go along with it. I am for many policies that would hurt me but help our society. Among them are 100% taxation of inheritance (my in-laws setup gen-skip trusts to "protect" their grandchildren), elimination of the mortgage interest deduction, higher marginal rates of dividends and capital gains, lower tax rates on working people's incomes. Too bad I can't find any politician in agreement with me.
19
Many people who receive these inheritances think like that.
The people who actually went out, worked, and made the money? Hardly any of them would agree.
The people who actually went out, worked, and made the money? Hardly any of them would agree.
I simply can't totally agree with the thesis of this cleverly written article and the many reader pile-ons. It is true for the upper <1%, many of whom inherited great family wealth and were "legacy" admits to an elite private university (a morally odious practice), but is simply not true for much of the current upper 20% and a very large proportion of successful business owners and professionals in this country today. Nearly all of my close University of Wisconsin-Madison undergraduate and professional school friends of the 1950s and 1960s came from lower middle class families of very modest means, and most of us earned our way through university as well as post-college graduate or professional school with no financial support whatsoever from our families, yet nearly all of us are now financially in the upper 1-5% in terms of income and net worth. We were the beneficiaries of a once-strong public school system and great land grant public universities and community colleges that truly leveled the playing field. We had no special advantages that the majority of children in this country at the time did not also have. To blithely assert we were the beneficiaries of an unfair social system and infer we did not achieve personal and financial success through a willingness to work very hard and long is insulting and ultraliberal-speak drivel.
The United States is more calcified in its class structure than the UK? Wow!
The United States is more calcified in its class structure than the UK? Wow!
16
But now it's almost impossible for low income students to attend university.
8
"In the 1950s and 60s" is the key to your statement. In that brief time, a person really could earn their way through college, get a decent paying job and support a family. That framework doesn't exist any more.
23
Not even close to true. Local and state universities are VERY available to low-income students.
1
Having lived many years as a duel citizen on both sides of the pond, I completely agree with your assessment. I would add another comfort for the privileged in the US compared to Britain: the dream of upward mobility in the US makes for much less social tension between the classes here. All the work done by the bottom 90% for the top 10% comes with so much less guilt-inducing resentment. Of course, much of that work is being done by immigrants seemingly happy for the work...
11
I loved this article, America DOES have a severe class system, but the author went that extra mile and invalidated his own point. I have MULTIPLE friends who became wealthy through VERY HARD WORK and VERY GOOD IDEAS. And two of the wealthiest you do not get to blame white privilege because one is black and the other from Israel.
We need to respect the fact that we are CLASSIST long before we are racist or sexist, but we must also respect that fact that "hazy dreams produce hazy results" and most people in the lower tiers are content to sit in the same job for 20 years, or have no interest in learning the types of skills they would need to go further, because to do so requires discipline and pain.
Years ago I sold books door to door for two summers. What struck me was that the wealthy people were harder to sell to, not because they were rude, but because they were BUSY. The poor folks had time to spare, but invited you in not because they had money or really wanted to buy, but because the had a gargantuan list of complaints and loved having a new pair of ears in the house to listen!
Discipline, accountability, hard work, as long as these are BAD WORDS in America, we will never lift the lower classes up. If the system was truly rigged how did my ex's parents come from Vietnam with NOTHING and start a national restaurant catering business, which they then sold to become full time investors? We worship the rich, it's true, but let's STOP stereotyping how they got it.
We need to respect the fact that we are CLASSIST long before we are racist or sexist, but we must also respect that fact that "hazy dreams produce hazy results" and most people in the lower tiers are content to sit in the same job for 20 years, or have no interest in learning the types of skills they would need to go further, because to do so requires discipline and pain.
Years ago I sold books door to door for two summers. What struck me was that the wealthy people were harder to sell to, not because they were rude, but because they were BUSY. The poor folks had time to spare, but invited you in not because they had money or really wanted to buy, but because the had a gargantuan list of complaints and loved having a new pair of ears in the house to listen!
Discipline, accountability, hard work, as long as these are BAD WORDS in America, we will never lift the lower classes up. If the system was truly rigged how did my ex's parents come from Vietnam with NOTHING and start a national restaurant catering business, which they then sold to become full time investors? We worship the rich, it's true, but let's STOP stereotyping how they got it.
12
So well put. It's vitally important for the NYT crowd to demonize the ill-gotten gains of the wealthy from the confines of their gated communities ( think Tom Friedman, and the rest of the NYT editorial board :-)
And how long ago did you go door to door?
"We need to respect the fact that we are CLASSIST long before we are racist or sexist, " That comment is wacky and not based on fact. The U.S. was founded as a nation dominated by a white male power structure and there is much documentation on the vast fortunes built on the ill-gotten gains of slavery and on the hostile takeover of native American lands. The op-ed writer is absolutely correct that there is extreme denial in the present, but that denial rests on heavy denial about the past.
1
These people are the one undermining our society. It's because of the greed of this particular class, not because of the ones making more than 10 million, that everything is so expensive in this society. Look at your average surgeon! He expects to make 5-10 times more than his European or Japanese counter parts! Greed and entitlement to wealth is rampant and these people are the ones who will keep us, one day, when the population is ready, to have a single payer fund for our health care. A European doctor makes between 23 and 30 Euros per consultation; and american doctors 4 times that amount. I understand US doctors have to pay malpractice insurance, but this is not the only reason why it's so expensive here. Why do you think most US med school students don't want to become GP and everybody wants to be an orthopedic surgeon? The average hip replacement cost around 40K in the US and around 6000 euros in Europe. The US has the most expensive health care system in the world and the worse return. A single payer fund can't survive those rates! http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2...
Greed will take this country down and will make it a land of insecurity and misery. I certainly didn't vote for Trump last elections, but I fully understand anybody who refused to put somebody like Clinton in power because she represents so much the category of greedy professionals. Happier days are not on their way.
Greed will take this country down and will make it a land of insecurity and misery. I certainly didn't vote for Trump last elections, but I fully understand anybody who refused to put somebody like Clinton in power because she represents so much the category of greedy professionals. Happier days are not on their way.
13
You sound liked someone who didn't get into medical school. This article doesn't discuss US medical care. The discrepancy in US vs European doctor salaries attests to European doctors being underpaid. A single payer system will result in a more tiered system than we have now. It has happened in Europe. Those with means will not wait months for elective surgery.
4
We wind up with too many high-priced specialists and not enough GPs and gerontologists because our students come out of medical school with obscene amounts of debt to pay off; of course they go into the specialties that will pay best so they can get that debt paid off. With an aging population, this country is going to find itself in a world of hurt as the shortage of doctors to treat the elderly grows. I look at what Medicare reimburses my primary care physician, and I wonder why she continues.
1
The same sort of thing goes on in many other professions. Why is the tax code so complicated? It was written by accountants, that's why.
If you are a professional body that sticks together, you can make things very complicated for everyone else, and force them to hire you at a high fee.
If you are a professional body that sticks together, you can make things very complicated for everyone else, and force them to hire you at a high fee.
2
Three words: Better public education.
20
Of course Americans are class conscious. But class divisions are not America’s big problem. Political and ideological divisions matter more, and these follow “class” lines very imperfectly. The same is true in the UK. Since Downton was mentioned, think of the faithful Carson, a stalwart of empire loyalty. Or in our own time, Alf Garnett, the disgusting bigot who came to Brit TV in 1965, and carried on for decades. The poster child for the working class Tory.
There’s nothing moral about the choice of private schools over public schools in many areas. Most public-school funding comes from local taxes. In areas with high-value housing, local taxes support good schools. In others, property values yield much lower taxes, which lower funding for local schools. Any parent who can afford to avoid the worst schools would be wrong to subject his kids to under-qualified teachers and dilapidated buildings. Think of this “moral” argument in another area. If I know something about nutrition and campaign against fast food, must I eat fast food just to show solidarity with the poor?
There’s nothing moral about the choice of private schools over public schools in many areas. Most public-school funding comes from local taxes. In areas with high-value housing, local taxes support good schools. In others, property values yield much lower taxes, which lower funding for local schools. Any parent who can afford to avoid the worst schools would be wrong to subject his kids to under-qualified teachers and dilapidated buildings. Think of this “moral” argument in another area. If I know something about nutrition and campaign against fast food, must I eat fast food just to show solidarity with the poor?
6
As a fellow Brit and naturalized American I relate completely to the observations expressed here.The issue we are facing is that our culture remains rooted in American Exceptionalism but our reality is that most of the beliefs and attitudes associated with it do not serve us well.Sadly culture lags reality.At some point Americans will be able to see that increasingly, we are not masters of our own destiny.Until then, we will be open to idiotic concepts like "America First" in the mistaken belief that we can wind the clock back.Once we see the light, we might even be generally supportive of policies and laws that are designed from a societal perspective and our collective good without deriding them as "unAmerican".
12
i am happy that i am in the top 20% and realize that the tax laws of our country favor taxpayers in this group. i also do not want to be in the lower 40% even though i understand they are not required to pay federal income taxes.
a flat tax would help solve this problem, but even though the republicans pushed for it years ago, the proposal died a quick death.
why not eliminate all deductions of all kinds and tax all persons, corporations, churches, hospitals, etc? people will howl, but if churches are now into politics, why shouldn't they be taxed? this would permit corporations to withhold taxes on dividends so all taxes would be collected easily. i suspect politicians will oppose these suggestions because it would remove matters that permit them to shake down taxpayers for donations to promote different tax provisions.
a flat tax would help solve this problem, but even though the republicans pushed for it years ago, the proposal died a quick death.
why not eliminate all deductions of all kinds and tax all persons, corporations, churches, hospitals, etc? people will howl, but if churches are now into politics, why shouldn't they be taxed? this would permit corporations to withhold taxes on dividends so all taxes would be collected easily. i suspect politicians will oppose these suggestions because it would remove matters that permit them to shake down taxpayers for donations to promote different tax provisions.
Like many others, I don't see the mortgage interest deduction, 529s, or wonky zoning laws as evidence of a system rigged on the behalf of upper middle class Americans.
That many upper middle class Americans identify more with the bottom 20% than the top 1% is telling as far as where the real "rigged system" lies.
That many upper middle class Americans identify more with the bottom 20% than the top 1% is telling as far as where the real "rigged system" lies.
4
I should be embarrassed and defensive about earning $350,000 annually? Not for one moment. I paid for my education and worked my way up by taking the risks involved in making my bank. Yes, I am white, male and tall, by birth. Thank you Mom and Dad.
1
Rather than that, it seems the author is more criticizing the group of people that complain about their lack of wealth and opportunity compared to the top 1%, despite having so many advantages and doing the same things they criticize (getting into higher universities based on lineage, financial and business opportunity due to family wealth. etc). Basically, it'smore of a criticism of the hypocrisy found in a lot of Americans. Especially nowadays when many, particularly millenials who are exceptionally vocal.
2
I am not rich. I am not pretending.
5
This old chestnut?
Provocative title - often successful in attracting readers of drivel.
The notion that families making 200k a year should feel guilty and somehow disadvantage themselves to "solve the problem of deepening class divisions" is asking a lot.
Have you ever met a member of the human species? You do realize Donald Trump is President of the United States, right?
Find a better soapbox. The universe is cruel, random, decidedly unfair. Of all things happened in the world today you want to talk about those 'privileged' families who are able to indulge by leasing a Volvo station wagon and sending their kids to college?
Okay, folks, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Provocative title - often successful in attracting readers of drivel.
The notion that families making 200k a year should feel guilty and somehow disadvantage themselves to "solve the problem of deepening class divisions" is asking a lot.
Have you ever met a member of the human species? You do realize Donald Trump is President of the United States, right?
Find a better soapbox. The universe is cruel, random, decidedly unfair. Of all things happened in the world today you want to talk about those 'privileged' families who are able to indulge by leasing a Volvo station wagon and sending their kids to college?
Okay, folks, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
5
I turned the shock of my Father dropping dead in front of me when I was 16 into a determination to succeed; and despite the fact I grew up in an affluent community, we actually had little money. So I had to do it myself. I worked my way through night college, graduated with honors, ended up in a number of C-Level positions retired early and then decided on a 2nd career, completely different from my previous career path. At >70, I am livin' the dream and having a blast! Retirement? Are you kidding?
5
Hmm, so it is not really Jamie Dimon who is undermining our economic stability, its my dentist in Bethesda? And I shouldn't worry about the rollback of Dodd Frank, it is really the 529 plans that will level the tax playing field?
11
On a macro scale, yes. The total wealth and income of 65 million people is great than that of the top 100 billionaires.
You have a dentist in Bethesda. Nice.
Well stated, Mr. Reeves.
6
The main point not spelled out in this important column is that a true meritocracy makes all of us richer as a nation. Our fake meritocracy is more dangerous than a clear class system because it defies correction. If you think that America is the ultimate land of opportunity, where everyone is equally rewarded for their hard work and talent, both the winners and losers feel they are getting what they deserve.
Talent and potential are massively squandered in a fake meritocracy, while true meritocracy makes the most efficient use of human capitol (talent).
Those seats held in Harvard classes taken by less capable legacy students are stolen from students that would have been much more likely to accomplish great things, for themselves AND the rest of us. The toll of this and similar situations to our nations overall wealth and power is incalculable, but can be assumed to be huge.
We have risen as a nation by being one of the most meritocratic in the world, but the rest of the modern world is rising while we sink. Only our ample non-human resources are keeping us afloat.
Talent and potential are massively squandered in a fake meritocracy, while true meritocracy makes the most efficient use of human capitol (talent).
Those seats held in Harvard classes taken by less capable legacy students are stolen from students that would have been much more likely to accomplish great things, for themselves AND the rest of us. The toll of this and similar situations to our nations overall wealth and power is incalculable, but can be assumed to be huge.
We have risen as a nation by being one of the most meritocratic in the world, but the rest of the modern world is rising while we sink. Only our ample non-human resources are keeping us afloat.
Bravo Mr. Reeves:The admission at least that the twenty percent who are the " winners" accomplished much of it through parental push, connections and just dumb luck has been obvious, although in denial, for decades even on this side of the pond. In the Bay Area of the seventies I had clients who lied about their addresses in order to get their kids into prestigious schools in Hillsborough and Atherton as by that point the former public schools of San Mateo and Redwood City had become largely repositories for children from non English speaking backgrounds with little to no interest in an education. Later as the tech crowd really took over they even had special psychological practices dedicated to deal with helping those who found themselves famously wealthy and feeling guilty( well maybe not)having done no more than walk through the right door and the magic of stock options. Yes we have a class system in America, it has nothing to do with breeding or color except that of your money and how much you have acquired by whatever means.
12
This old chestnut?
Provocative title, though - always successful in attracting readers of drivel.
The notion that families making 200k a year are should feel guilty and somehow disadvantage themselves to "solve the problem of deepening class divisions" is asking a lot.
Have you ever met a member of the human species? You do realize Donald Trump is President of the United States?
Find a better soapbox. The universe is cruel, random, decidedly unfair. Of all things happened in the world you want to talk about those 'privileged' families who are able to indulge by leasing a Volvo station wagon and sending their kids to college?
Okay, folks, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Provocative title, though - always successful in attracting readers of drivel.
The notion that families making 200k a year are should feel guilty and somehow disadvantage themselves to "solve the problem of deepening class divisions" is asking a lot.
Have you ever met a member of the human species? You do realize Donald Trump is President of the United States?
Find a better soapbox. The universe is cruel, random, decidedly unfair. Of all things happened in the world you want to talk about those 'privileged' families who are able to indulge by leasing a Volvo station wagon and sending their kids to college?
Okay, folks, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
2
To the many who post with protest:
Perspective is often provided by including history and global society. Thus, by historical standards our healthcare, dental care, food resources, transportation, and homes are all better than any king or queen up until the last 50 years (including myself, whose household income barely clears $100,000). By global standards today? Cry me a river.
Perspective is often provided by including history and global society. Thus, by historical standards our healthcare, dental care, food resources, transportation, and homes are all better than any king or queen up until the last 50 years (including myself, whose household income barely clears $100,000). By global standards today? Cry me a river.
2
OR, we can each simply mind our own business. There is that option.
Full marks. The hypocrisies of the well off, including unspoken classism and racism among liberals and not-so-liberals, is well known, if hushed up among its members and enablers. The enablers are the elected class, among who there are NONE not in this upper 20%. Those not born to it stole their way to it via politics. One can only hope for the just retribution of the masses; alas nothing short of an asteroid strike will hasten that day.
Another swimming pool liberal. You have it wrong. Hard work, good parenting and a commitment to education and staying on the right side of the law will get you from one class to the next in any generation. Even this one. Richard, maybe you would like to help your own country to improve its performance to meet your standards, but we are happy with things in America continuing to allow people to enjoy the benefits of their efforts an also, and legitimately, that of their families. That is what families are for. That is why parents work hard, teach their kids and encourage them to do well. Take that opportunity away from me and there is no reason for me to work as hard as I did to raise myself from the coal mines to that 20% in a single generation. You remember....the American Dream. Stop playing the victim card.
1
You kind of miss the fact that rising from poverty today is a whole lot more difficult than it was 30 or 40 years ago. The minimum wage (and wages, generally) was stagnant, while inflation was not - and higher education became MUCH more expensive.
2
"Stop playing the victim card" -- what does that even mean in this context? The author is not claiming to be a victim of anything. I think this is just a generic Republican/conservative, knee-jerk reaction to any liberal proposal or argument.
Mr. Reeves's basic point is incontestable, and I'm glad he's made it. The only criticism I'll offer is that the class-biased intersection of housing and education, which is the core of his critique, is hardly a novel insight. Perhaps another sign of class privilege would be to talk about the intersection of pending book releases and well-timed op-eds in the New York Times.
The author's mother wanted him to change the way he spoke because he was BORN into the wrong class in the UK, and no matter how much money he may make, a British subject with the wrong accent is still looked down upon by his or her "betters..." There was even a whole musical built on that reality. British tabloids can be counted on to keep us up with the doings of various teenage "lords" who would otherwise be ignored as the useless twists that they are...but they're "lords."
That, of course, is the reason that the author lost his accent. Americans don't have that kind of class. American class is based on money; people born in some of the most miserable ghettoes in the US wind up being invited to the Met Gala, purely because they've become rich. You CAN get rich here, or move up; lots of people do it, many don't. But at least it's not an impossibility.
That, of course, is the reason that the author lost his accent. Americans don't have that kind of class. American class is based on money; people born in some of the most miserable ghettoes in the US wind up being invited to the Met Gala, purely because they've become rich. You CAN get rich here, or move up; lots of people do it, many don't. But at least it's not an impossibility.
The author fails to understand the basic difference between mean and median. The median income in the top 20% is about $135,000 per year. The mean is about $200,000 because so many people in the top 1% have very high incomes.
Given this fundamental error, can we trust anything else this author writes?
Given this fundamental error, can we trust anything else this author writes?
2
I think you missed the point. Its not the amount of wealth that gets you into the top 20 that is the focus but rather the cultural practices one adopts to maintain that position once one gets there that is the focus. The piece is about consciousness of how your choices that seem only to be about yourself and your family actually affect those coming up behind you possibly holding them back or pushing them down.
1
It's not an error, it's a carefully selected bit of data that is literally true, that allows the line of argument to sound less radical than it really is. This is pretty common in the NY Times. If he came out and said we need to raise taxes on those rich people making $120K, people would think he's an obvious idiot.
t'd love to know what percentage of favorable commenters on this item live in doorman buildings in NYC. Just saying.
2
How do people in the top 20% get there in the first place? Is it inheritance? Well presumably someone; parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc; got their first, but how? Is it luck? Doesn't luck work both ways; sometimes up, sometimes down? Could this whole thing simply be some sort of faux problem to fill idle space of pundits, professors, politicians?
Some truth to your comments but you are too hard on the middle class. The US safety net stinks. Most of the middle class is 1 serious illness away from bankruptcy and forget about retirement benefits. Social security and Medicare get you a bed in trailer park if you don't have other sources of income. College is not free and in fact costs way more in the USA. So, yes those of us who worked our way up ( my dad was 1st generation born in the USA and first to go to college) have to protect our kids because the government is not going to be if much help.
6
Change the corrupt two party system, change the tax code, stop discrimination for good, and raise real and true leaders, a modern Abraham Lincoln for example, and this country could become an oasis in this tragic world.
Yes.. EVERYONE should make exactly the same. It is called communism and it has proven to be such a great system. From the USSR to Venezuela!
The amount of comments agreeing with this socialist nonsense makes me truly frightened for this country.
The goal of a representative republic based on a capitalist economy should be equality of opportunity and NOT equality of outcome!
The amount of comments agreeing with this socialist nonsense makes me truly frightened for this country.
The goal of a representative republic based on a capitalist economy should be equality of opportunity and NOT equality of outcome!
2
Thank you. So much truth in this article - truth that the upper middle class doesn't want discussed.
7
Didn't we get away from "British" superiority once before?
2
Very flawed analysis. The mid-level to bottom of this so-called top quintile is fighting to keep what they have - not out of ignorance or willful blindness of their good fortune, such as it is - but because there is no social safety net here. To lose a small benefit may mean falling into the abyss of poverty. We are just the next layer that the GOP and their wealthy patrons are carelessly destroying in their mission to lower taxes on the supremely wealthy.
It's stressful to be 'upper middleclass'. We can't go back to Britain if we get sick and lose our health insurance.
It's stressful to be 'upper middleclass'. We can't go back to Britain if we get sick and lose our health insurance.
2
Yes! But unfortunately you used 1) real facts and 2) a cross-country comparison- you know the American Senate is unofficially required to base all materials on an improper understanding of history and least one literal myth...
1
Mr. Reeves,
Your article while interesting misses the mark. My immigrants left England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales because they all came from rural backgrounds. They knew they did not stand a chance if they stayed in the UK to have anything, property or rights of any kind. If you would like I can send you my ancestry.com and DNA to prove the point.
I believe you need to check your prejudice, Sir.
Your article while interesting misses the mark. My immigrants left England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales because they all came from rural backgrounds. They knew they did not stand a chance if they stayed in the UK to have anything, property or rights of any kind. If you would like I can send you my ancestry.com and DNA to prove the point.
I believe you need to check your prejudice, Sir.
3
529s....that's the target of your ire?
If you are in the top 20% and let's be generous and say you make $250,000 gross and have 3 kids. First, that is income earned for labor and in the northeast or CA probably between federal, state and local taxes you get to keep 60% so $150,000. Now rent or mortgage is 25% of that. You haven't paid childcare, had anything to eat or what not.
But since you're rich - your words- when it comes time for college you get no financial aid. Also if your kids are non-Hispanic white or Asian their grades must be higher.
I'm doing fine. Grateful for my job and family but let's not pretend the upper middle class hasn't been stuck with the bill for EVERYTHING.
If you are in the top 20% and let's be generous and say you make $250,000 gross and have 3 kids. First, that is income earned for labor and in the northeast or CA probably between federal, state and local taxes you get to keep 60% so $150,000. Now rent or mortgage is 25% of that. You haven't paid childcare, had anything to eat or what not.
But since you're rich - your words- when it comes time for college you get no financial aid. Also if your kids are non-Hispanic white or Asian their grades must be higher.
I'm doing fine. Grateful for my job and family but let's not pretend the upper middle class hasn't been stuck with the bill for EVERYTHING.
6
As a tuition paying (full sticker price) parent who has benefited from the 529 plan, I recognize that it's proceeds are not only for my child but also enabling another child to receive financial aid. Remove the 529 option and expect a trickle down effect to only widen the gap of inequality.
1
So let's get the liberals to turn against each other and give total power to this right wing madman and his followers. It started with Hillary Clinton, she was unpure because she mad some money speaking to Wall Street. Or Obama sending his kids to a private school. Of course, anyone is going to do what's best for their family but they can also promote policies that can change things like campaign finance reform and better public education. Let's face it, anyone who was not born poor and black had a significant advantage in this country. They could make mistakes and get second, third, and many more chances to redeem their lives while those who were born black maybe got none. The other side is united and focused on destroying us liberals....and the far left is their ally. I'll take the name liberal but I'm really a radical moderate. The extremes will lead us to a totalitarian state and misery for all.
2
Outraged that not everyone shares his morbid social conscience and sense of guilt, the author proceeds to stir up class resentment and complain about everything from Brexit to private education.
2
This sort of scholarly assault on American ignorance is long overdue. Sadly, it must come from someone with an English accent (that always sounds posh to virtually all Americans, even if it’s Cockney). The idea, for example, that was posted by JMartin of NYC and picked by The Times at about 8 AM Sunday mornings as one of their Picks, purports that in America one can still work hard, rise on merit, and break through class barriers. That may be true technically, numerically, but certainly not socially; just ask the 45th President of the United States. He occupies the Oval Office today, in part, because in his previous life he was never accepted by the posh Manhattan elites, despite the theoretical numbers in his bank accounts. He may have had more money than they, but he would never be as good. Of course, in his case, they were right. But the more important issue for all Americans is that Mr. Reeves spells out clearly, finally, for a broader audience, is the hypocrisy and social damage of a system of funding public education based on "catch basin" property taxes. So many are washed through catchments each year, more effluent than rain water. It, along with college legacy admissions, are the institutional bookends that bind so many to living lives that are less than they might have been.
3
kardashians anyone? watching tv is watching someone else's dream come true.
1
I think it is beautiful that middle class and upper middle class folks can think of sending their kids to private schools. We are fortunate here in the north east to have some of the best public schools in the country. Yet many of our friends have kids who need smaller class rooms or special attention. Many of them return to the public high school to finish. Then there are families who send one kid to private school while their other kid attends public schools all the way through.
Having lived in a former British colony (besides the US), I can assure you America does not have a "class" system, it does have a racist system that prefers White Christians. It has not stopped Jewish immigrants from racing up the ladders full stream.
Our kids have grown up with kids of immigrants from all kinds of countries. My son teaches in NYC where the school feels more like the UN than an American city. Poor and rich, Africans, Asians and Latin Americans, Catholics and Jews, everyone partakes in America's gifts to its residents.
Having lived in a former British colony (besides the US), I can assure you America does not have a "class" system, it does have a racist system that prefers White Christians. It has not stopped Jewish immigrants from racing up the ladders full stream.
Our kids have grown up with kids of immigrants from all kinds of countries. My son teaches in NYC where the school feels more like the UN than an American city. Poor and rich, Africans, Asians and Latin Americans, Catholics and Jews, everyone partakes in America's gifts to its residents.
3
Out of that $20 trillion one should at least deduct the portion that goes to the 1%. These things are not linear.
Something like 50% of the US population does not have an extra $500 for an emergency. 50%!! How many reading this article are in that sinking boat? I'd guess practically none. Yes, there is economic inequality in this country. Matter of fact the greatest ever in our history and the largest of any western nation.
Pay closer attention to Thomas Piketty's writings on this all too often brushed aside topic. Our country is a disgrace. And if this continues in this direction, the poor WILL be eating the rich.
Pay closer attention to Thomas Piketty's writings on this all too often brushed aside topic. Our country is a disgrace. And if this continues in this direction, the poor WILL be eating the rich.
4
Ah, First World Problems.
I am much more concerned about the working poor than the upper middle class. Try living on $20K, or even $15K for full time work anywhere in this country. Over half the country has less than $500 in savings, and is one missed paycheck or one unexpected bill away from insolvency.
I wish that companies would voluntarily raise wages for the working poor. If they don't, eventually they will be forced to, either by the voters through the minimum wage or through unions.
Factory work in the 19th century was brutal and the pay was like indentured servitude. "I owe my soul to the company store." By the 1960s, one factory worker could support a family with a secure middle class income. Making widgets in a factory is not inherently more valuable to society than providing services for others.
Perhaps people working in the service sectors and the "gig economy" should consider organizing labor unions.
I am much more concerned about the working poor than the upper middle class. Try living on $20K, or even $15K for full time work anywhere in this country. Over half the country has less than $500 in savings, and is one missed paycheck or one unexpected bill away from insolvency.
I wish that companies would voluntarily raise wages for the working poor. If they don't, eventually they will be forced to, either by the voters through the minimum wage or through unions.
Factory work in the 19th century was brutal and the pay was like indentured servitude. "I owe my soul to the company store." By the 1960s, one factory worker could support a family with a secure middle class income. Making widgets in a factory is not inherently more valuable to society than providing services for others.
Perhaps people working in the service sectors and the "gig economy" should consider organizing labor unions.
7
I believe you identified an issue, but put the blame in the wrong place. Let's look through the lens of history to clarify what has happened over the last 60 years.
Starting in the middle of the last century, a person with minimal education such as a high school diploma could work in a factory and be part of thriving middle class. Through the GI bill the government created the greatest educated workforce in the world. Through education, people had the mobility to move up in the class structure.
The rapid advancement globalization and automation occurring over the last 30 years has changed America and the world. The main issue here is our government didn't respond fast enough and well enough to help those people in lower classes potentially succeed and move up the class ladder. Their advancements were thwarted by both these changes and the lack of responsiveness of our government. Investments in education, training were cut and instead of giving more grants for college tuition costs, people were forced to take out student loans assuming large amounts of debt--a robber of wealth.
I recently read a quote from Oprah: luck is where preparation meets opportunity. I really believe that. If our society and our elected officials put together a GI Bill for the 21st century for better training and education to prepare people for these rapid changes, they would have been able to take advantage of opportunities and move up the class ladder.
Starting in the middle of the last century, a person with minimal education such as a high school diploma could work in a factory and be part of thriving middle class. Through the GI bill the government created the greatest educated workforce in the world. Through education, people had the mobility to move up in the class structure.
The rapid advancement globalization and automation occurring over the last 30 years has changed America and the world. The main issue here is our government didn't respond fast enough and well enough to help those people in lower classes potentially succeed and move up the class ladder. Their advancements were thwarted by both these changes and the lack of responsiveness of our government. Investments in education, training were cut and instead of giving more grants for college tuition costs, people were forced to take out student loans assuming large amounts of debt--a robber of wealth.
I recently read a quote from Oprah: luck is where preparation meets opportunity. I really believe that. If our society and our elected officials put together a GI Bill for the 21st century for better training and education to prepare people for these rapid changes, they would have been able to take advantage of opportunities and move up the class ladder.
2
I think I've done reasonably well in life, but I sure don't fit this description of being rich. What did it cost Mr. Reeves and/or his family to send him to all these schools he attended? Did he have to lift a finger to earn money for college or university? I attended a fine university within the N.Y. S. public education system, but I earned a scholarship to cover tuition and I worked all four years (and every summer) to pay for everything else. It wasn't easy, but I made it work. My adult children are doing very well in their careers. They didn't have to work to attend college or university,so they could concentrate on their education. They both now have advanced degrees and are successful. But in the time that has passed since they went off to school, the cost of living has increased dramatically. I don't know that this path would be available these days, especially when we have a headless government in Washington that is doing its best to curtail all significant progress made over several decades for the people of our nation. So this smacks of "class" on Mr. Reeves part, especially considering where he's employed now.
4
It is naïve to think that we can so effectively even out income levels that socioeconomic classes would become indistinguishable from one another. We live in a world ruled by the normal curve and, while the distinctions might become more tightly clustered around the mean, human perception being what it is, the differences would soon seem as vast, and unfair, as they are considered to be today. That does not mean that we can’t make every effort to raise the floor that supports us all and, as concerned and compassionate human beings, we should. That seems to be what the author is trying to remind us of. I’m just not convinced that laying blame for the very real plight of the lower classes at the feet of the upper middle class represents enough of the total picture to justify shaming those who fall to the right of the mean. Particularly as we are all striving to get there.
4
So much is said by the term "lower classes." Not to get all politically correct on you, but I think a more accurate term is "working class." There's a reason they call it that.
1
The people I've known that make $100k or $200k (or more) work harder and for more hours than the people you refer to as "working class".
1
Add to the advantages, that wealthy parents who have good public schools can donate directly to that school, and get a tax deduction for basically helping their child.
3
"Some of my most progressive friends send their children to $30,000-a-year high schools."
Mine too. Most Americans, myself included, want to live in a society that is an open, free-market, meritocracy, Contrary to popular "conservative" beliefs, private schools and other class privilege is the real threat to sustaining our free-market system; The threat is not social welfare spending.
Here's an idea: End the income tax deduction for private school tuition and instead add a fat 100% tax on top the tuition that would be given to public education. That would both disincentivise sending kids to private school and create better public schools.
Mine too. Most Americans, myself included, want to live in a society that is an open, free-market, meritocracy, Contrary to popular "conservative" beliefs, private schools and other class privilege is the real threat to sustaining our free-market system; The threat is not social welfare spending.
Here's an idea: End the income tax deduction for private school tuition and instead add a fat 100% tax on top the tuition that would be given to public education. That would both disincentivise sending kids to private school and create better public schools.
10
There is no deduction for private school tuition. Trump wants to add one and also allow home schoolers to benefit from vouchers which would further erode our public school system by creating new profit centers with zero accountability
4
Deidre, having pulled my children out of the overcrowded public school where the principal boasted(!) about the teachers "helping" to fill in the bubbles on standardized tests, it seems wrong to me to continue to pay school taxes at the same time as private school tuition.
It just is not fair. As a single parent there is no way I could correct overcrowding or the culture of cheating.
I feel strongly about having good public schools and the need to pay for them, but when the family has children who have to use alternatives they should get some relief.
It just is not fair. As a single parent there is no way I could correct overcrowding or the culture of cheating.
I feel strongly about having good public schools and the need to pay for them, but when the family has children who have to use alternatives they should get some relief.
1
There is no income tax deduction for private schoool tuition.
Mr. Reeves, your generalizations and therefore prejudice about so-called rich people are offensive. Not all "rich" people were born that way. I grew up in went to public schools, had no coaching, went to Brooklyn College and to law school. I had a supportive family but neither of my parents went to college. I was encouraged to work hard. There was no money for tutors and no money for summer camp or any such "extras". I didn't think about whether I was middle class or upper lower class, as that was quite irrelevant. What was relevant was working hard, and I do not feel that anything was ever handed to me. I worked hard at practicing law, bought a house; my children went to public schools and I paid for their college tuition. I am sure I am not the only one who succeeded by hard work. I am not as sure as you are about the solution. Will eliminating the mortgage interest deduction result in low income people having a better chance of success? Will eliminating the mortgage interest deduction motivate lower income people to work hard to succeed? Don't misunderstand. I am all in favor of tax reform, and I am not talking about the Trump/Republican kind of tax reform. I am willing to pay more in taxes to have safety nets and a better education system, and all the things that go into giving people the tools to escape poverty, but the motivation to work hard must somehow be encouraged.
11
Many hours ago, not long after the posting of this essay, I took exception to the author's premise that most Americans are not painfully aware of class differences, and pointed to Trump's victory as one indication of this. After reading the comments this morning from folks who most likely did not vote for Trump, are educated, and probably are not suffering financially, I bow down to the author's insight: an awful lot of people in this country who are privileged, who have benefited based on birth, color of skin, etc., simply aren't willing to recognize this. I guess the great American myth-making ability is stronger than I thought. All of those, apparently who have done well pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, defied all odds, and, unlike the Brits, aren't so quick to assess class based on language, education, wealth, and similar factors.
12
There is little if anything new here.
That education, especially at top of the line prep schools and private universities, is a rigged game favoring the rich has been an unquestioned finding of social researchers since the studies James Coleman led in the 1960s and 1970s -- total wealth devoted to the child is the measure that counted then and now.
Zoning laws, property taxes, home mortgage interest deductions, and school districts have all been linked with upward mobility since the wars of the civil rights movement. You raise flags about legacy enrollments without noting how a much bigger impediment to upward mobility is the abandonment of public funding of secondary and post-secondary education by an increasing number of states - check the numbers - it is not as good for rhetorical cheap shots as legacies but the impact is huge.
Finally, I don't see why you fail to discuss downward mobility in class and status, which must be a big issue if you factor in demographic growth and the flat incomes that Piketty and others have noted for a while.
That education, especially at top of the line prep schools and private universities, is a rigged game favoring the rich has been an unquestioned finding of social researchers since the studies James Coleman led in the 1960s and 1970s -- total wealth devoted to the child is the measure that counted then and now.
Zoning laws, property taxes, home mortgage interest deductions, and school districts have all been linked with upward mobility since the wars of the civil rights movement. You raise flags about legacy enrollments without noting how a much bigger impediment to upward mobility is the abandonment of public funding of secondary and post-secondary education by an increasing number of states - check the numbers - it is not as good for rhetorical cheap shots as legacies but the impact is huge.
Finally, I don't see why you fail to discuss downward mobility in class and status, which must be a big issue if you factor in demographic growth and the flat incomes that Piketty and others have noted for a while.
7
For me the first difficult pill to swallow in regard to Trump being in the White House was that he does not seem well-educated, and he lacks sophistication and refinement. He's got some cred in the streets on which he's known, no doubt, but those are not the streets that matter in Washington; he's not the sort of person who gets into that office, normally. And that is his appeal to large numbers of people- he's s real stone in the shoe of the 'right people."
He's made his way onto the highest perch in the land, and that's a really big deal. And he represents a large portion of the US population, who, educated, hardworking, sensitive, ethical, caring or not, do not feel like they belong to the priveleged class that assume the right to be in the inner circles of power. So, ignoring all the issues that surround his presidency, it's actually America's own class war that put him where he is, and keeps him there.
I do think America's sense of class is different than English people's, in general.
In America, class is perpetually dancing with income and accumulated wealth. The majority of the population recognize the other sort of class structure as exclusivity without any discernable use. That is why Hillary Clinton's remarks about her family during her campaign were so alienating; in referring to her priveleged life, she spoke on familiar terms to those of her own class. And that made her opponent seem far more acceptable to those outside of it.
He's made his way onto the highest perch in the land, and that's a really big deal. And he represents a large portion of the US population, who, educated, hardworking, sensitive, ethical, caring or not, do not feel like they belong to the priveleged class that assume the right to be in the inner circles of power. So, ignoring all the issues that surround his presidency, it's actually America's own class war that put him where he is, and keeps him there.
I do think America's sense of class is different than English people's, in general.
In America, class is perpetually dancing with income and accumulated wealth. The majority of the population recognize the other sort of class structure as exclusivity without any discernable use. That is why Hillary Clinton's remarks about her family during her campaign were so alienating; in referring to her priveleged life, she spoke on familiar terms to those of her own class. And that made her opponent seem far more acceptable to those outside of it.
7
Even a morally challenged twit is more acceptable than an intelligent woman is evidently current dictum for people with a right to wealth religion!
1
If you have more or make more than I do then you are amongst "the rich". So much envy in the world, whether the UK or the USA or anywhere else. And, as the author suggests at the end, "And yes, I am looking at you."
It is possible that both arguments here are partially correct. There was a time -- roughly from the 1950s through 1970s -- when the "American Dream" of upward mobility was not a myth. For millions of us, it was a lived experience as our families went from poor or working class to middle class or upper middle class. But it is also the case that things have changed dramatically since the 1980s, with an increase in the structural barriers to upward mobility that Reeves discusses here.
9
Right. And the change was brought about by Reagan's policies.
2
At around $150k, I'm in that top 2%. My supposed economic privilege consists of military parents, attending public school, and not having been able to afford to go to college. I nevertheless educated myself (it's called reading, folks!), worked since 17, made money, raised a daughter, and somehow ended up ok. That's despite paying as much as $11k per year for my own medical insurance, and largely due to the mortgage deduction, and the fact that I bought a house that happened to appreciate and now is worth twice what I sold it for. I don't have a car and live in a rented apartment. I know I'm lucky, but it's not because everything's so great for me, it's because everything's so awful for so many people in this country. A better way to think of this might be to ask who's going to be wiped out by one lost job or medical emergency or popped housing bubble. Most of us are just trying to get through this vale of tears without ending up pushing a shopping cart down main street. To point fingers, to see crass privilege where there are only people, desperate to help their kids and hang on to what they have, is, to my way of thinking, something to feel guilty about.
11
You may be in the top 2 percent. What you might not understand is the deep gulf between you and the top 1 percent. And the stratification within that top one percent itself is becoming significant. The top 1 percent own 35 percent of the total wealth in this country. More importantly, they're the ones the folks in Congress listen to as a famous Princeton study points out.
4
This stuff about class privilege and envy pales in comparison to the story you tell and which I could tell, and which many people could tell. It's a story of being frugal, at least living below your means. It's a story of seizing opportunities and building on them. It's a story of being smart, or at least savvy in how you deal with your income. Do stuff like that and you don't have to be envious of others, or indulge in reading stories like this, or even feel guilty. Don't get in the way of others trying to live like this and you are without shame.
1
Well said, but.... Within that top 20% or income earners assume that there is a significant amount of inherited assets in that group? I am sure many upper middle class households without an inheritance that send their children to those private schools are doing so by foregoing retirement savings. What are the quality of those private high schools? Do the private schools over sell the private school experience because they can't show a specific correlation to future earnings and occupational status.
Regarding the myth of meritocracy and any discussion of meritocracy one show how that is measured. To do so, every occupational position would have to be strictly done by some form of test or measurement. The real world just doesn't do that.
Regarding the myth of meritocracy and any discussion of meritocracy one show how that is measured. To do so, every occupational position would have to be strictly done by some form of test or measurement. The real world just doesn't do that.
3
I know that it is difficult for all of us to give up what, in most cases, was earned by work. And it is difficult to think in broader terms, that it is good for society and for the country that more people acquire a real stake in the economic. We have mythologized, even sanctified, the idea that everyone can come up in the world if he/she works hard enough. In theory, that may be true, but in practice, we ignore the hindrances and obstacles that many people encounter in that goal. Society has never, but never, provided an even field for its members.
And what is worse is that power has always been in the hands of the powerful, and these have always looked toward their self-interest. It is the responsibility of government to correct these discrepancies by thoughtful and effective measures. And that is done through taxation and regulations that file down the asperities of life. We resent taxation and the people who resent it the most are the very people who are able to pay for it. Helping people to buy a home is a good idea, but it helps those who have the means to buy one. What is missing is what is being done for those who can't manage to buy one. The same goes for allowing people to save so that their kids can go to college. And the question is also the same: what is being done for those who don't have the money to put aside. Shall we allow them to remain where they are, uneducated, unprepared, or shall we find a way to help them improve themselves?
And what is worse is that power has always been in the hands of the powerful, and these have always looked toward their self-interest. It is the responsibility of government to correct these discrepancies by thoughtful and effective measures. And that is done through taxation and regulations that file down the asperities of life. We resent taxation and the people who resent it the most are the very people who are able to pay for it. Helping people to buy a home is a good idea, but it helps those who have the means to buy one. What is missing is what is being done for those who can't manage to buy one. The same goes for allowing people to save so that their kids can go to college. And the question is also the same: what is being done for those who don't have the money to put aside. Shall we allow them to remain where they are, uneducated, unprepared, or shall we find a way to help them improve themselves?
15
Thank you for this op-ed. I couldn't agree with you more. As a college professor, I witness the results of this everyday in my job. I'm not surprised by all the push-back in these comments. I really believe that until those in the top 20% acknowledge this, we will continue to be cursed by the phenomenon that gave us President Trump. It's time to recognize that things have changed since my father, who grew up in a working class, immigrant family was able to rise into the middle-class, put his four kids through college, and enable us to become part of the top 20%.
14
@JRW
While I agree with pretty much all Reeves says, how would you square your comment with the fact that opportunities for higher education are infinitely greater for all Americans than they were 50 years ago when I was in college? You must be familiar with the statistics.
While I agree with pretty much all Reeves says, how would you square your comment with the fact that opportunities for higher education are infinitely greater for all Americans than they were 50 years ago when I was in college? You must be familiar with the statistics.
1
Greater? Students are coming out of college or university, whether they graduate or not, with mountains of crippling debt, something that would have been unheard of 30 years ago, let alone 50. The replacement of grants with loans, especially those backed by predatory institutions with the compliance of school financial aid offices has produced graduates whose futures have already been mortgaged away before they received their diplomas. Maybe there are some other statistics you should check out?
2
I am aware that college enrollment has dropped every year since 2010, and most of those students not attending are low-income or "minority" students. These are Department of Education statistics. Nationwide 1.59 fewer enrolled last year. The statistics are easy to find online.
You become rich because you are not only diligent but also lucky. Even if working hard, quite a few people live paycheck to paycheck or remain poor. Rich people have to be more humble and should pay as many taxes as possible. It is the duty of the rich to contribute to the equal and stable society.
16
As a native of Germany, I mostly agree with your analysis that indeed the US is much more class conscious than Europe.
Bosses address their underlings by their first name, but not vice versa. Doctors address patients even older than they are by their first name, but not vice versa.
Former and present office holders address interviewers by their first name, but not vice versa.
Former presidents and other high ranking employees of the people, are always addressed by their former highest title, but not in oh-so posh Europe. And the list goes on and on.
But when it comes to private schools, I strongly disagree with you.
Moving to these shores when my daughter was already in 10th grade, I enrolled her in a public school.
Soon after she complained that she is not learning anything in her favourite subjects, and and almost falling asleep in physics because that public school's physics lessons were of a 8th to 9th grade level compared to her school in Berlin.
Even in English class, when a teacher played a little game with her pupils, asking for the title of the book they last read, and the rest of the class had to name the author, backfired.
She was going to say The Magic Mountain (Thomas Mann), but knowing that the rest of the class probably never heard of it said Whom the Bell Tolls.
The teacher replied:" Never heard of it".
I found that utterly shocking and took her out of that school enrolling her in quite expensive private school for the 12th grade.
Bosses address their underlings by their first name, but not vice versa. Doctors address patients even older than they are by their first name, but not vice versa.
Former and present office holders address interviewers by their first name, but not vice versa.
Former presidents and other high ranking employees of the people, are always addressed by their former highest title, but not in oh-so posh Europe. And the list goes on and on.
But when it comes to private schools, I strongly disagree with you.
Moving to these shores when my daughter was already in 10th grade, I enrolled her in a public school.
Soon after she complained that she is not learning anything in her favourite subjects, and and almost falling asleep in physics because that public school's physics lessons were of a 8th to 9th grade level compared to her school in Berlin.
Even in English class, when a teacher played a little game with her pupils, asking for the title of the book they last read, and the rest of the class had to name the author, backfired.
She was going to say The Magic Mountain (Thomas Mann), but knowing that the rest of the class probably never heard of it said Whom the Bell Tolls.
The teacher replied:" Never heard of it".
I found that utterly shocking and took her out of that school enrolling her in quite expensive private school for the 12th grade.
16
That's "FOR Whom the Bell Tolls".
1
"FOR Whom the Bell Tolls"
Regardless of where you fall on the economic latter, when it comes to advancing the success/financial latter in the US ( short of the uber wealthy and their inheritance) it all comes down to education! Give your children the best education you can afford, be it private or public, and let them make their own way. All of the elite private schools you refer to have scholarships for bright students from families with little means. Education, education, education is the ticket to a better life in the US and it has to start at birth. No they (your children)may not become uber wealthy but they will have choices as to how they lead their lives. And, once that education is completed you send them out to live their lives based on their choices.....rather than having them live at home until they are 30.
8
My niece (Weighted GPA of 4.7 (yes- that can happen, when you ace every honors class possible), no 1 in her class at one of the best high schools in Mass,etc. etc.) would have been a third generation student at an East Coast Ivy.
It seemed a shoe in- and the family connection on her father's mere frosting. She was deferred and then denied. Puzzling.
Until I learned that the new director of admissions was from the mid-west and apparently had a "problem " with east coat legacy candidates. She would have been better of w/o the "connection"
Just sayin'. The American 'legacy' system you describe is not as black and white as you suggest.
(My niece went to a small school in New England and loved it)
It seemed a shoe in- and the family connection on her father's mere frosting. She was deferred and then denied. Puzzling.
Until I learned that the new director of admissions was from the mid-west and apparently had a "problem " with east coat legacy candidates. She would have been better of w/o the "connection"
Just sayin'. The American 'legacy' system you describe is not as black and white as you suggest.
(My niece went to a small school in New England and loved it)
9
As a retired university professor and administrator I definitely agree with r mackinnon. The (evidently) wide spread idea that universities are admitting less qualified students because of family connections over those who are more deserving is not something I experienced in my years of higher education. I worked at three universities across the county and served on a number of national boards dealing with issues like admissions. While I cannot speak for every single institution, I can assure you that the number of opportunities for disadvantaged students with lower GPAs greatly outnumber the alleged advantages of "legacy applicants." Furthermore, at all the universities where I was employed many wealthy, successful alumni gave generously to help disadvantaged students, creating scholarships that often not only paid tuition but also room, board and books. There are also many programs within universities to help students who are struggling.
2
Maybe I am in self denial, however I am among the top five percent and still consider myself a caring person who does those things that give substance to the thought. I am reminded on a regular basis that I am privileged by those things I read - like the NYT - and books, lots of books. Maybe that's what the chief difference is between me and those in the five percent class spoken of here. Maybe they, or most them, aren't aware of how privileged they are. Maybe while driving around in their hermetically sealed BMWs, Audis, and Mercedes, they are able to block out the rest of the world except for the large checks that arrive on a regular basis. Then there is the hermetically city I live in, a city that thinks of itself as egalitarian to a fault: Seattle.
8
Kind of a sucker shot posting to NYT instead of Seattle Times, dont ya think? I bet you're not native, meaning didn't grow up here. Those who did don't look to the new money and its hypocrisy and solipsism to define the city. Beneath all that is the city Seattle once was fighting and I do mean fighting to re-emerge...and I think it will. Come hell or high water, possibly both. I didn't grow up here but mourn the loss of the city I migrated to more than 20 years ago. Moved here for the laid back vibe, briny scent of Puget Sound, and working class identity. Those things are now romanticized. I live in the burbs and feel sad when I visit the city. But I tell you, the real Seattle has a very strong and fighting heart, so stay tuned. Read today's front page of Seattle Times for a sampling...you'll see a cross-section of class issues there as well.
Several readers commented that "ave household income of $200K" for the top 20% was potentially misleading, though literally correct, and that the 2014 census data show somewhere around $114K-118K to be the 80th percentile. The percentile presents a much more meaningful picture of what this means socially. Topically, Republican tax cut proposals disproportionally benefit those in the top 5 percent. As a Brookings scholar, Mr. Reeves understands this very well. I suggest that he revise his article to make it clearer to readers.
6
I would claim that the author was deliberately misleading, and that most readers fell for those statements. To,enter the top 20% requires a household income of ~$100k, and the majority of households in the top 20% have two earners, so two $50 k salaries does it. At $200k, you are in the top 5%, and by $250k, you are in the top 2%. So this is the left's goal; to increase taxes on couples making $100k per year combined. It would eliminate the perceived problem of too much immigration though, as many would be immigrants would no longer think of the US as the land of opportunity.
6
With help from my generous grandparents, my parents bought a house in a new suburb outside Bethesda, Maryland in the early 1950s. The parents of the children I went to school with were scientists from the nearby NIH or had jobs at other international and government offices. I did know as a teenager that my cousins who lived in a small town in rural Virginia were not the bookworms like my friends and classmates at home. When I married, we, with the help of my very generous in laws, bought a house in a neighborhood adjacent to the one where I grew up. When my husband divorced me, I insisted that I be able to have a small house in the same area. I am so glad that I did this even though living in an outer D.C. suburb would have been easier on my middle class (definitely not upper middle class) single mother income, my son benefited from the schools and his friends' families. Also, stability of home ownership in a good neighborhood lessened the impact of our close-to-poverty lifestyle. He went to Montgomery County's excellent community college, then a private university nearby which his dad paid for with an inheritance, and then onto Ivy League grad school through student loans. He now lives the upper middle class life described in the article. Some of the comforts he now enjoys were from his own effort, but most came from generosity of previous generations and the environment he grew up in.
20
The positive feedback loops (school districts and their funding, private schools, etc.) that help reproduce affluence in the US are real, but far more devastating in enhancing these forces, I think, is the massive transfer of risk from the wealth and from institutions to the poor and lower middle class -- the so-called Reagan revolution. By moving many American workers from pensions to self-managed and semi-voluntary retirement saving, by undermining the medical care system and its financing (using data to exaggerate pre-existing conditions, for example), by shifting public colleges from public funding to high-risk non-dischargeable loans, and in many more ways, US society has moved risk to those who are least prepared to cope with it.
That was the real safety-net, such as it was, that helped children from lower- and lower-middle class families to climb the ladder of affluence. After all, a family of limited means hit by a serious illness of any member -- lacking the excellent insurance of the upper-middle class -- is likely to be severely impoverished, with devastating effects on the children's economic futures. Taking college loans instead of having publicly funded education increases the risk of lingering indebtedness. Self-funded 401ks work great for those with disposable income, but make the elderly of lower-middle class families a potential financial black hole for their children and grandchildren, rather than a source of savings for future enterprise.
That was the real safety-net, such as it was, that helped children from lower- and lower-middle class families to climb the ladder of affluence. After all, a family of limited means hit by a serious illness of any member -- lacking the excellent insurance of the upper-middle class -- is likely to be severely impoverished, with devastating effects on the children's economic futures. Taking college loans instead of having publicly funded education increases the risk of lingering indebtedness. Self-funded 401ks work great for those with disposable income, but make the elderly of lower-middle class families a potential financial black hole for their children and grandchildren, rather than a source of savings for future enterprise.
38
You've hit the nail on the head...plus the outrageous for-profit nursing home prices which put the final nail in the coffin of the finances of a majority of the middle class...even many on the top 20%. In most states 401Ks are not protected as pensions were, so to qualify for Medicaid nursing home care the 401K has to be spent down to a level that typically all but impoverishes a surviving spouse.
Oh the liberal guilt-tripping! Does the author not live in one of those "enclaves"? Where do his children go to school?
The top 5% in the US that I know admits they are well-off. Many are conscious enough that they attempt to do their part for those who are less well-off. Many got to where they are because of hard work, innate talent, and yes, some luck. They do not go around bragging they are well-off, because, well, that is really classless. But it is hardly reasonable to say that they are somehow guilty of anti-meritocratic behavior because they make use of available tax breaks (which, unlike the capital gains tax breaks for the 1%, have a good reason for existing) and try to send their kids to good schools.
I lived in the UK for many years. UK class is based on exterior assessments - where you were born, whether you speak with the right accent, what your last name is. The "upper class" in UK may pretend to seem to be embarrassed at their privilege, but at the same time, they treat lower classes with the superior attitude of an colonial master.
The top 5% in the US that I know admits they are well-off. Many are conscious enough that they attempt to do their part for those who are less well-off. Many got to where they are because of hard work, innate talent, and yes, some luck. They do not go around bragging they are well-off, because, well, that is really classless. But it is hardly reasonable to say that they are somehow guilty of anti-meritocratic behavior because they make use of available tax breaks (which, unlike the capital gains tax breaks for the 1%, have a good reason for existing) and try to send their kids to good schools.
I lived in the UK for many years. UK class is based on exterior assessments - where you were born, whether you speak with the right accent, what your last name is. The "upper class" in UK may pretend to seem to be embarrassed at their privilege, but at the same time, they treat lower classes with the superior attitude of an colonial master.
15
He is right - about the preference for "legacy" in college admissions, about the home mortgage tax deduction, and about 529 plans. I don't see it changing either because the people who benefit from these breaks are the people in power. I wish the cost of these benefits would be publicized and ackowledged - particularly when people are complaining about programs for poor.
17
All absolutely true of course. The class system in the US is every bit as real as that in the UK (I've lived in both places) but just denominated almost purely by money rather than a somewhat more complex mix of factors in the UK (accents, clothes, education etc.). That said there is a large bloc of Democrats among the top 20% because on the whole they tend to live in a fact based universe. The same must also be true to some extent in Britain since I see the last seat to fall to Labour in their election was Kensington and Chelsea two of the richest neighborhoods in the country.
7
We live in a society without a robust safety net. As a result, if someone does not have a good income, there is a good chance that they might:
- Be unable to afford medical care
- Have their savings destroyed by large medical bills
- Be unable to educate their children
- Be unable to pay basic bills or feed themselves
- Lose their cars, their homes and etc. due to a basic lack of income or to misfortunes such as medical bills or a collapse of the housing market.
The fear caused by these threats to their lives drives Americans to fight hard for jobs and to fight to give their children a chance to succeed. Some see this as a positive aspect of American life, but for many, it is a burden, and for over half of Americans, it is a prescription for poverty and hardship.
Social justice thrives only when people no longer fear that they will lose basics such as housing, education, and medical care.
- Be unable to afford medical care
- Have their savings destroyed by large medical bills
- Be unable to educate their children
- Be unable to pay basic bills or feed themselves
- Lose their cars, their homes and etc. due to a basic lack of income or to misfortunes such as medical bills or a collapse of the housing market.
The fear caused by these threats to their lives drives Americans to fight hard for jobs and to fight to give their children a chance to succeed. Some see this as a positive aspect of American life, but for many, it is a burden, and for over half of Americans, it is a prescription for poverty and hardship.
Social justice thrives only when people no longer fear that they will lose basics such as housing, education, and medical care.
59
Something every single one of the 'I have mine" posters is missing is the fact that they, almost all of them, are middle-aged, or older. They came up in a time before 2008, when America led the world in socio-economic mobility. They benefited, directly or indirectly, from government policies meant to facilitate that mobility (from very affordable higher education, to infrastructure projects and more progressive tax policies).
Ego does this to us. It makes us blind to our weak spots and forget the help we got along the way. It is this very lack of context and humility that has got the Democratic party into the position it is now. One presidential candidate ran on a message that the economy was terrible and that people were feeling real pain (Trump). One ran a campaign that bent over backwards to make the claim that the economy, on the whole, was doing great (Clinton). The election results should have been a stark wake-up call for wealthier Democrats and limousine liberals. Instead the petit bourgeois are carrying on, blindly parroting old Republican talking points about 'hard work' and 'merit', without even realising how conservative they've become.
We are in deep trouble if they do not wake up NOW.
Ego does this to us. It makes us blind to our weak spots and forget the help we got along the way. It is this very lack of context and humility that has got the Democratic party into the position it is now. One presidential candidate ran on a message that the economy was terrible and that people were feeling real pain (Trump). One ran a campaign that bent over backwards to make the claim that the economy, on the whole, was doing great (Clinton). The election results should have been a stark wake-up call for wealthier Democrats and limousine liberals. Instead the petit bourgeois are carrying on, blindly parroting old Republican talking points about 'hard work' and 'merit', without even realising how conservative they've become.
We are in deep trouble if they do not wake up NOW.
5
Well, it is hard to say what might happen in the future. Maybe all these Ivy-League educated darlings will not be successful in real life, and immigrants who came over with no money will end up taking all the good jobs. Just because the upper-middle-class is plotting to leave their position in society to their children doesn't mean their plans will succeed.
I certainly agree that the upper-middle class is a self-serving gang of thieves, and that they have rigged taxation, zoning, education, and college admissions in their own interest. Worse, as Mr. Reeves states, is their smug belief that the world is just, and that their advantages--and their children's--are the product of their own intelligence, hard work and just plain superiority.
On the other hand, there is still a whopping difference between a couple with an annual income of, say, $250,000 and the true economic elite. The problem is not the 1%, but the .1%, or even the .01%, who own much of America's wealth and truly rig the political system to preserve their riches.
On the other hand, there is still a whopping difference between a couple with an annual income of, say, $250,000 and the true economic elite. The problem is not the 1%, but the .1%, or even the .01%, who own much of America's wealth and truly rig the political system to preserve their riches.
27
In the United Kingdom, there may be talk of “class” but in the U.S., it is all about family wealth – and the wealthy don’t want to talk about it. Family wealth is the most important factor in success. The top 10% own 75% of family wealth. The next 40% (the middle class) has 24% of family wealth and this has been decreasing over the last 20 years. The poorer half of the U.S. population now shares only 1% of the nation’s wealth – a 70% loss over the last 20 years. Few will move up the ladder in spite of tax dollars spent on pre-K, child care credits, electives, scholarships, etc. Too many young adults can no longer afford to marry or raise children. Low IQ is reflected in their political worldview.
The rich continue to get richer and there is near unanimous consensus in the GOP that the Estate Tax should be eliminated so their excess wealth can be passed to heirs through professional family trusts. The U.S. equates the investment class with royalty. Just a few extended family members need to work (or simply sit on the Board of Directors) to maintain the family’s lifestyle.
Sooner or later the rich will see that it is less expensive to allow the poorer half of the country to keep a large share of wealth (perhaps 3% rather than 1%) so better decisions with fewer desperate choices can be made about work and child rearing. In fact, it was the more equitable spread of family wealth and larger middle class that made America great compared with other countries. We can do again.
The rich continue to get richer and there is near unanimous consensus in the GOP that the Estate Tax should be eliminated so their excess wealth can be passed to heirs through professional family trusts. The U.S. equates the investment class with royalty. Just a few extended family members need to work (or simply sit on the Board of Directors) to maintain the family’s lifestyle.
Sooner or later the rich will see that it is less expensive to allow the poorer half of the country to keep a large share of wealth (perhaps 3% rather than 1%) so better decisions with fewer desperate choices can be made about work and child rearing. In fact, it was the more equitable spread of family wealth and larger middle class that made America great compared with other countries. We can do again.
7
Mr. Reeves makes some good points, but the examples he cites have other angles to consider. For example, the mortgage interest deduction is widely shared. More than 60 percent of U.S. households own homes. Home ownership promotes employment for the 80 percent in such fields as construction and retail (in stores such as Lowe's and Home Depot.)
529 plans may be used mostly by the affluent who can afford to save, but those parents are going to invest that money in the education of their children who will, in many cases, prosper, contribute to the community and pay taxes to support the public good.
I suspect the legacy tradition of elite colleges affects relatively few of the millions of households in the top 20 percent of income. Harvard accepts only about 2,000 freshman a year.
Do we have a perfect meritocracy? No, but as many of those commenting on this article have pointed out, they have worked hard, saved, met their responsibilities and paid plenty in taxes to get where they are. And they make no apologies for doing their best to help their children in a world where nobody's future is assured or secure.
529 plans may be used mostly by the affluent who can afford to save, but those parents are going to invest that money in the education of their children who will, in many cases, prosper, contribute to the community and pay taxes to support the public good.
I suspect the legacy tradition of elite colleges affects relatively few of the millions of households in the top 20 percent of income. Harvard accepts only about 2,000 freshman a year.
Do we have a perfect meritocracy? No, but as many of those commenting on this article have pointed out, they have worked hard, saved, met their responsibilities and paid plenty in taxes to get where they are. And they make no apologies for doing their best to help their children in a world where nobody's future is assured or secure.
11
My family falls into the category of upper middle class - however with three children (one of whom has special needs), life is anything but secure from a financial standpoint. While I realize that we are better off than most, life is still stressful and precarious at times. So I would caution against assuming that making it to the top 20% represents a secure, semi-luxurious life. Before children, yes this was true for me, but not now.
14
Mr. Reeves makes me feel lucky that I don't self-identify as a "progressive," at least as defined in today's terms. Thus, I don't feel the need to repent for advantages my wife and I have been able to provide for out children. The biggest advantage being a stable home life and an environment where learning is a core value.
8
Absolutely correct about 529 plans favoring upper-middle class at the expense of everyone else. Especially in Connecticut which gives a deduction on state taxes for contributions to Connecticut's 529 plan. How many people are able to take advantage of this tax giveaway and what do you think their incomes are?
6
Brilliant piece! It seems most readers are missing the point. At no moment Mr. Reeves suggests the upper 20% does not work hard. Most Americans work very hard. And this is the point. Most Americans won't move up the ladder despite their hard work. And that is why there is a limit to meritocracy. Opportunities are just not equal. This is a very complex subject. The chances of one "succeeding" in life are very different among people based on where they are born, family dynamics, upbringing neighborhood, school education, college, different people one meets in life, and finally, "being at the right place at the right time."
Yes, the US is the country of opportunities. But not all opportunities are created equal.
Yes, the US is the country of opportunities. But not all opportunities are created equal.
50
Let's be clear. The uber rich, a tiny group, perhaps a few families, who collectively probably own half or more of all the wealth in the US, are not who we ever talking about here. Yet, they pay a tiny effective tax rate, if any, and have a hugely outsized effect on our democratic process. Effectively we live in a oligarchy. Meanwhile, the rest of us 99.99% are arguing about who is "rich" in articles like this. Complete distraction from the actual issue at hand- NONE of us are, and until we actually bring the real rich in hand, we will continuing to be distracting ourselves fighting over table scraps.
23
What you say is certainly not the case. If you take the top 1%, which is 1.3 million households, they may own half the wealth, but 1.3 million households is not exactly 'a few families'.
I agree that higher household income affords opportunities that others cannot access, but I disagree that personal choices such as where to send your children to school does much to change that. One option is private school, which clearly is not accessible to all. Another is to move to an area with an excellent school district where lower income families cannot afford to live, which is funded by the higher taxes paid by households in the district, with nearly none going to help surrounding underfunded districts. A third choice is live in an area with lower taxes, send children to a more poorly performing school district, and enhance with resources such as tutoring which the majority of families in that district cannot afford. A fourth option is living in an area with lower taxes and paying for classes to help your child get in to a public magnet or charter school, and then using time or money advantages to transport them there, all while taking up the space of poorer children whose parents cannot afford these transportation costs.
The article doesn’t mention ways that families in this income bracket can actually make a difference, such as following local politics with typically very low turnout (city/town council, board of education, etc.) and identifying candidates that support increased access to those in lower classes. Simply voting makes a difference, as does donating to these candidates, publicly supporting them, or even running yourself.
The article doesn’t mention ways that families in this income bracket can actually make a difference, such as following local politics with typically very low turnout (city/town council, board of education, etc.) and identifying candidates that support increased access to those in lower classes. Simply voting makes a difference, as does donating to these candidates, publicly supporting them, or even running yourself.
13
This article is exactly right. I hope those that are concerned for the need of a more egalitarian society will share.
8
Mr. Reeves is not going to win many fans in Connecticut. An income of $200,000 a year isn't impressive in a state in which people have to compete for status with the infamous 1 percent who are pulling in an average of $2,000,000. As an elderly retiree, I am blessed by a pension that provides me with $40,000 a year. I know of many young low wage earners who will never have that security. As the saying goes, all things are relative. Mr. Reeves makes a valid point though when he says the tax system is rigged. According to a 2016 article in the CT Mirror, the effective tax rate in Connecticut for the top 5 percent is 8.5 percent. The rate for the rest is 11.3 percent. The state is in a budget crisis. State workers are losing jobs; the social safety net is being eroded. There is no plan to raise taxes. Those who can afford to pay more should be doing so.
16
@MDV - What you say cannot possibly be correct. If you are wealthy, you pay 23.8% Federal tax on capital gains and dividends, and 7% Connecticut income tax. These taxes are virtually impossible to dodge.
Thank you, Mr. Reeves. Maybe it takes a nonnative born American to see this so clearly. This piece has more truth in it than just about any piece I've read in a while. The upper/upper middle class has some huge blind spots such as property tax-based school funding and lack of personal investment (i.e. kids) in the public school system, which would be be the single most effective equalizer in the US.
The other blind spots I would add: charitable giving, where the "charities" are institutions like museums that throw lavish parties to serve as social circles/party centers for the wealthy and the aspiring; and obsessing over hairsplittingly meaningless differences between ivy league type colleges.
The other blind spots I would add: charitable giving, where the "charities" are institutions like museums that throw lavish parties to serve as social circles/party centers for the wealthy and the aspiring; and obsessing over hairsplittingly meaningless differences between ivy league type colleges.
19
Even if, as several commenters note, lumping together the top 1 percent with the 4 percent below it, doesn't describe the nuances of the economic division at the top, Mr. Reeves is, of course, spot on in his general observations.
It's interesting to remember that the term "meritocracy" was coined by the British sociologist Michael Young, in his great book, "The Rise of the Meritocracy" (1958), and that it was meant as satire. Meritocracy rapidly turned into a common word, but curiously lost its satirical meaning, and by the turn of the century it had became something worthy and good.
Long after his book came out, Young said he was sorry so many people missed his point about the inherent dangers lurking in meritocracy. Although it's it's good for individual people to get jobs based on their merit, meritocratic systems rapidly develop into a whole new ossified social class where people are thought to have, and think of themselves as having, "merit," and where these people then block the entry of anyone new.
The old adage that we should be careful what we wish for pertains. Worse, the thing we liberals and progressives are all so sure are striving for--a fully meritocratic system--would, in practice, mean a desperate world of dog-eat-dog Hobbesian competition.
It's interesting to remember that the term "meritocracy" was coined by the British sociologist Michael Young, in his great book, "The Rise of the Meritocracy" (1958), and that it was meant as satire. Meritocracy rapidly turned into a common word, but curiously lost its satirical meaning, and by the turn of the century it had became something worthy and good.
Long after his book came out, Young said he was sorry so many people missed his point about the inherent dangers lurking in meritocracy. Although it's it's good for individual people to get jobs based on their merit, meritocratic systems rapidly develop into a whole new ossified social class where people are thought to have, and think of themselves as having, "merit," and where these people then block the entry of anyone new.
The old adage that we should be careful what we wish for pertains. Worse, the thing we liberals and progressives are all so sure are striving for--a fully meritocratic system--would, in practice, mean a desperate world of dog-eat-dog Hobbesian competition.
11
Income should be described on a per capita basis (raising a large families cost a LOT more than living alone). "Income" should also include capital gains and it should be adjusted for cost of living (in a particular area). Until these adjustments are made, the notion of the top 20% being wealthy is either a mean-spirited joke intended to aggravate the successful strives or an act of astonishing ignorance.
With the Republicans now writing off the real estate tax deduction and the income tax deduction, this seems like one more nail in the coffin of the striving, struggling "upper" middle class. In general, the top 20% are not rich, but rather are determined to succeed, despite enormous odds. Only the top 1% or the "too old to work" would be blind to this struggle.
With the Republicans now writing off the real estate tax deduction and the income tax deduction, this seems like one more nail in the coffin of the striving, struggling "upper" middle class. In general, the top 20% are not rich, but rather are determined to succeed, despite enormous odds. Only the top 1% or the "too old to work" would be blind to this struggle.
8
Let me get this right, you contend that the top 20% are "struggling"? They are not rich? What~?
1
If the wealth trap is worse now then previously, I'd suggest that the top 20%'s sense of fear is a driver for this behaviour. In modern day America, one must account for fear as a motivator, especially in those who have the most, since from their perspective, they have the most to lose.
A recent US study asked Americans what they thought the global median income was. Most said it was around $20,000 per year. That's 10 times more than it actually is. It's no surprise to me that a lot of the comments here are expressing outrage that $200,000 should be considered rich. Sadly most Americans have no idea how good they have it, locally or globally, and are ridden with anxiety about whether their neighbors are earning more than they are. The author is right to point the finger at liberal hypocrisy (and I say that as a wealthy liberal) - at least most conservatives are upfront about their greed. We need to confront the uncomfortable truth that our meritocracy is a sham, and that our mindless pursuit of financial security is blinding us to the ways we are entrenching poverty.
No question too many people ignore or dismiss the very real role "luck" plays in economic and or social advancement. And there's no doubt when people acquire their wealth, they try to build on it or at least maintain it. What is ignored in this article, as in so many others which discuss economic inequality is the role the so called "80%' play in maintaining " the System".
Its been said over and over, most of the people who feel or are "disenfranchised" have , in effect, voted against their own economic interest time and time again.
For example, look at Kansas. Sheer stupidity or insanity? Citizens in that state voted for "trickle down" economics even after two disastrous terms with Bush.
After the most recent six years they realize It Doesn't Work! Extend this type of thinking throughout the mid west states and the Confederate states. Citizens who have done "well" should feel guilty or sorry for Those people. I don't think so.
When the 80% vote "conservative" or "republican", they are joining forces with the 1%, except the latter group benefits from economic policies, while the rest of the people are caught up in religion, race or Obamacare( which they understand little of).
While those in higher brackets may not necessarily have earned their way through meritocracy, they knew enough not to vote against their own economic interests.
The petulant Trump supporters may "feel" great at the end of the day, but are guaranteed to be no better off economically for their fervor.
Its been said over and over, most of the people who feel or are "disenfranchised" have , in effect, voted against their own economic interest time and time again.
For example, look at Kansas. Sheer stupidity or insanity? Citizens in that state voted for "trickle down" economics even after two disastrous terms with Bush.
After the most recent six years they realize It Doesn't Work! Extend this type of thinking throughout the mid west states and the Confederate states. Citizens who have done "well" should feel guilty or sorry for Those people. I don't think so.
When the 80% vote "conservative" or "republican", they are joining forces with the 1%, except the latter group benefits from economic policies, while the rest of the people are caught up in religion, race or Obamacare( which they understand little of).
While those in higher brackets may not necessarily have earned their way through meritocracy, they knew enough not to vote against their own economic interests.
The petulant Trump supporters may "feel" great at the end of the day, but are guaranteed to be no better off economically for their fervor.
18
There will never be a pure meritocracy, just as there will never be a pure egalitarian society. There are humans involved, so any system will be distorted by privilege and favoritism. And we are talking about the real world, so luck will factor in as well. The question is whether meritocratic ideals function and are beneficial even when only partially operative. The tiresome argument coming from the Left that because this isn't a perfect meritocracy, the successful people haven't really earned their success shows a binary mindset incapable of dealing with gradations of cause and effect. I watch as younger colleagues in my field work their way up into higher earning brackets through hard work and intelligence and wonder what cloistered little world Mr. Reeves lives in. Some day in the not too distant future, they will be in or near the top 20% and become the targets of angry, rancorous Leftists like Reeves, having earlier been the beneficiaries of his useful pity.
4
As a member of the middling middle class, having earned and worked my way into the position of being an angry, rancorous leftist (no bias going on there, right?), I don't understand your bile and defensiveness.
It takes critical thinking to see the path of one’s life. I recognize that while I've been fortunate to be employable, able to serve in the military to pay for college, healthy, and having tripped my way from poverty to middle class, so much depended on luck and meeting people along the way who gave a leg up.
I have no delusions that it was mere bootstraps that got me here and because of that, I DO care that we work towards a more egalitarian society - which means understanding the mechanisms that help some people while leaving others in the dust.
It takes critical thinking to see the path of one’s life. I recognize that while I've been fortunate to be employable, able to serve in the military to pay for college, healthy, and having tripped my way from poverty to middle class, so much depended on luck and meeting people along the way who gave a leg up.
I have no delusions that it was mere bootstraps that got me here and because of that, I DO care that we work towards a more egalitarian society - which means understanding the mechanisms that help some people while leaving others in the dust.
8
For some reason, this reminds me of the inequality of the climate change challenge. Americans are the worst users of carbon per capita in the world, and the top 20 percent-- you guessed it -- are the worst of the worst. Many of us are interested in cutting carbon emissions and we care about our children's future. We get very upset about climate denialists. Yet, we take the most carbon-intensive vacations to exotic destinations, drive carbon-intensive vehicles, and live in large, carbon-intensive homes. And, we consume more than anybody else. In this case, we are not giving our children advantages. They will not thank us.
12
The author completely ignored taxation.
To be a member of the 20% club a family has an after tax income that is only about 1.5x the median after tax family income in the US.
To argue that a family with after tax (i.e. available to spend) income only 50% higher than the median family is rich and privileged is ridiculous.
A family just at the 20% mark is very different than a family at the 1% mark, which in turn is very different from a family at the 0.1% mark.
There is virtually no commonality between the bottom and top of that 20% slice of families.
Either way, no one should or needs to feel guilty about where they are economy - either by luck or hard work. That is called life.
That is like saying that every poor American should feel guilty because they are so "rich" compared to the the average African.
To be a member of the 20% club a family has an after tax income that is only about 1.5x the median after tax family income in the US.
To argue that a family with after tax (i.e. available to spend) income only 50% higher than the median family is rich and privileged is ridiculous.
A family just at the 20% mark is very different than a family at the 1% mark, which in turn is very different from a family at the 0.1% mark.
There is virtually no commonality between the bottom and top of that 20% slice of families.
Either way, no one should or needs to feel guilty about where they are economy - either by luck or hard work. That is called life.
That is like saying that every poor American should feel guilty because they are so "rich" compared to the the average African.
7
No, no, no. It is not about feeling guilty, it about being appreciative of the support and help you got to get there. The problem is that wealthy (yes $200k/year is wealthy) people think that they did it all themselves and no one needs any of the public goods that taxes provides.
3
I was hoping that this article was going to be on the perception of powerlessness the 10 - 20% have about their lives. My favourite moment visiting friends: "but we have the smallest house in Monaco". To me it's not pretending they are not rich, it's perceiving themselves as barely keeping up. It's not a question of willful blindness, just of blindness.
4
Many thanks for an eloquent essay on our "fake" meritocracy in America. However, more analysis of the public policies that have entrenched people of color in the lower classes such as housing discrimination through redlining, defacto and dejure racial segregation in public schools & colleges and banks refusing to lend to minority owned businesses in the past are key drivers in the wealth distribution formula for the upper classes as well.
10
Some thoughts on this article: 1) in America if a person wants their child to rise in the world, they don't work on their accent, they get their teeth fixed. Nothing shows a background of poverty like bad teeth. 2) If you think that the US is the only nation in the world where it is easier for a kid to get into a college if a parent is an alum, you are kidding yourself. 3) There is still more social mobility in America than you indicate. 4) You are basically right about the upper classes thinking they got to the top by their own efforts. They are kidding themselves and blame the poor for being poor.
5
I have a small retail business. It never ceases to amaze me the entitlement mentality that comes with well dressed customers. No, they don't get something for nothing or a deep discount by us. With the rudeness and arrogance they bring with them, they should count themselves lucky we don't show them the door. We have enough nice customers who aren't that way.
2
Two points. One, in the UK there is universal health care for ALL. I am guessing there is a much lower incidence of medical related bankruptcy. I am not sure how much money one would have to make to feel safe from the costs of a catastrophic health event, but 200,000 is not enough. (And nursing home care, another issue.) So the safety net in the UK is much more robust for ALL.
Two, in this article there is derision for parents sending kids to private school and then later for parents living in neighborhoods with good schools. So if a parent lives in a neighborhood with good schools, paying the taxes to support those schools, and then pay to send their kids to private school, does that win any points with the author??
And so are parents who worked hard to provide for their family supposed to throw their kids to the wolves out of some weird sense of class guilt? Rubbish. It is not a zero sum game. The problem is in the US, we lack meaningful safety nets, and meaningful support for poor families.
Two, in this article there is derision for parents sending kids to private school and then later for parents living in neighborhoods with good schools. So if a parent lives in a neighborhood with good schools, paying the taxes to support those schools, and then pay to send their kids to private school, does that win any points with the author??
And so are parents who worked hard to provide for their family supposed to throw their kids to the wolves out of some weird sense of class guilt? Rubbish. It is not a zero sum game. The problem is in the US, we lack meaningful safety nets, and meaningful support for poor families.
10
The affluent classes in the UK buy health insurance, and are able to see a doctor as a private patient.
1
"There’s a kind of class double-think going on here. On the one hand, upper-middle-class Americans believe they are operating in a meritocracy (a belief that allows them to feel entitled to their winnings); on the other hand, they constantly engage in antimeritocratic behavior in order to give their own children a leg up. To the extent that there is any ethical deliberation, it usually results in a justification along the lines of “Well, maybe it’s wrong, but everyone’s doing it.”
"Class double-think"? It seems to be more of just plain old hypocrisy, the type of hypocrisy that helps puts unqualified candidates in power when a skilled, but perhaps unqualified politician, recognizes the feelings that this can generate among the have-nots and plays upon it.
"Class double-think"? It seems to be more of just plain old hypocrisy, the type of hypocrisy that helps puts unqualified candidates in power when a skilled, but perhaps unqualified politician, recognizes the feelings that this can generate among the have-nots and plays upon it.
5
Great article. You have put into words what I have felt in my gut for a long time.
4
Being in the top 20% (heck, I'm in the top 1%), I can tell you that most wealthy people I know are not smarter or harder working than my parents, who toiled to give myself and siblings a decent life so we could go to college (heavily subsidized by your state income taxes 30 years ago so no student debt!). Other than a few academics I know who started companies from absolutely brilliant ideas/discoveries, most wealthy people simply get or stay there through connections and being able to game the system (knowledge is not sufficient, the more people who can do things for you, the better off you will be). For example, I'm shocked at how finance guys can makes millions after performing worse than trained monkeys throwing darts at a stock chart. The system is indeed rigged and you are either in or out.
15
Right On! I've heard so many claim "poverty" when they can't pay for their $6 lattes, hypocrites! So many of us, including myself have gone hungry on occasion because rent is more important, and we've worked hard all our lives. The system is rigged, tilted toward those who needed it the least. Conscious people have always known this to be a fact of life.
7
As someone with two kids and living way below the $200,000 mark, I can tell you the people 'above' me on the income ladder are holding so tight to what they have and definitely flaunt their privilege...many times telling me their stories of growing up poor, or with a single mom, and so on, justifying it all by their personal story. They don't see anything beyond their own struggle. They are so happy with themselves for 'escaping' their past that they are blind to the injustice they have themselves created. These things are never easy to shake down, but to look deeply you will find it is always a moral choice. It is a choice to live comfortably while others suffer. It can't be any other way.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, not me, not you, not the guy behind the tree, is ever willing to sacrifice what he feels he is entitled to, regardless to how well he recognizes the extent to which his entitlements come from luck, especially when it comes to his children, unless he can easily afford it, in which case it's not a sacrifice at all.
3
Your article is hogwash. I grew up poor with parents who didn't graduate from high school. My husband grew up much worse. We both have advanced degrees which we paid for. We moved to a better neighborhood so our children could have better schooling than we we were exposed to in our youth. They are doing great. As an educator I left my job early because I was subjected to verbal and on occasion physical abuse. I saw violence in the schools daily. Yet I prepared lessons and worked to the best of my ability for as Long as I could mentally cope. I armed self with the best lesson plans I was capable of, the exact same plans I used with my own children and relatives! I did my part and I am not in the least bit guilty. As I age it's been pointed out to me that I could go back to live in the same neighborhood I grew up in and do volunteer work, but then I would subject myself to young people who prey on the weak and elderly! I lived it firsthand. I am not crazy! Again, sir, your article is pure hogwash.
8
I'm not sure your experience really does prove that the article is hogwash. You worked your way up from poverty--that's wonderful, that's an example of the American meritocratic system actually doing exactly what it's supposed to do. But that doesn't invalidate what the author says about how statistics show that the middle class is in trouble, with the assets of the middle and lower classes shrinking over the last several decades, while the assets of the upper 20% greatly increasing during that period, which suggests that there may be some ways in which either our system, or just global economic forces more broadly, aren't working out. Nor does it disprove what he said about what it's like to grow up in the top 20%, which also suggests that there are some forces that are holding meritocracy back. In short, I think you'd need to explain further why you seem to see *everything* in the article as wrong--what you say in your comments doesn't really seem to me to contradict the article at all...
Merit is real. To tell a successful person, say a physician, who toiled at the books while their peers played for years, that their success is based on "luck", class, race, or gender, is really insulting. I could never be a doctor, and not because I am a woman. I didn't have the grades or the academic horsepower to make it. Sometimes the truth hurts. Life just isn't fair.
11
This is the most important editorial I've read in the Times in a great while. It is a true gift to have an outside observer unmasking the American conceit about our fake meritocracy- yes the king is truly naked, and winter is coming.
It isn't just about fairness- it is about the long term survival of our nation as a super power. We used to be the most meritocratic nation on earth, and that, more than anything else, led to our rise. Human capitol is a nation's most important resource and we used to use it relatively efficiently (the world standard has gotten much higher).
The question is, how long will our momentum carry us when we have become so utterly inefficient at utilizing our human capitol- this is the greatest problem with a class based system (aside from civil unrest)- if the best don't rise to the top we will become mired in mediocrity and eventually become unable to compete in the global market place.
It isn't just about fairness- it is about the long term survival of our nation as a super power. We used to be the most meritocratic nation on earth, and that, more than anything else, led to our rise. Human capitol is a nation's most important resource and we used to use it relatively efficiently (the world standard has gotten much higher).
The question is, how long will our momentum carry us when we have become so utterly inefficient at utilizing our human capitol- this is the greatest problem with a class based system (aside from civil unrest)- if the best don't rise to the top we will become mired in mediocrity and eventually become unable to compete in the global market place.
Interesting piece. Whenever I question this country...its policies, practices, politics and the like, I always come back to the fact that while we have countless shortcomings, the ole USA provides more opportunity than anywhere, and affords its people limitless freedom. Sure we're often 'fed up', but go live somewhere else and see how that stacks up.
4
Our shortcomings are "countless". Our freedoms are "limitless".
Yet I don't have health care. Or much income. I have gone somewhere else and it opened my mind to what this country lacks. What's your annual income DSTEIN?
Yet I don't have health care. Or much income. I have gone somewhere else and it opened my mind to what this country lacks. What's your annual income DSTEIN?
This is silly stuff: that it's all born with a silver spoon and not diligence and hard work. My parents were first in their families to graduate college. I went to medical school. At age 57 I still work 60 hour weeks. I have my whole life. I taught my kids to read long before kindergarten, took courses at the university in classics, history, poli sci as a hobby. The kids graduated debt-free from their state U, worked half-time jobs while in school and continue to believe in a strong work ethic while running into the American ethic of "sick days," "mental health days," being "disabled" by fake disabilities. They are astonished by people who go to work and duck responsibility, spend work hours avoiding work. This article is a free-handed essay without substance or merit. America does have a some elements of meritocracy and money is not the sole arbiter. Your work or non-work proclaims you. We work for principal. If we are in the top economic quintile, it's because so many don't want to work at all.
7
It affects our politics also - the myth of meritocracy. The representatives of the upper class, the graduates of the ivy league schools, get into positions of power and think they know what they are doing. Then we end up with wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other mis-guided foreign adventures of recent years and no clue as to how to get out of it. Our leaders think they sophisticated and intelligent when in fact they do not know what they are doing.
2
This article is distractful. My family lived lower middle and all the kids are adults doing well. At college, military, grad school, and as working adults, we've all succeeded by making investments in ourselves, hardworking, sacrifice, dealing with ups and downs.
I've seen the success of every immigrant, race, gender, socioeconomic group, and regional/city group. The US provides incredible opportunities, but, there is no free lunch and you have to sacrifice for it. There is no straight line path to success. Take what you're given, be aware, plan and execute. Don't waste your time thinking about those that are super rich, they've existed for eternity and always will. Get cracking, move on and move up. Most of all, never whine, plan and execute, there will be setbacks. So what! Always watch the smart, wealthy people, and see what they do. Follow success and emulate it.
I've seen the success of every immigrant, race, gender, socioeconomic group, and regional/city group. The US provides incredible opportunities, but, there is no free lunch and you have to sacrifice for it. There is no straight line path to success. Take what you're given, be aware, plan and execute. Don't waste your time thinking about those that are super rich, they've existed for eternity and always will. Get cracking, move on and move up. Most of all, never whine, plan and execute, there will be setbacks. So what! Always watch the smart, wealthy people, and see what they do. Follow success and emulate it.
6
I did everything you said, acquired advanced skills, accessed a successful milieu and I still wound up bankrupt and near-homeless, buffered by greater economic forces. How does that fit your narrative?
6
Are there minorities among those success stories? The playing field is far from level.
We fall a good bit below this 200K figure but we nonetheless feel quite lucky to have some retirement savings. Two things about this piece and its responses that surprise me. First, why is no one mentioning that even at our nearly-rarefied level, healthcare is both awful and terrifying: awful because, like everyone else, these stupid high deductible plans we get stuck with through work are counter-productive to actually taking care of our health; and terrifying because the plans remain untested last-resorts of which we hope that in that last resort they would nonetheless save our family from bankruptcy. [Would they?] So: even at this 'rarefied' height and with savings in the bank, health costs remain a constantly threatening puzzle and worry, making me wonder how high up the ladder one would have to go to find good healthcare. Second, when it comes to education, don't expect any liberal in this age of DeVos and the super-elites' online scam of profiting from public education [it's as if Trump Univ has taken over the education dept!] who can possibly afford to send a child to a better school to apologize at all. In short: what looks like privilege to you feels increasingly like survival to us as the social safety net that is supposed to support us is being slashed to ribbons by the super-elites running the show. And, yes, we do indeed know we're nonetheless among the lucky. It's just funny how helpless 'lucky' can feel.
9
I grew up in a backward Southern state but had the good fortune to attend excellent public schools. My father has an eighth grade education, and my brother is a construction worker. I appreciate all the good luck and help I have had along the way.
The entire time I was in high school I was focused on getting out of there. Most of my high school classmates that went to college went to the rather undistinguished state university, where by their own admission, they studied "bizness" and stayed drunk for four years without interruption. Mediocrity and no ambition. Their parents thought this was fine. I was the odd one out. I'm not surprised that it hasn't worked out so well for many of these people, and they are almost all now ardent Trump supporters who feel entitled to a middle (or upper middle) class lifestyle as a right.
In the US the opportunity is there if you choose to take it. The sad thing is that the white middle class in America has become fat, lazy and entitled. Thats why immigrants have comparatively done so well and the top universities in the US are filled with bright kids whose parents have come from India, China, Pakistan, etc.
The entire time I was in high school I was focused on getting out of there. Most of my high school classmates that went to college went to the rather undistinguished state university, where by their own admission, they studied "bizness" and stayed drunk for four years without interruption. Mediocrity and no ambition. Their parents thought this was fine. I was the odd one out. I'm not surprised that it hasn't worked out so well for many of these people, and they are almost all now ardent Trump supporters who feel entitled to a middle (or upper middle) class lifestyle as a right.
In the US the opportunity is there if you choose to take it. The sad thing is that the white middle class in America has become fat, lazy and entitled. Thats why immigrants have comparatively done so well and the top universities in the US are filled with bright kids whose parents have come from India, China, Pakistan, etc.
4
The top 20% is where the top 50% used to be a few decades ago. Out of the 4 Trillion earned by the top 20% a disproportionately large chunk goes to the top half percent. As a statistical top one per-center I do not even see the top half percent. My wife and I are too poor to hang with them and too rich to serve them personally.
2
If your HHI is $200,000 a year, that's coming from a job -- probably two middle management positions in many dual income families. Jobs can go away. You can be laid off or downsized and if you're in your forties or fifties, you may not find another similar job. That's why people in that income range don't feel "rich."
8
Yes, to all that you have noted. But, I would also add, there's not only a whiff of "moral disquiet" for those who are doing swimmingly well, there's a venomous hostility toward the poor (art least in conservative circles).
It's apparently easier to not only consider one's wealth and status as being well earned. And, to the converse, the poor deserve their fate, if only they worked a little harder or were more endowed with special gifts.
With trumpism, it's even more so: your net worth is also your true worth as a human being.
Welcome to thew new America.
It's apparently easier to not only consider one's wealth and status as being well earned. And, to the converse, the poor deserve their fate, if only they worked a little harder or were more endowed with special gifts.
With trumpism, it's even more so: your net worth is also your true worth as a human being.
Welcome to thew new America.
1
Sorry, I don't feel sorry for my affluence and what I can buy, including influence.
I grew up in public housing, joined the navy, worked 2 jobs and went to college. Married , had kids, bought a house, got fired started my own business.
I'm very happy being at the bottom rung of the top 1% and make no apologies for my wealth and the hard work it took to get there, nor the opportunities it affords my children, who are now adults themselves
I grew up in public housing, joined the navy, worked 2 jobs and went to college. Married , had kids, bought a house, got fired started my own business.
I'm very happy being at the bottom rung of the top 1% and make no apologies for my wealth and the hard work it took to get there, nor the opportunities it affords my children, who are now adults themselves
2
True, true and that's how the GOP surrives. Nevertheless, human characteristics (genetics possibly) almost certainly come into play as the 1/5 wealthy know that rich is better than poor. That eduction is better than ignorance. And, most important, business class is necessary to go anywhere.
Yet, the lowest rung, (Trump voters), seem to be thoughtless and careless and readily give power to the rich and uber wealthy. So, if you're born without escape pathway or luck try to go somewhere smart and nice. Denmark, maybe.
Yet, the lowest rung, (Trump voters), seem to be thoughtless and careless and readily give power to the rich and uber wealthy. So, if you're born without escape pathway or luck try to go somewhere smart and nice. Denmark, maybe.
1
Mr. Reeves is right. The United States ruthlessly promotes the mythology of egalitarianism, while at the same time worshiping wealth and power. Everyone is on a first-name basis but the boss can still fire everyone in the room, and everyone knows it.
Individuals like President Trump owe their current status to their parents and grandparents' wealth, but Americans still maintain that if a person is wealthy, he or she must have earned their status. Some do, of course, but the 1% definitely do not. Trust fund babies riddle the Ivy League and other selective schools. Their success is not guaranteed by their wealth, but the family wealth certainly helps. The average grade at Harvard is A-
Individuals like President Trump owe their current status to their parents and grandparents' wealth, but Americans still maintain that if a person is wealthy, he or she must have earned their status. Some do, of course, but the 1% definitely do not. Trust fund babies riddle the Ivy League and other selective schools. Their success is not guaranteed by their wealth, but the family wealth certainly helps. The average grade at Harvard is A-
3
Another trick is the top 20 all get their kids summer jobs at their respective companies. So instead of getting a diversity of young people and finding the best of the best, Fortune 500 companies are getting a great influx of the offspring of upper management. So when these kids graduate they have an unfair advantage over the competition... and the cycle of privilege continues.
3
Another opinionated Brit telling Americans their flaws.
I'll tell you what, for a country more diverse than any other in the world,
We do a better job than most under difficult circumstances. (D.Trump is our president) Every year people lift themselves up from poverty into a better middle class lifestyle mostly by making good decisions in their life.
I am white, sorry about that, grew up in a single parent household, lower middle class, started a small business at 24 and have enjoyed the American dream.
Thanks for nothing Richard.
I'll tell you what, for a country more diverse than any other in the world,
We do a better job than most under difficult circumstances. (D.Trump is our president) Every year people lift themselves up from poverty into a better middle class lifestyle mostly by making good decisions in their life.
I am white, sorry about that, grew up in a single parent household, lower middle class, started a small business at 24 and have enjoyed the American dream.
Thanks for nothing Richard.
3
This is disgusting! Trying to lump educated working people in with actual rich people makes me so incredibly furious. I came from a family of 7 in Inglewood, CA where my parents made maybe $30K/yr growing up. I went into massive student loan debt in college, then into the military (and out of debt), then graduate school (and right back into new debt) and then started a business with nothing. I've built it into something I'm very proud of and employ a lot of people. However, I work 80 hours a week, easy. My choice.
Millionaires and billionaires can live off interest and investments, or structure their income to pay taxes at far lower capital gains rates. Given that those of us in the low 6 figures lack the tax shelters actual rich people can afford + with the AMT, we end up paying close to the marginal income rates. We who are business owners also pay incredible healthcare expenses for our employees plus the usual payroll taxes, etc. Again, my choice.
The smug lunacy of this author to think that someone like me should be ashamed of the benefits that come along with getting an education and working hard is so absurd it makes my blood boil. People like me ARE the middle class American dream.
One can infer that the author believes the government would be a better steward of my income than I. You will never hear a Democrat push for closing some American bases in rich countries such as Germany and Japan. Only take more money. Need more money. And then this class warfare game...
Millionaires and billionaires can live off interest and investments, or structure their income to pay taxes at far lower capital gains rates. Given that those of us in the low 6 figures lack the tax shelters actual rich people can afford + with the AMT, we end up paying close to the marginal income rates. We who are business owners also pay incredible healthcare expenses for our employees plus the usual payroll taxes, etc. Again, my choice.
The smug lunacy of this author to think that someone like me should be ashamed of the benefits that come along with getting an education and working hard is so absurd it makes my blood boil. People like me ARE the middle class American dream.
One can infer that the author believes the government would be a better steward of my income than I. You will never hear a Democrat push for closing some American bases in rich countries such as Germany and Japan. Only take more money. Need more money. And then this class warfare game...
4
The AMT thresholds haven't been adjusted for inflation. Never should have applied to me, based on one or two lucky years!!!
I worked in the UK a lot in the 90s and 2000s, and was definitely aware of the class distinctions, but every time I came home to America I felt the same distinctions, just based on money rather than heredity or accent. Everyone herds themselves into their gated ghettos and our country continues to fall apart.
I find it interesting that the posters the NYC Times has as Picks both say that it is possible to transcend class and they are from NYC and SF. I wonder if there is more of a sense of possibility in those cities. The rest of the country does not seem to feel it, thus Trump.
I find it interesting that the posters the NYC Times has as Picks both say that it is possible to transcend class and they are from NYC and SF. I wonder if there is more of a sense of possibility in those cities. The rest of the country does not seem to feel it, thus Trump.
3
Oxford and Cambridge eliminated legacy admissions in the middle of last century! Incredible. American institutions take note. This is something we have got to do. But which school(s) will be brave enough to do it?
2
Prestigious, high quality American schools need healthy endowments to maintain their standards, and thus depend on support from alumni. Only those with especially lush endowments have the luxury to break out of the pattern of preferment for children of alumni.
As a poor person working 4 jobs between my wife and I just to be able to buy food and survive in a city in a one bedroom apartment... it is amazing to see how many wealthy commenters are proving Mr. Reeves point through their abject denial of their wealth and status as a result of the inequality that permeates our society at every level.
To the wealthy - Mr. Reeves is not saying you are bad people, that you are the cause of inequality, or that you shouldn't do everything you can for your children... all he is saying is that you should not ignore or deny the fact that you are wealthy and that wealth grants you options the rest of us do not have. This fact doesn't change because you pay more in taxes or you donate more to charity etc. And it doesn't change if you live modestly despite your wealth or whatever BUT you insert after acknowledging that the author is in fact spot on. In fact even the middle class of America when compared to the rest of the world whom 80% of live on less than $10/day is wealthy beyond measure and honestly we all know deep down that something needs to change if we want to live in a truly just world where people don't become rich simply because they are born to rich people.
To the wealthy - Mr. Reeves is not saying you are bad people, that you are the cause of inequality, or that you shouldn't do everything you can for your children... all he is saying is that you should not ignore or deny the fact that you are wealthy and that wealth grants you options the rest of us do not have. This fact doesn't change because you pay more in taxes or you donate more to charity etc. And it doesn't change if you live modestly despite your wealth or whatever BUT you insert after acknowledging that the author is in fact spot on. In fact even the middle class of America when compared to the rest of the world whom 80% of live on less than $10/day is wealthy beyond measure and honestly we all know deep down that something needs to change if we want to live in a truly just world where people don't become rich simply because they are born to rich people.
6
I don't think there are many Americans who believe this country is not stratified by class, that it is a meritocracy. This is a hoary old myth that politicians here are fond of spouting and that many outside of this country have always found appealing for various reasons.
You need look no further than the election of Donald Trump for signs of class conflict. It seems inconceivable such a boob could be elected though it makes some sense in the context of class resentment. If you disagree, I suggest you take a tour of the US and talk to some of this cretin's supporters and why the voted for him.
You need look no further than the election of Donald Trump for signs of class conflict. It seems inconceivable such a boob could be elected though it makes some sense in the context of class resentment. If you disagree, I suggest you take a tour of the US and talk to some of this cretin's supporters and why the voted for him.
Even worse is that the calcification of the top 20% is defended and enabled by much of our bottom 80% hoping they, too, will ascend the ladder of meritocracy.
But I've puzzled over Brits' posh guilt. I prefer French "noblesse oblige," the unwritten obligation the nobility has to act honorably and generously to others.
Guilt is emotional suffering. None is psychopathic, but guilt itself is a disorder. It can cause virtuous responses but is as likely to beget self-righteousness or resentment. Life's too precious and short to waste on where and when each of the top couple billion people's emotional suffering is commensurate to their privilege. All should enjoy—and all be able to make the most of—the varied attributes and privileges of our birth. The best way to enjoy something is to share it with others.
Our problem is actuarial: post-WWII Boomers aging out of the workforce. It's compounded by conservatives' reaction. We need young people and immigrants entering the workforce with education high and varied enough for high-skilled jobs, or standards low enough for low-skilled labor.
At the Great Recession's nadir, 2 million job openings went unfilled in the U.S. Today it's 6 million. We don't need "job creation," we need a populace willing and able to take the jobs that populace necessitates.
For that we need written obligations—codified laws—like free health care and education for all, and a social safety net paid for by progressive taxes on income, luxury and investment.
But I've puzzled over Brits' posh guilt. I prefer French "noblesse oblige," the unwritten obligation the nobility has to act honorably and generously to others.
Guilt is emotional suffering. None is psychopathic, but guilt itself is a disorder. It can cause virtuous responses but is as likely to beget self-righteousness or resentment. Life's too precious and short to waste on where and when each of the top couple billion people's emotional suffering is commensurate to their privilege. All should enjoy—and all be able to make the most of—the varied attributes and privileges of our birth. The best way to enjoy something is to share it with others.
Our problem is actuarial: post-WWII Boomers aging out of the workforce. It's compounded by conservatives' reaction. We need young people and immigrants entering the workforce with education high and varied enough for high-skilled jobs, or standards low enough for low-skilled labor.
At the Great Recession's nadir, 2 million job openings went unfilled in the U.S. Today it's 6 million. We don't need "job creation," we need a populace willing and able to take the jobs that populace necessitates.
For that we need written obligations—codified laws—like free health care and education for all, and a social safety net paid for by progressive taxes on income, luxury and investment.
In Britain and other old countries, class is about social superiority and inferiority, equated with supposed inherent human superiority and inferiority of individuals, and people on the lower rung are expected to know their place, not just by people who are higher but even by themselves. Here in the US, all are truly equal - a poor person doesn't think of himself as any less than any other person, nor do the richer think along those lines. Are there any enclaves of pretentious boors who think in obnoxious old-world terms? Yes, we can be sure, but they are a miniscule fraction hiding and suffering for it in private. This article raises many good points, but they are not about class, they are about wealth and its privileges.
1
I grew up in a tenement in a declining area of Brooklyn. I remember a group of us kids hanging out in the hallway deciding we were "middle class," which we assuredly were not. But we were in the USA -- where everyone considers themselves middle class!
A few of Mr Reeves points are valid: many of those who have made it to the top 20% are oblivious to their priveledge, and they do tend to think that it is all due to their own diligence. Many first generation strivers do try to align themselves with those around themselves economically, and not with those from whom they sprang. But if you work for wages, or a nice salary, you are generally one job away from somewhat reduced circumstances and you do have more in common with the hourly worker than with those who have inherited wealth.
1
Thank you so much for writing this opinion piece. I have long been frustrated and disgusted by seemingly liberal and progressive New Yorkers who keep our school systems segregated by using their wealth and power to influence school zoning and then using code terms like "test scores" to keep lower income students away from their kids.
I did not know that universities in the U.K. did not use legacy in admissions. It is shameful that colleges here still use it - many complain about affirmative action but have no problem with a system that gives the upper classes a leg up.
I did not know that universities in the U.K. did not use legacy in admissions. It is shameful that colleges here still use it - many complain about affirmative action but have no problem with a system that gives the upper classes a leg up.
2
For all of those saying that $200k isn't a lot in NYC, you're really just proving the author's point. I hear similar arguments from those I know working in NYC biglaw who plead poverty.
Based on income data from the US Census Bureau (2015), the median household income in New York County (i.e., Manhattan) is $72,781. By definition, a household making this kind of money should be considered middle class...it's about as "middle" as you can get.
Now, $72,781 is a lot higher than the overall national household median income in $56,516 (also from the US Census Bureau), but if your household is making $150k+ in Manhattan, you're in the top 27%...IN MANHATTAN. Your household is in the top 19% of Manhattan households at $200k+.
Given the roughly 750,000 households in Manhattan, a household making $200k a year is doing better than 600,000+ households in Manhattan. And somehow, those 600,000 households manage to survive living in Manhattan while making less money.
It's definitely true that Manhattan is one of the most expensive places to live in the country, but don't try and fool yourself or others into thinking that you're "middle class" if you're living in a household making $200k, regardless of where you're living in the US.
Based on income data from the US Census Bureau (2015), the median household income in New York County (i.e., Manhattan) is $72,781. By definition, a household making this kind of money should be considered middle class...it's about as "middle" as you can get.
Now, $72,781 is a lot higher than the overall national household median income in $56,516 (also from the US Census Bureau), but if your household is making $150k+ in Manhattan, you're in the top 27%...IN MANHATTAN. Your household is in the top 19% of Manhattan households at $200k+.
Given the roughly 750,000 households in Manhattan, a household making $200k a year is doing better than 600,000+ households in Manhattan. And somehow, those 600,000 households manage to survive living in Manhattan while making less money.
It's definitely true that Manhattan is one of the most expensive places to live in the country, but don't try and fool yourself or others into thinking that you're "middle class" if you're living in a household making $200k, regardless of where you're living in the US.
3
Very interesting observation about class in America.
There is a historic cemetery in the town where I live. Most of the graves are as old as 90 to 100 years old. Some have huge tombstones while others have none except a marked grave. Obviously, the ones with big tombstones were the upper classes and those with none the lower classes.
But the fact is that there is no trace of them now. I doubt if any of their living reletives even remember them anymore. The upper class and the lower class are laid to rest side by side.
There is a historic cemetery in the town where I live. Most of the graves are as old as 90 to 100 years old. Some have huge tombstones while others have none except a marked grave. Obviously, the ones with big tombstones were the upper classes and those with none the lower classes.
But the fact is that there is no trace of them now. I doubt if any of their living reletives even remember them anymore. The upper class and the lower class are laid to rest side by side.
2
Another mistake this quintile makes is the way they call for tax cuts - they should be calling for more brackets at the upper .1 percent levels. They do enjoy thinking they have a seat at the table when they do not.
Spot on.
Now, if only there were an antidote for the epidemic of denial thatbcaused people to skim or ignore the personal applicability of facts presented by this piece, we might have a stepping-off point for a national conversation.
Thank you for trying. If even a few sets of eyes are now opened, it will have been worthwhile.
Now, if only there were an antidote for the epidemic of denial thatbcaused people to skim or ignore the personal applicability of facts presented by this piece, we might have a stepping-off point for a national conversation.
Thank you for trying. If even a few sets of eyes are now opened, it will have been worthwhile.
2
The way the central bank is printing money, quatative easing, $200,000 will not buy a loaf of bread when hyperinflation eventually rears it's ugly head! Without the Saudis trading their oil in petro dollars and the Exhange Stabalization Fund performing daily voodoo machinations hyperinflation would altrady be here. Just because events have transpired one way in the past does not mean they will transpire thatay in the future. The world is in crisis mode whether we want to admit or not. The era of cheap oil oil and energy is over and all money is credit and not a storehouse of value!
1
Reading so many representative comments from Twenty Percenters who even here express total denial. "Can't live without soccer, camp, high property tax (large) house!"
Wah wah! Try cutting some of your consumption-rich lifestyle before bellyaching about how little TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR gets you in Westchester.
But to the author's point, it's less about the breaks and incentives showered on the top 20% of America, and more about the Total Denial of class privilege that scares me.
What if we here in the U.S. combined Britain's consciousness of class with America's belief in upward mobility?
Not sure that would work, because it's exactly the 20%s belief in upward mobility that prevents them from acknowledging the privilege that helped them get there, the SAT prep, the legacy college relationship, the investments of capital into their small business made by a friend or family member.
But maybe some awareness of class status (and privilege) would help?
Wah wah! Try cutting some of your consumption-rich lifestyle before bellyaching about how little TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR gets you in Westchester.
But to the author's point, it's less about the breaks and incentives showered on the top 20% of America, and more about the Total Denial of class privilege that scares me.
What if we here in the U.S. combined Britain's consciousness of class with America's belief in upward mobility?
Not sure that would work, because it's exactly the 20%s belief in upward mobility that prevents them from acknowledging the privilege that helped them get there, the SAT prep, the legacy college relationship, the investments of capital into their small business made by a friend or family member.
But maybe some awareness of class status (and privilege) would help?
3
It is hard for me to take in the author's points when a basic premise of the article is flatly wrong. Accrding to the US census bureau, households making 200,000 per year fall into the 6% income bracket. When one accounts for the cost of living (especially housing) in cities where many must live in to make this income, even that advantage is not what you think. After paying 40% in overall taxes, 3,000 to 4,000 per month rent, and essential living expenses, there is not much at the end of the month to make you feel rich. Comfortable but certainly not rich.
We moved to Boston for my wife's job opportunites and I was very dissatisfied with mine. Although we have hovered in the top ~10% for some years, we certainly can't afford even a small house here while many in the midwest and south with far less income certainly can. There are are inequalities built into the US system for some at the top, but much of what we've accomplished has come from public education and extremely hard work.
To me, this opinion piece looks like an example of a Brookings Institution fellow instituting a type of stealth class warfare. The author ignores systemic problems in our society and at the same time conveniently deflects any focus on the vast accumulation of wealth and priviledge at the very top. This inequality is causing great problems in our society and is intrinsically destabilizing.
We moved to Boston for my wife's job opportunites and I was very dissatisfied with mine. Although we have hovered in the top ~10% for some years, we certainly can't afford even a small house here while many in the midwest and south with far less income certainly can. There are are inequalities built into the US system for some at the top, but much of what we've accomplished has come from public education and extremely hard work.
To me, this opinion piece looks like an example of a Brookings Institution fellow instituting a type of stealth class warfare. The author ignores systemic problems in our society and at the same time conveniently deflects any focus on the vast accumulation of wealth and priviledge at the very top. This inequality is causing great problems in our society and is intrinsically destabilizing.
4
I am exhausted from reading that people are supposed to feel guilty for whatever their financial circumstance is, for their privilege. Why can't one recognize their level of comfort (or discomfort) financially and still be good people? I've always felt reasonably comfortable even when living paycheck to paycheck with no idea how we would pay for our children's education. Why? Because of my "privilege" of having a family safety net. My parents were in the same position when their four children were young. Although we're retired now, thanks to a good retirement pension/benefits, and wise investments (due to having a healthy second income for a number of years) and good investment advice, we are very comfortable. If any piece of that goes away, we won't be.
I never pretend not to be privileged. But my privilege was not from huge sums of money though I always recognized we had/have a lot more than most. I never benefit from any of the programs and tax issues that I support. I believe that I benefit when society as a whole benefits. What is the implicit expectation about privilege? You can't undo it. I don't resent people for having more money than I do. I resent it when they don't think they have enough. I resent it when they hoard it. I resent it when they get tax breaks for no reason other than to make them hold on to more of it. We can recognize others deserve their chances as well and try to help with that even while being comfortable with our own.
I never pretend not to be privileged. But my privilege was not from huge sums of money though I always recognized we had/have a lot more than most. I never benefit from any of the programs and tax issues that I support. I believe that I benefit when society as a whole benefits. What is the implicit expectation about privilege? You can't undo it. I don't resent people for having more money than I do. I resent it when they don't think they have enough. I resent it when they hoard it. I resent it when they get tax breaks for no reason other than to make them hold on to more of it. We can recognize others deserve their chances as well and try to help with that even while being comfortable with our own.
5
Short math lesson. The top quintile (80th ptile and above) of incomes, those making 200k or more, comprise only 6.85% of the population of households (based on 2015 reports). Your article is misleading in that it leads one to believe that 20% of households make => 200k and are skewing public policy. Had your article been worded correctly, the income threshold to be in the top quintile of households would be roughly 125k (based on 2015 reports).
4
How to react to this column? I am pulled in differing directions. My wife and i are from humble backgrounds, 100% products of public education. I started my schooling in PS89 in Queens. As a kid I never once took a vacation that did not involve sleeping at a relative's house. We married young, and together we moved out to Ohio enabling me to attended graduate school (at a public university). Everything we owned at that time fit in a 1972 Toyota and a 1968 Valiant (with a hand choke because we could not afford a carburetor rebuild). For the first 6 months of marriage we slept on the floor, had a $40 per week budget for food, and we worried a lot about having enough money to buy food. But I was and still am a child of privilege. For I was white and the education i did receive was high quality, I knew that eventually we would be ok. I am now in a position to provide for my child with much more than i received. She will never have to worry about tuition (she starts MIT in the fall), and I will never complain about those bills. I willingly pay taxes and believe as Holmes stated "with my taxes I buy civilization". But I will also never feel guilty about what we have accomplished. I am more liberal than Bernie on some issues (social justice, gun control), but more conservative on others (strong defense). I have repeated marched against the clown in the WH. I feel like the democratic party does not fully represent me. I don't believe in pulling someone up by tearing others down.
14
It's depressing how many of the commenters here, in defending themselves, prove Mr. Reeve's observations.
9
Prove his observations? Let me say it again, with feeling. I am an aging baby boomer. So are my peers. We, the great majority of the baby boomer generation started out with nothing. Our parents grew up through the Great Depression. They had their lives disrupted by Republican, conservative and austere economics followed by Hitler, Mussolini and Imperial Japan. They came home to little housing, few jobs and most industry and the private sector struggling to change from a war economy to a peacetime one. Yes, many of us of both the Greatest Generation and the baby boomers made it. Did you chance to observe why?
The reason why is that jobs were created! Industry roared into life. Schools expanded and the GI bill aided millions of men and women returning from the war. Also, social and economic policies including a tax structure that enabled people to acquire wealth was transformative for our nation.The mortgage interest deduction allowed millions of renters to move into private homes. Under progressives schools were desegregated and housing discrimination also came to an end. Private colleges expanded their endowments and totally paid tuition, room and board for millions of students who otherwise would not have been able to afford college. Additionally progressive polices for college tuition and Pell Grants also helped dissolve class differences.
If you're going to make observations then observe the other multitude of good things that happened as a result of progressive policy.
The reason why is that jobs were created! Industry roared into life. Schools expanded and the GI bill aided millions of men and women returning from the war. Also, social and economic policies including a tax structure that enabled people to acquire wealth was transformative for our nation.The mortgage interest deduction allowed millions of renters to move into private homes. Under progressives schools were desegregated and housing discrimination also came to an end. Private colleges expanded their endowments and totally paid tuition, room and board for millions of students who otherwise would not have been able to afford college. Additionally progressive polices for college tuition and Pell Grants also helped dissolve class differences.
If you're going to make observations then observe the other multitude of good things that happened as a result of progressive policy.
3
Yes, the top 20% does enjoy a legend of meritocracy. But that legend is not just a legend that the upper middle class have created in their own minds. It is a legend as American as apple pie.
Meritocracy is a part of our greater American legend, the legend of American exceptionalism. Everyone from the lowliest worker to the executives in the boardroom believes that America rewards merit more than anything else. Like all legends it is handed down from parent to child and from teacher to students. It persists because it is believed, not because it can be proved.
That legend is why The Republican President is in the White House and the Republicans control Congress.
Meritocracy is a part of our greater American legend, the legend of American exceptionalism. Everyone from the lowliest worker to the executives in the boardroom believes that America rewards merit more than anything else. Like all legends it is handed down from parent to child and from teacher to students. It persists because it is believed, not because it can be proved.
That legend is why The Republican President is in the White House and the Republicans control Congress.
10
There are some truths to that article, which shows up some new perspectives. But what's the conclusion ? In the US, life is harsher for the middle class than in Britain, where you can, overall, for example, have a decent and rewarding life as a teacher (in the US, you cannot). The penalties for social downward moving are harsher (just think about loosing health insurance because you lost your job). And yes, I had no qualms to put my son in a private Highschool because his public Highschool in New York to which he was allocated in a lottery system was subpar to the Highschool in Dehra Dun, India, which I sponsored with donations in the 90ties. I was thinking about this more as an unfair penalty than a privilege (by the way, getting into a good private school is extremely competitive, because of the limited number of spaces, and only the ultra rich or highly connected people can afford to buy their kids in). The 529 plans are effectively only to a limited extent mitigating the college tax which is imposed on the upper middle class - in Europe, college is free for all, in the US, it is extremely expensive and only cheaper for lower middle class and below, and by the way, the term middle class as used here is objectively comprising that what you would call working class in Great Britain. I wish we would have more access to good public services, as in the U.K., or the rest of Europe, but alas, since 400 years, the system here isn't designed to handle that.
6
What do you mean, you can't have a rich and rewarding life as a teacher? Do you know how high the pay can be for K-12 teachers in rich blue states? There are plenty of two-income teacher couples who are well up there in the top 20%, and some in the top 10%.
Americans operate in a much different system than Brits. We live in a country with a thin social safety net, a wide variance in public school quality, a poor healthcare system and a cut-throat labor market. There are very rational reasons for progressives to pay for private school and to seek advantage for their kids. Why would they martyr themselves for the sake of taking a futile stand on "supporting public schools" or sending their kid to a weaker college? That said, I do agree that many in the upper-middle class don't see their own privilege, but it's complicated.
5
Journalism has hit a new low. Richard Reeves asserts that class privilege not only exists in America (yes it does) but also that it is destructive, that it benefits liberal members of the upper middle class, that it affects the stability of families, and that it creates "physical separation" in neighborhoods, schools, and even in the treatment of paying taxes. Reeves claims that the mortgage interest tax deduction benefits the upper class at the expense of the poor, lower classes.
Mr. Reeves should check on the number of home owners in Great Britain and compare it to ownership in the U.S.
The U.S. encourages movement to the upper classes through tax benefits, through education and through the genuine ability of anyone who has ability and works hard to achieve success as well as upward mobility. Yes, we have gated communities, better schools and housing and shorter ladders to success for many people. We also have ladders and opportunity for everyone else. I've been to England. You can't move from class to class in their society. In Britain it is only for the well heeled. America may have rich but we have no royalty.
I come from the South Bronx. I was born dirt poor into a 2 room apartment in 1947. My parents couldn't even afford a home in Levittown. But, by 1960 my dad made it. He too came from poverty. Both served in WWII mom in the Navy, dad in the Army Engineer Corps in the Pacific. The affluence of others did not harm them or me. I made it too. I have several million.
Mr. Reeves should check on the number of home owners in Great Britain and compare it to ownership in the U.S.
The U.S. encourages movement to the upper classes through tax benefits, through education and through the genuine ability of anyone who has ability and works hard to achieve success as well as upward mobility. Yes, we have gated communities, better schools and housing and shorter ladders to success for many people. We also have ladders and opportunity for everyone else. I've been to England. You can't move from class to class in their society. In Britain it is only for the well heeled. America may have rich but we have no royalty.
I come from the South Bronx. I was born dirt poor into a 2 room apartment in 1947. My parents couldn't even afford a home in Levittown. But, by 1960 my dad made it. He too came from poverty. Both served in WWII mom in the Navy, dad in the Army Engineer Corps in the Pacific. The affluence of others did not harm them or me. I made it too. I have several million.
8
The home ownership rate in the UK is similar, if not slightly higher, than it is here.
"Home ownership in England has tumbled to its lowest percentage in nearly a quarter of a century after the country saw a large spike in private renters.
In 2012/13, 65.2 per cent of households were owner-occupiers according to the English Housing Survey data from the Department for Communities and Local Government, the lowest share recorded since 1987.
And as ownership dreams continue to fade for a generation who are struggling to keep up with soaring property prices, private landlords are the ones who are largely benefiting."
In the U.S. home ownership is about 67% of the population and growing.
Check your facts Mr. Rothstein. Also note we are a nation of 311 million vs Great Britain who's population is far, far less. Home ownership in the U.S. far exceeds that of Great Britain and more importantly access to ownership is far greater in the U.S. Affordability is a factor too. The tax structure in Britain keep the lower class of of housing. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction keeps the poor in place and makes them poorer.
I like American tax policy. Its part of the ladder to success.
In 2012/13, 65.2 per cent of households were owner-occupiers according to the English Housing Survey data from the Department for Communities and Local Government, the lowest share recorded since 1987.
And as ownership dreams continue to fade for a generation who are struggling to keep up with soaring property prices, private landlords are the ones who are largely benefiting."
In the U.S. home ownership is about 67% of the population and growing.
Check your facts Mr. Rothstein. Also note we are a nation of 311 million vs Great Britain who's population is far, far less. Home ownership in the U.S. far exceeds that of Great Britain and more importantly access to ownership is far greater in the U.S. Affordability is a factor too. The tax structure in Britain keep the lower class of of housing. Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction keeps the poor in place and makes them poorer.
I like American tax policy. Its part of the ladder to success.
1
This is really, really important. But where does $200,000 come from. By Census figures it is closer to $125,000-$130,000 family income.
It is even true that they are the capitalists in Marx's sense of the word--the owners of the means of production. They are the ones their retirement and savings funds in mutual funds who own Big Business and Big Finance.. The same is true of all managerial-professional people in the government now that they no longer are on pension. The boureogoise really have taken over the government in a literal sense.
But what is even more important is that these rich people in the North have taken over the left wing party, and the Georgia House race suggests that they are beginning to do so in the South. Bill and Obama are way to the right of Nixon in economic and foreign policy, while Hillary is a Goldwaterite as she was--even on the McCarthyism, as Barry was.
This country must change or it will get much worse than Trump. We need a Macron, and the Democratic Party needs to go the way of the French socialists and the American Whigs.
It is even true that they are the capitalists in Marx's sense of the word--the owners of the means of production. They are the ones their retirement and savings funds in mutual funds who own Big Business and Big Finance.. The same is true of all managerial-professional people in the government now that they no longer are on pension. The boureogoise really have taken over the government in a literal sense.
But what is even more important is that these rich people in the North have taken over the left wing party, and the Georgia House race suggests that they are beginning to do so in the South. Bill and Obama are way to the right of Nixon in economic and foreign policy, while Hillary is a Goldwaterite as she was--even on the McCarthyism, as Barry was.
This country must change or it will get much worse than Trump. We need a Macron, and the Democratic Party needs to go the way of the French socialists and the American Whigs.
4
Try living in Westchester, NY on $200,000 a year. After mortgage, daycare, property taxes, summer camps, soccer, and food, there is nothing left at the end of the month. I'm living large, I still have Showtime and HBO.
2
there you go Twenty Percenter! Even your comment expresses total denial. Can't live without soccer, camp, high property tax (large) house! Try cutting some of your consumption rich lifestyle before bellyaching about how little TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR gets you.
Try living in the Bronx on $25K
relocate !
Bill Gates walks into a bar and, on average, everyone become a millionaire. Accordingly, I take exception to the misleading (yet true) statistic that the average income in the top quintile is $200K. So, why not tell us where the top quintile of household income begins? The omission is a sleight of hand by the author, who knows very well that the top 20% of income distribution begins at a much more modest $112K and the top 5% begins at $214K. Furthermore, broad averages fail to take into account regional differences in the cost of living. While $112K would not go very far in NYC or San Francisco, it would buy a very nice standard of living in New Bern, NC. Bottom line, people with a household income that just barely crosses into the top quintile share much more in common with those in the middle class than they do with the 1%.
12
I'd guess that most folks in the $150,000 to $200,000 traditionally identify with the middle class. For the most part they pay their own way, getting little in the way of tax breaks or services at reduced fees.
Before retiring, I was in the group, and have no guilty feels what so ever. My wife and I both went to state colleges, and worked hard to get to that income level. At that income, things like child care tax credits are gone, as is financial aid for college. So a lot of that extra income disappears.
As the progressives narrow the definition of middle class, and decide to lump the upper middle class with the rich, I think they will find that the upper middle class will be forced to identify with the truly rich, and vote republican.
A good example is NY's "free tuition". If there had to be an income limit, Cuomo set it much too low. It should have been free to all New York State residents who are US citizens., With a minimum residency time requirement.
Before retiring, I was in the group, and have no guilty feels what so ever. My wife and I both went to state colleges, and worked hard to get to that income level. At that income, things like child care tax credits are gone, as is financial aid for college. So a lot of that extra income disappears.
As the progressives narrow the definition of middle class, and decide to lump the upper middle class with the rich, I think they will find that the upper middle class will be forced to identify with the truly rich, and vote republican.
A good example is NY's "free tuition". If there had to be an income limit, Cuomo set it much too low. It should have been free to all New York State residents who are US citizens., With a minimum residency time requirement.
5
I agree with you. My wife and I earn above $200,000. and 2 of our 5 children also earn more than that. BUT! They went to state and private colleges (as did I and my brothers and sister) and they worked their tails off to achieve their success. Our parents helped with parts of our education and sometimes with part of graduate school. But, both of our parents started out with nothing. They were children of the Great Depression. And their lives were also disrupted by World War II. We ran headlong into Vietnam and didn't catch a break.
Progressives do indeed continuously narrow the definition of middle class. And yes upper wage earners are more closely related to the truly rich but its because of the diminishing jobs and industry not because of class warfare.
Progressives fail miserably to understand what has happened to jobs and destruction of opportunity for success and class mobility in the U.S. Exporting our jobs, industry, and research and development of new technology to foreign shores for the last 30 years has taken America apart. Allowing more than 11 million illegal immigrants to enter the work force has also depressed wages and strained the resources of government and communities.
We're rich. We have a net worth greater than $5 million. So what! It took 45 years to achieve it. We do live in a gated community. We earned that too. Two of our adult children earn over $300,000 but they are lawyers and professionals. But we do not deny others opportunity for success.
Progressives do indeed continuously narrow the definition of middle class. And yes upper wage earners are more closely related to the truly rich but its because of the diminishing jobs and industry not because of class warfare.
Progressives fail miserably to understand what has happened to jobs and destruction of opportunity for success and class mobility in the U.S. Exporting our jobs, industry, and research and development of new technology to foreign shores for the last 30 years has taken America apart. Allowing more than 11 million illegal immigrants to enter the work force has also depressed wages and strained the resources of government and communities.
We're rich. We have a net worth greater than $5 million. So what! It took 45 years to achieve it. We do live in a gated community. We earned that too. Two of our adult children earn over $300,000 but they are lawyers and professionals. But we do not deny others opportunity for success.
3
What is missing from this analysis is the role of race and religion. Many white Americans use real estate as a way of segregating themselves from POC, and many religious Americans follow in the Puritan tradition of viewing material success as evidence of God's approval.
2
Don't worry although Peterborough went Labour the surrounding flatland (my home region) remained solidly Tory. But forty years ago I arrived on these shores and also was shocked at the presence of very visible class system. Some of it based on race but most founded in education (or should I say lack thereof). Things have not improved on this side of the Atlantic and although they did appear to be moving forward in the UK I fear they are also regressing to the old system, or are they simply copying the US? As for Posh Brits, I think that was what we called ourselves when we went to watch them play at the London Road ground.
If I could wave a magic wand and make one change in our government it would be this: schools should be funded at the state level. Funding at the local level creates much of the inequality described in this piece. Funding from the federal government would face huge political hurdles, and frankly Washington is too remote and would stifle the opportunity for different states to try different things. With my magic wand, funds to cover schools would come from some form of state tax (property or income), and each school district would receive funds directly proportional to the number of students. It's not a panacea, but I think this one change would have a very positive impact in preventing the entrenchment of a permanent upper class.
6
We don't have a meritocracy, we have a lucktocracy.Obama is a president who earned with the help of Michelle, what they accomplished. Clinton also came from poor beginnings to become president. And the Clintons were derided for figuring out the system and getting rich. So not only do we pretend we don't have a class system, we criticize people who overcome it.
5
Michelle only got a $360K job at a state-owned hospital when Barrack Obama became an Illinois state senator. It looks like he helped her.
I agree that that luck plays a much larger role than most admit in professional/financial success and for that matter in success in life. And I agree that the wealth gap is one of if not the biggest problem in modern society. Combine those two things and the fact, yes fact, that the policies of government over the past 35 years have been a major driver of making the gap bigger. Leads me to conclude policies need to change to allow pendulum to somewhat swing back and that top 20% does need to acknowledge all this and make it happen. One thing I don't get, someone please explain, is the zoning statement - isn't it all about money?
1
Back in the 50's and early 60's one could get an entry level job with a major company with a high school degree; by the mid 60's one needed a college degree to even be considered for a mailroom job.
Also back then, our major entertainment was a radio and TV which only cost money when you bought the set. Now, you have to have your cellphone and pay large monthly fees for your cable/satellite service plus service for your internet connection across your computer and cellphones.
Also back then, our major entertainment was a radio and TV which only cost money when you bought the set. Now, you have to have your cellphone and pay large monthly fees for your cable/satellite service plus service for your internet connection across your computer and cellphones.
6
The author's comments about generational social privilege tied to alumni status is powerful. So, too, his insights regarding housing policy and exclusionary, elite "public" education. In the meantime, the poor have only one recourse: live a life of extreme thrift, shun divorce, cultivate literacy at home through the habit of reading, and the luck of continued health. One's children will thrive in such an environment and even surpass wealthier, but lazier, less cultivated peers awash in money but short on cultural literacy. I look forward to more articles on this topic.
6
From this authors view what exactly should be the rewards of an education, hard work, long hours and rising to the top?
There are country's who have tried Communism but it will be hard for for him to move to one. Most have failed, are failing or switched course. Lesson?
There are country's who have tried Communism but it will be hard for for him to move to one. Most have failed, are failing or switched course. Lesson?
4
Your first question is a good one IMO. One answer would be, insure those who rise to heights on whatever merit not be sustained by government subsidy and preference in the law. It should be equal opportunity failure.
I am not aware of any government system anywhere in the world that does not work to sustain its self.
Joe K- same rewards as always. he argues, however, that the next generation should put in their own hard work/education/long hours, rather, than relying on their parents'.
Unlike many other commenters, including the NYTimes 2 picks (at this hour), I didn't read this as just a comparison between the US and Britain with one coming out on top. I saw it as a chance for us US citizens to see how unfair some of the benefits we take for granted are to the lower 80%.
Maybe it's because I'm in the lower 80%. We make in the very low six figures and live in a low cost-of-living area. We've worked hard, spent wisely ~ and benefited from government largesse, many times in areas not accessible to the lower 50%.
Maybe it's because I'm in the lower 80%. We make in the very low six figures and live in a low cost-of-living area. We've worked hard, spent wisely ~ and benefited from government largesse, many times in areas not accessible to the lower 50%.
2
The author does not appear to comprehend the deep economic anxiety that plagues middle class and, yes, maybe even upper middle class families even more: the fear that the next generation is NOT going to do better, and that all the stops need to be pulled out to stay afloat. These anxieties are fanned by the proliferation and flaunting of goods and services available to those at the top, who are pulling away, and the rest of us. There is a difference between "liking" to have to engage in these behaviors and the feeling that they have become a necessity in a dog-eat-dog, devil take the hindmost economic system that has dominated this country in the past thirty plus years. The solution to this is to calm middle class anxieties by reining in the profligacy and privilege of the top one percent and taking back power from the corporate structures who, no, are not people.
5
A fine piece with one irritating flaw. Reeves glibly repeats the conventional notion of "good schools" attracting people to more privileged neighborhoods.
School reputations, like that of my high school, are primarily the artifact of privilege – the greater the privilege, the better the reputation of the schools in the neighborhood – the deeper the poverty, the worse the school’s reputation. This demographic sorting is nothing new. It’s just worse now. And reputation plays an ongoing role in deepening the chasm of inequity. Folks with capital and credit buy homes in neighborhoods with “good” schools. Real estate listings in communities of privilege almost always brag about the schools. This desirability factor drives up prices, thereby hastening America’s re-segregation by race and class. Higher prices mean higher property values, which yield higher property taxes, which are still the primary funding mechanism for public schools. So not only do the schools have more resources, they have families in the community who are able to provide a variety of enriching experiences for their children.
Affluent towns all around America think they have great schools, when in fact the schools have privileged communities. Communities with resources have “good” schools, poor neighborhoods have “bad” schools, and folks think that’s just the way it is. These things have been believed for generations.
School reputations, like that of my high school, are primarily the artifact of privilege – the greater the privilege, the better the reputation of the schools in the neighborhood – the deeper the poverty, the worse the school’s reputation. This demographic sorting is nothing new. It’s just worse now. And reputation plays an ongoing role in deepening the chasm of inequity. Folks with capital and credit buy homes in neighborhoods with “good” schools. Real estate listings in communities of privilege almost always brag about the schools. This desirability factor drives up prices, thereby hastening America’s re-segregation by race and class. Higher prices mean higher property values, which yield higher property taxes, which are still the primary funding mechanism for public schools. So not only do the schools have more resources, they have families in the community who are able to provide a variety of enriching experiences for their children.
Affluent towns all around America think they have great schools, when in fact the schools have privileged communities. Communities with resources have “good” schools, poor neighborhoods have “bad” schools, and folks think that’s just the way it is. These things have been believed for generations.
6
If the U.S. had decent public schools, there wouldn't be a need for so many private schools. If college tuition were not so expensive, then 529's wouldn't exist as a tax-free incentive.
7
There is truth to the gist of the article. But, although Mr. Reeves tells us the upper-middle class should feel good about, "creating a stable family environment and being engaged parents" he seems to think its a minor factor. It's not. If the "privileged" did not raise their children with the right values and a productive approach to adult life then admission to a certain college and the 529 savings plan and mortgage interest "handout" would be of little value. Give credit where credit is due.
8
Seneca - so, you're saying that if we drop the 529 and the mortgage deduction and private schools, rich kids will do just fine with stable family environment and engaged parenting. OK, bring it.
Many of my fellow commentators are missing the point of this piece. When you have the means you can game the system to your advantage. The upper 20% does and then complains about "entitlement" for others. But in gaming economics to their own favor, they miss the point that a thriving working class benefits our entire country from bottom to top. In the long run, a poor working class will take our country down.
23
This story misses several realities in the US:
1) Income and quality of life are directly tied to where you live. My family of 4 has a fluctuating income between $100,000-$200,000 /yr and we live in a tiny 1300sq ft. house in a mixed-race working/middle class neighborhood (Baldwin) on Long Island that costs $500,000 with $12k/yr (2.x%) real estate taxes. When the average home price in the US is $220k w/ 1.x% real estate taxes, the comparison needs to be made. Just one of many cost of living factors.
2) Our schools are terrible unless you have money. If I lived where I grew up in New York my choices would be a parochial school or one that would perform poorly against most 3rd world nation public schools. David Cameron isn't moving to America and sending his kids to "Bronx Career and College Preparatory High School" no matter how superior the British sense of class is over us. In Whitestone where we started our family in a small apartment, my kids went to a school with 1 black family and it made me sick to my stomach. We purposefully moved to a mixed-race area that had good schools and lo and behold we learned that even though we lived in that mixed-race area that good zoned school we moved into- ALMOST ENTIRELY WHITE STILL.
We can't save for college, we can't save for retirement and health coverage has been a source of anxiety for us. Tell me I'm not rationing out food, fine, but call me rich and it paints you as an out of touch European (sorry).
1) Income and quality of life are directly tied to where you live. My family of 4 has a fluctuating income between $100,000-$200,000 /yr and we live in a tiny 1300sq ft. house in a mixed-race working/middle class neighborhood (Baldwin) on Long Island that costs $500,000 with $12k/yr (2.x%) real estate taxes. When the average home price in the US is $220k w/ 1.x% real estate taxes, the comparison needs to be made. Just one of many cost of living factors.
2) Our schools are terrible unless you have money. If I lived where I grew up in New York my choices would be a parochial school or one that would perform poorly against most 3rd world nation public schools. David Cameron isn't moving to America and sending his kids to "Bronx Career and College Preparatory High School" no matter how superior the British sense of class is over us. In Whitestone where we started our family in a small apartment, my kids went to a school with 1 black family and it made me sick to my stomach. We purposefully moved to a mixed-race area that had good schools and lo and behold we learned that even though we lived in that mixed-race area that good zoned school we moved into- ALMOST ENTIRELY WHITE STILL.
We can't save for college, we can't save for retirement and health coverage has been a source of anxiety for us. Tell me I'm not rationing out food, fine, but call me rich and it paints you as an out of touch European (sorry).
6
Real estate in certain places skews the importance of income ranges, e.g. NY or California have very pricey real estate. Arkansas or Iowa not so much. $200000 goes a lot farther in Odessa, Tx or Birmingham, AL than LA or NYC. At the same time, high priced real estate and high property taxes fund better schools. Example Texas.
Apologies but I have to disagree on one of your points. My neighbors zoned for the schools that aren't as good as the ones my kids go to pay the same taxes and their property value still far exceeds anything in most of the country. Ok so they're paying 3-400k instead of 4-500k but do you really want to hang your hat on that point? The people in the poorer neighborhoods don't get a magic wand that makes everything Texas priced either, let's not forget the many other cost of living factors either that are far greater in NY such as gas and groceries.
We're professionals in our 30s and we're struggling to make ends meet in the upper income percentiles of the country and we're certainly not getting anything close to a $1:$1 value on the rest of the country. It's nice to believe you live in a country where everyone gets what they paid for on equal footing but that's not what happens and that's why this article is flawed.
Poor people have it much, much harder but again, don't call what what in normal circumstances might be an affluent family, rich when the reality of the situation is still a story of struggle despite the easier road.
We're professionals in our 30s and we're struggling to make ends meet in the upper income percentiles of the country and we're certainly not getting anything close to a $1:$1 value on the rest of the country. It's nice to believe you live in a country where everyone gets what they paid for on equal footing but that's not what happens and that's why this article is flawed.
Poor people have it much, much harder but again, don't call what what in normal circumstances might be an affluent family, rich when the reality of the situation is still a story of struggle despite the easier road.
A unique feature of the US is this: the poor here consistently vote for tax cuts for the rich. Because of this, the schools where they live are over crowded, have teachers who think Chicago is a state, and start lunch at 10 AM. I vote for higher taxes on myself, but if the poor refuse to do this, I have no choice. I will not send my children to a sub standard school. If they refuse to tax me at a high enough rate to have decent schools, I have to send my child to private. I personally am not Bill Gates; I can not finance good schools for all by myself. I personally only have enough money to buy a decent education for my children.
20
There are many in the top percentages that feel blessed, yet there is no incentive in America to not keep and fight for everything. Our social safety net is not good compared to many in Europe, thus Americans still fight for everything and keep everything.
6
The author cites legacy preference but neglects to mention that most U.S. universities admit virtually any high school graduate who can afford tuition. He also seems unaware that universities that can’t accept all applicants have holistic admission policies. Admissions officers take factors such as socioeconomic status into consideration for all students. A black student who grew up below the poverty line in a single-parent family gets extra points, but so does a white student who grew up in similar circumstances. Racial and ethnic preferences are layered on top of all the other factors that go into the holistic admissions process. Universities assert that racial and ethnic preference are merely one of many factors, but the evidence shows they are determining factors. In an amicus brief filed in the Fisher vs. Texas case, a UCLA law professor pointed out that racial preferences at the University of Texas are decisive factors: “For example, among freshmen entering the University of Texas at Austin in 2009 who were admitted outside the top-ten-percent system, the mean SAT score (on a scale of 2400) of Asians was a staggering 467 points and the mean score of whites was 390 points above the mean black score. In percentile terms, these Asians scored at the 93rd percentile of 2009 SAT takers nationwide, whites at the 89th percentile, Hispanics at the 80th percentile, and blacks at the 52nd percentile.”
3
Income alone is a poor measure of who is "rich". The whole thing is nuanced. Our family is near the bottom of the upper 20%. However, that level of income is recent for us, and is totally dependent on both parents keeping our full-time jobs - no lays-offs, etc. Since the income came to us late, we are behind on retirement. Our income is all from work, the daily grind of being a teacher and a scientist. No big investments paying our bills. And as for meritocracy? We are no Horatio Alger story, to be sure, but we came from middle class backgrounds and we made solid, wise conservative choices in terms of education and employment. I I think we do deserve credit for that. I can only compare myself with people whose start in life was similar to mine, and I know plenty of those people who made different choices and who now have less than we do. (the people who chose to be massage therapists or to not work when their kids were born) I also know people who made different choices from us (law school) and now have more. Yes, we are responsible for those choices, those of us who are given them.
3
The scrambling of people defend the top 20% as somehow hard done by or making great sacrifices only demonstrates the authors point.
People say "Well I paid my $30k for an elite school fair and square and I had to give up things to do it." Imagine a land, Equalia, where all children received the same quality education. However, not all is perfect. There is corruption. For a bribe of 30k, you can go to an elite, illegal school, segregated from the masses.
The only difference between paying a bribe in Equalia and paying tuition in America, is that in America, it is legal to pay for segregation.
If you truly believe you are a hardworking, non privileged 20%er. Then go to your local government and propose that your children get merged into a funding district with everyone else. And watch the screaming begin.
If you have a combined household income of 200k, your choices are about what luxuries you want. Private education, a very nice location, many fine holidays, etc etc.Yes you can't have it all.
BUT... these are luxuries! They do not change the fact. You are privileged and never have to worry about food, education or medical insecurity or live paycheck to paycheck and if things go wrong you can pay for a good laywer..
People say "Well I paid my $30k for an elite school fair and square and I had to give up things to do it." Imagine a land, Equalia, where all children received the same quality education. However, not all is perfect. There is corruption. For a bribe of 30k, you can go to an elite, illegal school, segregated from the masses.
The only difference between paying a bribe in Equalia and paying tuition in America, is that in America, it is legal to pay for segregation.
If you truly believe you are a hardworking, non privileged 20%er. Then go to your local government and propose that your children get merged into a funding district with everyone else. And watch the screaming begin.
If you have a combined household income of 200k, your choices are about what luxuries you want. Private education, a very nice location, many fine holidays, etc etc.Yes you can't have it all.
BUT... these are luxuries! They do not change the fact. You are privileged and never have to worry about food, education or medical insecurity or live paycheck to paycheck and if things go wrong you can pay for a good laywer..
12
Excellent observation, Callum.
The issue you raise is even more profound if you break it down slightly differently by region. I would suggest that if you look at the top 50 SMSA markets in America and look at the the top 10%, they "control" most everything via their income.
2
Well said, friend.
To quote the sorely missed, late, great George Carlin "They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
10
A family making $200k or $400k a year in earned income has more in common with a family making $40k a year than it does a family in the 0.01%.
Stop creating a false equivalence that every family with a six figure income is "rich."
Stop creating a false equivalence that every family with a six figure income is "rich."
9
Yes. And making $200000 to $400000 per yeare means that you have more in common with the 1% than you do with a family on food stamps.
1
I am minority and successful and have risen in life I don't buy this. Hard work, frugality, good values and discipline pays off in the U.S. I faced lots of nasty jerks but refused to buy into negativity. I have worked incredibly hard all of my life, moved to cities where I didn't want to live when I had to, studied hard, overcame two job losses--one clearly due to prejudice and I persisted. I have been a disciplined saver, bought houses in sketchy neighborhoods that were improving and worked on them on the weekends. We don't consume things we don't need. I have risen from the uncertain income of my parent to a nice upper middle class life. I help my family and my church out. I know many others like me. This article is typical of the America bashing I read too often in the NYT.
12
Joe,
You are clearly an extraordinary guy. I applaud your fortitude, discipline and accomplishments. The challenge for our country is that most people are, frankly, more average than you. And if we want our country to benefit from the potential of those millions of average citizens, the system needs to promote success, not just allow it.
You are clearly an extraordinary guy. I applaud your fortitude, discipline and accomplishments. The challenge for our country is that most people are, frankly, more average than you. And if we want our country to benefit from the potential of those millions of average citizens, the system needs to promote success, not just allow it.
Thank you for this, Joe. It's crushing seeing NYT pin evil on those who've done well for themselves.
It is the *lack* of class consciousness in America that is depressing, and it *is* the top 0.1 percent that is responsible for inequality. The top quintile do not get their desires crafted into legislation, the top 0.1 percent do.
Somehow it's not surprising to see an article in the Times these days trying to convince the readership that things are otherwise. The studied ignorance of the Democratic party, and that of their paper, with regard to class conflict issues is why so many are abandoning both of them....
Somehow it's not surprising to see an article in the Times these days trying to convince the readership that things are otherwise. The studied ignorance of the Democratic party, and that of their paper, with regard to class conflict issues is why so many are abandoning both of them....
5
This bloke probably endorses the notion that reading to your children gives them an unfair advantage
7
Oh please, Mr Reeves, if you dislike America so much why don't take your American wife (assuming she consents) and your two teenage sons and move back to the "class conscious paradise" of Britain.
Britain, the joke of Europe, the country who voted itself out of a union that provided nothing but benefits, asking very little in return, a country whose head of state is still a queen and no I am not talking about queens the likes you may see in the Castro district of San Fransisco or the French Quarter of New Orleans, that would be totally awesome, but rather a queen who at the tender age of 91 still wears those ridiculous hats that look like they're upside down toilet seats and displaying not even a trace trace of being even a bit embarrassed about her privilege.
Mr Reeves, a Brit who went to Oxford and made it out of the hellhole, otherwise known as the British Isles and now has the audacity to complain about American Upper Middle Class Privilege...
Mr Reeves, you don't have credibility, please pick another topic...
Britain, the joke of Europe, the country who voted itself out of a union that provided nothing but benefits, asking very little in return, a country whose head of state is still a queen and no I am not talking about queens the likes you may see in the Castro district of San Fransisco or the French Quarter of New Orleans, that would be totally awesome, but rather a queen who at the tender age of 91 still wears those ridiculous hats that look like they're upside down toilet seats and displaying not even a trace trace of being even a bit embarrassed about her privilege.
Mr Reeves, a Brit who went to Oxford and made it out of the hellhole, otherwise known as the British Isles and now has the audacity to complain about American Upper Middle Class Privilege...
Mr Reeves, you don't have credibility, please pick another topic...
4
Seems to me, John, that you haven't answered a single one of Mr. Reeves substantial points. Is personal put-downs all you've got? If I were the author, my response to your comment would be, "I rest my case."
Spot on! I come from a large family. We were all fortunate to have an excellent education in public school and gained admission to private colleges and universities (some in the Ivy League). After college, we all went on to productive lives in the middle class. Some of my siblings earn well in excess of $200,000 annually and some, due to the carer choices they have made, fall far short of that mark.
I have noticed that my wealthier siblings believe that their success is due primarily to their intelligence and hard work while those earning less have a more nuanced view of their lives, tending to give more credit for their achievements to the good fortune they had by being born into a supportive and loving family.
I believe that our society tacitly encourages those in the upper income brackets to believe that they are smarter, work harder and are somehow more virtuous than their fellows. Mr. Reeves' article does a good job of identifying the reasons why.
I have noticed that my wealthier siblings believe that their success is due primarily to their intelligence and hard work while those earning less have a more nuanced view of their lives, tending to give more credit for their achievements to the good fortune they had by being born into a supportive and loving family.
I believe that our society tacitly encourages those in the upper income brackets to believe that they are smarter, work harder and are somehow more virtuous than their fellows. Mr. Reeves' article does a good job of identifying the reasons why.
16
I've had this argument with my racist, republican father many times. He is incensed with the crime and poverty "and laziness" of inner city blacks which he thinks are the reason why his taxes are so high. (Ok, there are many arguments I have with him, but I'll keep this on topic).
What incenses me is that he lacks the willingness to spend any time thinking about how his life would have been different had he been born in these circumstances. He assumes he would have risen just the same as he did, regardless. Because of his merit.
A child has no baseline of comparison. His initial environment is what he internalizes as normal. If you are shown you are worthy of good schools, little league games, unquestioned security, attention and encouragement, and a clear path to a happy and financially secure life, that's your baseline of life expectation. It affects everything that comes next.
My brothers think the same way my father does. Perhaps, because I'm the only gay member of the family, I've known how even small, indirect, and infrequent messages heard while growing up about how people like me were viewed by society that I posses the empathy to know how the constant, direct and inescapable messages of worthlessness sent to young black children in the inner city are likely enough to crush any hope.
Yes, our laws and tax structures (especially school funding) are complicit in our class divisions, but our true failing is a lack of empathy.
What incenses me is that he lacks the willingness to spend any time thinking about how his life would have been different had he been born in these circumstances. He assumes he would have risen just the same as he did, regardless. Because of his merit.
A child has no baseline of comparison. His initial environment is what he internalizes as normal. If you are shown you are worthy of good schools, little league games, unquestioned security, attention and encouragement, and a clear path to a happy and financially secure life, that's your baseline of life expectation. It affects everything that comes next.
My brothers think the same way my father does. Perhaps, because I'm the only gay member of the family, I've known how even small, indirect, and infrequent messages heard while growing up about how people like me were viewed by society that I posses the empathy to know how the constant, direct and inescapable messages of worthlessness sent to young black children in the inner city are likely enough to crush any hope.
Yes, our laws and tax structures (especially school funding) are complicit in our class divisions, but our true failing is a lack of empathy.
25
You'll be a delight to have around the house on Father's Day.
Well, just how much do Americans earn, and how many earn what amount?
https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2015
https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2015
Facts are always good. But beware of equating wages with wealth.
Tom Farrell: Yes, I am aware that there is a difference between wealth and wages. But thanks for the post, because it will remind readers that the data in the table are wages and not wealth.
@Tom - Facts about wealth are largely unavailable. People file an income tax return every year, so the IRS can compile statistics, but wealth numbers are just a guess.
The real issue here is that people overspend. Let's face it. They treat an increase in pay as an invitation to take on higher debt or get a bigger house or nicer car. Kids have to have their own rooms or they will be scarred for life. Multiple cars of newer vintage are a must. Multiple paid activities for the kids. Having an address in an affluent neighborhood trumps buying a larger home in a nice area without the fancy label. It's all about appearances.
All of this adds up quickly and people complain that they have it rough because they can't pay as if all of those things they spend on are necessaries. They aren't. The whole idea of having a budget and saying no doesn't seem to enter the picture at all. Everything comes down to choices. Anyone earning $200k that has problems covering their necessaries every month has a spending/priority issue. It's certainly not a matter of not having enough money because there are plenty of us that earn a whole lot less than don't have these problems.
All of this adds up quickly and people complain that they have it rough because they can't pay as if all of those things they spend on are necessaries. They aren't. The whole idea of having a budget and saying no doesn't seem to enter the picture at all. Everything comes down to choices. Anyone earning $200k that has problems covering their necessaries every month has a spending/priority issue. It's certainly not a matter of not having enough money because there are plenty of us that earn a whole lot less than don't have these problems.
12
Permit contempt for the author's view
He is tilting at windmills, Don Quixote also virtue signaled, Reeves' Brookings bio, deep Brit, worth a read, Tocqueville got US better
If mobility is zero but we all get richer, why do I care that some ELSE got richer, and if my increase is x% and yours is 2x%, oh the horror the horror, who would go back to 1950 or 1980
Best to not compare, live your own life, always someone richer to envy and despise
Spare me skin color, our country is filled with poor white trash currently in suicide mode, coincident with Mr Obama's eight years
Spare me inherited wealth, our country is filled with LEGAL immigrants, came with nothing and prevailed, on their own or one or two generations
Spare me the tax code's inequity, the poor got THEIR tax breaks when the tax tables were set up, they got to walk away from the table, the rest eat what we are served
Spare me redistribution, it is theft following envy, confiscation disguised as moral preening, theft only works when the thieves leave some money behind, like seed corn, to grow more
=
MY luck was a mensa IQ, in your face belligerence (genetics) (random), consumerist constipation, a great GF, bill paying probity, giving me 800 credit scores, (learned) and no medical catastrophes, dad died young, mom a school teacher, most of this is available to all,
I renovated two apts lately, my contractors make $1000/ day, diligence and some cultivated manual skills
as the many letter writers say at length
He is tilting at windmills, Don Quixote also virtue signaled, Reeves' Brookings bio, deep Brit, worth a read, Tocqueville got US better
If mobility is zero but we all get richer, why do I care that some ELSE got richer, and if my increase is x% and yours is 2x%, oh the horror the horror, who would go back to 1950 or 1980
Best to not compare, live your own life, always someone richer to envy and despise
Spare me skin color, our country is filled with poor white trash currently in suicide mode, coincident with Mr Obama's eight years
Spare me inherited wealth, our country is filled with LEGAL immigrants, came with nothing and prevailed, on their own or one or two generations
Spare me the tax code's inequity, the poor got THEIR tax breaks when the tax tables were set up, they got to walk away from the table, the rest eat what we are served
Spare me redistribution, it is theft following envy, confiscation disguised as moral preening, theft only works when the thieves leave some money behind, like seed corn, to grow more
=
MY luck was a mensa IQ, in your face belligerence (genetics) (random), consumerist constipation, a great GF, bill paying probity, giving me 800 credit scores, (learned) and no medical catastrophes, dad died young, mom a school teacher, most of this is available to all,
I renovated two apts lately, my contractors make $1000/ day, diligence and some cultivated manual skills
as the many letter writers say at length
3
Missing from the American discourse is "how much is enough?"...an issue that even Bernie won't raise in a straightforward way.
This is shameful. How is classifying people by their income different from discriminating people by the color of their skin?
2
One difference is that the income-based classification yields a more racially diverse class of privilege.
1
This is a clever trick that Richard Reeves pulls, when he states:
"Collectively, this top fifth has seen a $4 trillion plus increase in pretax income since 1979, compared to just over $3 trillion for everyone else. Some of those gains went to the top 1 percent. But most went to the 19 percent just beneath them."
By saying that "most" of this money went to 19 percent of the population versus "some" of it going to the top 1 percent Reeves wants you to think this means that more money went to each of the people in the 19 percent. Look at what he's saying however. Of course more money went to 19 percent than 1 percent, it's a larger group.
If you look at gains in terms of percentage, people in the top 1 percent have had increases of nearly 200 percent, whereas those in the highest 5 percent have had gains of around 50%. And the gains at the top mean that we're talking increases of tens of millions and more.
A 200% increase in the income of someone already making tens of millions involves a *lot* of money. If it's not quite as much as the combined increase for a vastly larger group just below it, that should surprise no one, despite the fact that Reeves tries to use it to deflect attention from the 1% having made such astronomically huge gains at the expense of everyone else.
Paul Krugman has been debunking this sort of thing for years:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/why-we-talk-about-the-one-p...
"Collectively, this top fifth has seen a $4 trillion plus increase in pretax income since 1979, compared to just over $3 trillion for everyone else. Some of those gains went to the top 1 percent. But most went to the 19 percent just beneath them."
By saying that "most" of this money went to 19 percent of the population versus "some" of it going to the top 1 percent Reeves wants you to think this means that more money went to each of the people in the 19 percent. Look at what he's saying however. Of course more money went to 19 percent than 1 percent, it's a larger group.
If you look at gains in terms of percentage, people in the top 1 percent have had increases of nearly 200 percent, whereas those in the highest 5 percent have had gains of around 50%. And the gains at the top mean that we're talking increases of tens of millions and more.
A 200% increase in the income of someone already making tens of millions involves a *lot* of money. If it's not quite as much as the combined increase for a vastly larger group just below it, that should surprise no one, despite the fact that Reeves tries to use it to deflect attention from the 1% having made such astronomically huge gains at the expense of everyone else.
Paul Krugman has been debunking this sort of thing for years:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/why-we-talk-about-the-one-p...
10
Bravo for calling people out. I have a brother-in-law worth millions that still calls himself "middle class."
5
This is why a strong public education system, through college, is needed. Many of my generation, from working-class backgrounds, were fortunate to be able to attend tuition-free colleges and rise to the professional class. Now we are told this is no longer possible, which is ridiculous. It's a question of where we put our priorities. And it's a vicious circle: the less well educated the population is the more likely they are to vote against their own interests.
7
The thing you are forgetting is that in Britain, no matter what you accomplish or how successful you are, you will never be accepted if you are from the wrong class. And if you are from the upper class, even if you are a total twit, you are seen as superior. In America we have different classes, every country does, but the difference is that we are not obsessed by class as the British are. Here it is possible to rise from one class to another. You simply cannot do that in Britain. Case closed.
413
Britain is no longer Downton Abbey. There are plenty of examples of successful British entrepreneurs from working class backgrounds who would beg to differ with your outdated characterization. Also perhaps a certain Kate Middleton, a commoner who will one day be queen.
7
Unfortunately, a recent study by Michael D. Carr and Emily E. Wiemers, two economists at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, indicates that from the 1980s to the 2000s, it became less possible that a worker could "rise from one class to another".
3
I am married to a Brit from Birmingham. I can tell you JMartin that you are absolutely spot on. My husband came here from a working class background and went to University in Bristol. He has been very successful in America due to the doors that have been opened to him. Now is a CEO of a branch of a major corporation in the Airline Industry. He would have not been afforded these opportunities in the UK.
1
As one of the few liberal intellectuals that reads the New York Times who is NOT a member of the top 20% (My wife and I made a combined 55.000 last year) I have to say that I find the reactions of the other commenters to be quite comical.
You have described the problem with affluent American liberals perfectly. Unfortunately, no one likes self-examination. Not even NYT readers.
You have described the problem with affluent American liberals perfectly. Unfortunately, no one likes self-examination. Not even NYT readers.
91
I agree. The Protestant work ethic is part of our culture, which allies material success with being rewarded for being a good person. Thanks to a tax system which distorts democratic opportunity, as the author points out, we are witnessing the caricature of work ethic. We assuage our numbness to the plight of the poor (and let's not call them ''less fortunate or underserved,") by attending charity functions at which we compete for expensive vacation packages, followed by the falsely joyful testimony of the charity's recipients. I have watched the calcification of our societal strata with sadness. We are a young country and its tragic our move towards European-style class distinctions. The abolition of the inheritance tax will make it worse.
5
Well stated!
Tommyrot. As a five percenter, I would point out that my husband and I worked for everything we have. No one gave us anything. Should we feel guilty for saving money (forgoing flashy cars and posh travel), buying a horrible fixer of a house the writer would probably wince at, then selling to buy a slightly better house, and then moving on to another fixer we could slowly remodel? We worked our way into a nice neighborhood. It took a long time, careful planning, and discipline. Should we feel guilty? No. Do we feel entitled? No. Are we proud of having accomplished this? Yes. Is that wrong? No.
It's true that the US is not purely a meritocracy, but then no place is. It does come pretty close, though. Perhaps if the writer knew more achievers who came from the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder -- especially immigrants from deeply classist societies like India -- he would see that we are a nation that rewards intelligence and hard work.
Brits tend to bring their class obsessions stateside, and it's often those from the lower rungs who are the most serious (and comical). I used to live next to an ex-pat British couple who were doing the whole to-the-manor-born thing on their rural property. Their children "rode"( English saddle, 'natch), their car was a vintage Jaguar (said with a long U, of course), they wore Wellies and equestrian gillets all the time, their dogs were never dogs but "the setters." Their accents? strictly, painfully provincial. Even when sober.
It's true that the US is not purely a meritocracy, but then no place is. It does come pretty close, though. Perhaps if the writer knew more achievers who came from the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder -- especially immigrants from deeply classist societies like India -- he would see that we are a nation that rewards intelligence and hard work.
Brits tend to bring their class obsessions stateside, and it's often those from the lower rungs who are the most serious (and comical). I used to live next to an ex-pat British couple who were doing the whole to-the-manor-born thing on their rural property. Their children "rode"( English saddle, 'natch), their car was a vintage Jaguar (said with a long U, of course), they wore Wellies and equestrian gillets all the time, their dogs were never dogs but "the setters." Their accents? strictly, painfully provincial. Even when sober.
4
I think you just proved his point.
Donald Trump made me a better person.
Really.
As an upper-income conservative, I viewed success to be simply a factor of hard work, smart life choices, and education. By definition, therefore, lower income people must have been lacking these positive traits. I didn't necessarily look down on them, but also didn't feel any connection to or responsibility for them either - their lives, their faults, their responsibility to change.
As Trump talked about the American carnage wrought by globalization, I began to see the “losers” in boarded up mill towns and inner cities differently. I realized that many had lost their jobs, security, and even dignity, because the shareholder class chose to increase their profits by offshoring production or importing cheap labor. Profits also increased by enabling companies to avoid environmental and worker safety regulations in the U.S. I realized that for every American that won through globalization, two lost.
We have two distinctly different paths forward. Either we can level the playing field for our workers with pollution surcharges and worker safety surcharges on imported goods, and limit low-skilled immigration. (We can also stop subsidizing the global security system with our tax dollars.) Or we can go “full Bernie”, raising taxes very significantly on the top 10-20% of society.
I prefer the first approach, but can increasing live with the second.
Really.
As an upper-income conservative, I viewed success to be simply a factor of hard work, smart life choices, and education. By definition, therefore, lower income people must have been lacking these positive traits. I didn't necessarily look down on them, but also didn't feel any connection to or responsibility for them either - their lives, their faults, their responsibility to change.
As Trump talked about the American carnage wrought by globalization, I began to see the “losers” in boarded up mill towns and inner cities differently. I realized that many had lost their jobs, security, and even dignity, because the shareholder class chose to increase their profits by offshoring production or importing cheap labor. Profits also increased by enabling companies to avoid environmental and worker safety regulations in the U.S. I realized that for every American that won through globalization, two lost.
We have two distinctly different paths forward. Either we can level the playing field for our workers with pollution surcharges and worker safety surcharges on imported goods, and limit low-skilled immigration. (We can also stop subsidizing the global security system with our tax dollars.) Or we can go “full Bernie”, raising taxes very significantly on the top 10-20% of society.
I prefer the first approach, but can increasing live with the second.
12
You know that full Bernie approach brought incredible prosperity to this country when the tax brackets went up to ninety percent. And it didn't bring about the destruction of the upper income either. Not was it job killing.
1
I am wondering what Mr. Reeves' Oxford education cost his parents. Unlike Britain, we now have to pay big bucks to educate our children. If there is economic anxiety among the top 20%, and believe me, below the top 5 or 6%, there is, it is related to this.
I would also like to point about that the same group of people pay a big chunk of the taxes in this country. The poor can't and the really rich don't.
So, for those of us, like me, who started in the middle and have arrived in the "top quintile" through our own hard work and determination, the idea that we don't want to give up what we've earned is pretty obnoxious since we have indeed worked bloody hard to get here and are paying our fair share and always have been.
But I and most of my friends and neighbors want much more opportunity for our own kids, and everyone else's, like the opportunity that I had in the 1970's to get here. I know that I wouldn't be here if the Federal Government hadn't had a generous student loan program that allowed me to graduate with minimal student loans that even as a graduate in the arts, I could handle. College costs back then were such that I could handle them, too.
This is only one of many economic anxieties (healthcare costs, vanished pensions, preschool costs, elder care, etc.) that pervade the American consciousness. Seems pretty unfair to pretend these don't exist.
Last note: will your own kids go to college in the U.K.?
I would also like to point about that the same group of people pay a big chunk of the taxes in this country. The poor can't and the really rich don't.
So, for those of us, like me, who started in the middle and have arrived in the "top quintile" through our own hard work and determination, the idea that we don't want to give up what we've earned is pretty obnoxious since we have indeed worked bloody hard to get here and are paying our fair share and always have been.
But I and most of my friends and neighbors want much more opportunity for our own kids, and everyone else's, like the opportunity that I had in the 1970's to get here. I know that I wouldn't be here if the Federal Government hadn't had a generous student loan program that allowed me to graduate with minimal student loans that even as a graduate in the arts, I could handle. College costs back then were such that I could handle them, too.
This is only one of many economic anxieties (healthcare costs, vanished pensions, preschool costs, elder care, etc.) that pervade the American consciousness. Seems pretty unfair to pretend these don't exist.
Last note: will your own kids go to college in the U.K.?
8
People in the other quintiles work bloody hard too. And those government programs you speak of? They were paid for with tax dollars that are now going to tax breaks to the top 5 or 6%. You didn't get where you are in your own. You wouldn't have to worry about all the things you talk about, if your kids were granted the same government funded opportunities that you were. And the reason they aren't is because all anyone in this country cared about is lower taxes. It isn't free to be a land of opportunity.
1
Fine article covering similar ground to Charles Murray's book "Coming Apart". On one issue the author raises is somewhat misleading however. The top 1% are about 3 million people. A $3 trillion increase in income distributed among them is about $1 million per head. The top 20% get $4 trillion among the 60 million of them, about $67 thousand per, lots of money but chump change to the top 1%. You can't even buy a senator for that.
6
We are not at 200k, but do have a yearly income of $150,000. We are part of the "meritocracy." I put myself through college and graduate school (my parents could not help). When we were younger, we had just one car, even though we live in an area that has little public transportation. We were frugal and careful. We refinanced our mortgages multiple times. We saved. My spouse worked his way up from a pr position to being the head of an agency. We now have a million in cash, in retirement accounts. We earned it, and deserve it.
8
Why so defensive? Don't others also deserve a chance? Do you have any idea what college costs these days? I was mostly able to put myself through a state school too, being honorably poor, by working at waitressing jobs full time in the summer and part time during year. That is literally not possible these days. State schools cost close to $30, 000 a year! Private schools can cost $70,000. a year. You just don't make that money working as a young person, even today. I was a ward of the state and when Ronald Regan and his idiotic trickle down economics became the law, my grants became loans. The $5000. loan I had to take out became over $13,000 by the time I had pay it back (high interest rates), and we were not able to buy a house until we were in our fifties because we did have the down payment or family support due to loan repayments. Not having a government that supports its people makes a real difference in the lives of its citizens. It's not about being frugal. It's about not robbing the next generation to benefit millionaires.
1
A superlative article. Louis CK put it perfectly recently on Saturday Night Live when he acknowledged and decried the presence of rich and white privilege for himself and others but also said "as long as it's here, I want my share."
The top 1% exist only because they share the spoils with their enablers, the next 19% who do all the work - lawyers, administrators, government officials, politicians, police, etc. - of maintaining the current stratified social economic structure in place.
One key "incentive" for the 19% is the abyss: looking down from their perch into lower and poverty stricken classes. With no safety net in place for medical care or decent wages, the enablers have to keep moving forward and supporting the current structure so as to not fall back down themselves. Or have their children fall down and not be able to get back up. This affects all members of the top 1% and 19% - none escape it's controlling.
It's the abyss that is really in charge of the nation's future. How can we allow an economic construct that is only in our minds control everything? Since it's just a mental construct, we can change this and people like Bernie Sanders are leading the way to a more humane future and less dog eat dog. Even the top 20% might like that future.
The top 1% exist only because they share the spoils with their enablers, the next 19% who do all the work - lawyers, administrators, government officials, politicians, police, etc. - of maintaining the current stratified social economic structure in place.
One key "incentive" for the 19% is the abyss: looking down from their perch into lower and poverty stricken classes. With no safety net in place for medical care or decent wages, the enablers have to keep moving forward and supporting the current structure so as to not fall back down themselves. Or have their children fall down and not be able to get back up. This affects all members of the top 1% and 19% - none escape it's controlling.
It's the abyss that is really in charge of the nation's future. How can we allow an economic construct that is only in our minds control everything? Since it's just a mental construct, we can change this and people like Bernie Sanders are leading the way to a more humane future and less dog eat dog. Even the top 20% might like that future.
11
Quite amusing to see the defensive upper middle class retorts. Let's face it, the typical NYT reader is well to do, willing to share other people's money (the hated billionaires) while they continue to enjoy privileged lives while the rest of us rot in crummy neighborhoods, jobs and schools.
11