More Economy

From the very end of David Leonhardt's article yesterday:

The median household earned $48,201 in 2006, down from $49,244 in 1999, according to the Census Bureau. It now looks as if a full decade may pass before most Americans receive a raise.

That's pretty striking stuff. And of course since the economy never really re-reached its 1999 peak before the current downturn, there's really no particular reason to think that median household earnings will top $48,000 by 2009. For much of this period, steadily rising housing prices would have kept more people accruing wealth, but at a minimum it seems likely that values will stagnate for a while now as we wait for inventory to get sold off.

Comments

For much of this period, steadily rising housing prices would have kept more people accruing wealth,

You keep using that word "wealth". I do not think it means what you think it does.

Raising house prices allowed people to take on more debt by extracting equity. It is in no way made them wealthier. The only way you made money from a house was to sell it and not invest it back into a house, or else invest it in a house in a cheaper market (e.g. California equity locusts). In other words, you had to cash out and walk away from the table.

Perhaps you are talking about all the speculation and flipping that went on in the housing market. But if that is what you are talking about, the banking collapse is killing that dead. And if we know what is good for ourselves as a society, we will make damn sure that it never comes back.

Posted by Walker | March 9, 2008 12:48 PM

Well, given my own predictions on the current economic situation, I'd say that this might turn out to be an ultra-optimistic analysis...

Posted by RKU | March 9, 2008 12:49 PM

And that's just nominal dollars. $49,000 in 1999 dollars is worth about $62,000 today after inflation.

Posted by phil | March 9, 2008 12:50 PM

"And of course since the economy never really re-reached its 1999 peak before the current downturn"

U.S. GDP in 1999: $9.255 trillion

U.S. GDP in 2007: $13.86 trillion

Posted by Fred | March 9, 2008 12:53 PM

It's only the beginning of falling incomes as labor arbitrage continues to favor Asia at the expense of higher paid American and European workers.

Then there's the looming entitlement crisis, the exploding U.S. debt, balance of payments deficit, rising commodity prices, etc.

More borrowing has insulated America from what otherwise would have been a declining standard of living but that game is over.

Posted by kafka | March 9, 2008 12:57 PM

U.S. GDP in 1999: $9.255 trillion

U.S. GDP in 2007: $13.86 trillion

Translation: let them eat cake!

Posted by Mr. Noah | March 9, 2008 1:01 PM

BTW, the per-capita numbers are another example of why the Bush-McCain-Kennedy policy of massive unskilled immigration is a lousy idea for the GOP (not to mention being bad for the country as well). If you import 5-10 million or more poor people with 4th grade educations over 8 years, this will invariably put downward pressure on stats such as average income.

Posted by Fred | March 9, 2008 1:02 PM

Perhaps a solution to the unsold housing inventory issue, especially for house-building companies: Hire the ELF to torch your excess houses. Collect the insurance (which puts you in a far better position than having all that capital just sitting there). And it would even work if you are looking to move, but can't sell your home -- just be careful to get all the critical family keepsakes out first.

Everybody wins! (Well, except the house insurance people.)

Posted by wondering | March 9, 2008 1:24 PM

U.S. GDP in 1999: $9.255 trillion

U.S. GDP in 2007: $13.86 trillion

I often wonder: how much of the right-wing is made up of liars, and how much is made up of incredible morons?

I'm pleased to see we've learned the answer, re Fred at least, is "incredible moron."

Posted by 23456 | March 9, 2008 1:35 PM

"Everybody wins! (Well, except the house insurance people.)"

Unfortunately, anyone who has to buy insurance on their homes gets f#*ked, too. I already received a notice from my insurance company that they have requested from the state insurance commissioner to increase insurance premiums up to 25% to cover for payouts in other markets.

Posted by CParis | March 9, 2008 1:51 PM

Maybe if you looked at median real wages rather than household income, you'd see that there is a more complex dynamic at play than just "the Bush administration is screwing the poor".

And that's just nominal dollars. $49,000 in 1999 dollars is worth about $62,000 today after inflation.

The data Leonhardt is using is in real dollars, so you're incorrect.

Posted by right | March 9, 2008 1:54 PM

the state insurance commissioner to increase insurance premiums up to 25% to cover for payouts in other markets.

The main reason Florida moved up its primary was the hope candidates would pander to Florida voters looking for insurance relief; I guess they want Federal subsidies. Hey, it worked for Iowa corn farmers. I think only Rudy took the bait.

Posted by Mike | March 9, 2008 1:59 PM

Re: It's only the beginning of falling incomes as labor arbitrage continues to favor Asia at the expense of higher paid American and European workers.

Outside of manufacturing (where jobs were waning regardless due to increasing automation) it's mainly been lower paid workers who have taken the hit from foreign competition. Higher paid Americans have been largely insulated from the effects of foreign competition.

Re: Then there's the looming entitlement crisis

If you mean healthcare, yep, that needs to be fixed. But Social Security is not a "crisis", looming or otherwise. There is lontgterm funding problem, but it's well within the realm of fixibility.

Re: More borrowing has insulated America from what otherwise would have been a declining standard of living but that game is over.

Even without the debt increase our standard of living would have increased due to technological innovation and higher productivity. Not as much, but we would still be living better than our parents did.

Posted by JonF | March 9, 2008 2:45 PM

"U.S. GDP in 1999: $9.255 trillion

U.S. GDP in 2007: $13.86 trillion"

Someday, Americans will understand math enough to grasp the difference between median and mean (I learned it in 9th grade). Yes, the real mean household GDP went up, but the real median household income went down. The only way this can happen is that the gains to our economy benefited the upper half of the population far more than it benefited the lower half. Liberals have been saying this for years, and mathematics confirms it. We were already pretty far from a normal distribution of income before Bush took office, and now we are even further from it.

Posted by fostert | March 9, 2008 2:47 PM

And don't forget, this is household earnings-- nowadays, typical households have two wage earners. I'd be curious about how the proportion of one-earner vs. two-earner households has varied over the past 10 to 15 years. My guess would be that it reached a more-or-less steady number at the end of the Clinton administration and has held steady through the Bush years.

Posted by MattF | March 9, 2008 2:48 PM

Someday, Americans will understand math enough to grasp the difference between median and mean

Yes, but I think we can guarantee Fred never will, at least as long as not knowing helps the Republican cause.

Posted by 23456 | March 9, 2008 3:04 PM

Hasn't the median household size also decreased between 1999 and today? It went from 2.63 in 1990 to 2.48 in 2000, and I'd assume the decline continued. (You'd think that median household size would be a whole number, but apparently not)As right pointed out above, the statistic to watch is median inflation-adjusted income.

Also, 1999 wages make a particularly bad benchmark. The tulips still hasn't returned to its 1637 value either. If you demand results comparable to the peak of a bubble, you will always end up disappionted. In this case, I think Matt was aiming for hat result.

Posted by heedless | March 9, 2008 3:07 PM

"Hasn't the median household size also decreased between 1999 and today?"

It sure has, but that's because people can't afford to have as many children and there are more single parent households. Neither of these is really good for the economy. If that's the Republican defense for falling median household earnings, I'll be glad to have that argument.

As for 1999 being a bad year for comparison, this has some (but very little) merit. As the math shows, median household income wasn't exactly boosted by the bubble. The bubble caused upper income people to have inflated earnings, but the median and lower people still got pretty much the same wages. The boost in earnings during the 1999 bubble was due mostly to stocks going up, not wages. The benefits of a rising economy were already mostly going to those with higher incomes in 1999, it's just more so now.

Posted by fostert | March 9, 2008 3:22 PM

You will see a great deal of three card monte from the reactionaries about the finances of the country. The vast majority of Americans are worse off today than they were in 1999. A few people are much better off. This is true if you compare wages, the value of assets, the debt load, savings or any other measure of wealth. When you add that it takes more hours to earn less to keep fed and housed, the picture seems bleak indeed. When you further add that we are losing jobs while our population increases, that the dollar is declining in value relative to itself (inflation) and other commodities (oil, euros) as well as the fact that if you get sick you will pay more of the burden yourself, things seem out of control. Oh, premium gas in the district of columbia today: $3.49. These stories are going to be everywhere soon. In addition, the gurus in the financial markets wish they were only as bad off as the typical American in the below median half of the graph. Take a look at the first 5 articles from today's NYT Business section.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | March 9, 2008 3:22 PM

I assume, but the article didn't say, that the income numbers are in constant dollars. In which case there is no reason to assume median household income will ever again reach the 1999 number, ever.

Labor arbitrage, meet capital arbitrage. The means of production and the knowledge of how to produce are no longer American or even Western. So too has private ownership become the world model.

The world doesn't need America anymore. The last great gasp of American ingenuity was Wall Streets production and sale of crappy credit instruments all dressed up as AAA which in turn inflated all our financial assets and real estate. Now that is all deflating and with it so will our 'wealth' and incomes. (Much of the income growth of the 90s and 00's was related to cashing out some of the value of our inflated assets.) Never again to reach the peak because that peak, very importantly, was relative to dollars.

Posted by rapier | March 9, 2008 3:33 PM

Here is a priceless look at the old and now discredited defenders of the status quo dispensing one last drink of koolaid before passing into oblivion.

(Excuse the source. The execrable Kudlow)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o&eurl=http://www.capitalstool.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8859&st=25

Posted by rapier | March 9, 2008 3:44 PM

"Take a look at the first 5 articles from today's NYT Business section."

Thanks, I loved the "Hotel California" article. But "gurus?" They may be considered gurus in their field, but they obviously outsmarted themselves. Shortly after Bush was elected, there were simple, safe and prosperous investments to be made: gold (and other precious metals), oil (and gas), and foreign currencies. I made those investments, so am I some kind of guru? Certainly not. I could just see the writing on the wall, written in fire engine red, with letters ten feet tall. With Texas oilmen in control, oil was certainly going up. With fiscally irresponsible people in control, the dollar was sure to fall, and gold and foreign currencies were sure to rise. It worked for me: my assets are based in things that increase in value, while my only liability (fixed rate mortgage) is based in something that's losing value. But I have enough money to make serious investments, most Americans don't have this luxury and they are getting squeezed. And I think that's really the point of the Bush plan.

Posted by fostert | March 9, 2008 3:49 PM

Re: The only way this can happen is that the gains to our economy benefited the upper half of the population far more than it benefited the lower half.

Not quite true. Another way this can ahppen is if the number of households increases while the average size of houesholds decreases. One household with two wageearners counts produces a higher median than does two housholds of one wageearner even if the wageearners are making the same exact wage.

Re: The benefits of a rising economy were already mostly going to those with higher incomes in 1999, it's just more so now.

Not sure that's entirely true. In the late 90s you had an awful lot of IT consultants cahsing in on the Y2K panic and raking in big salaries as businesses were pretty willing to pay whatever was asked in exchange for getting the (potential) problem fixed.

Re: The vast majority of Americans are worse off today than they were in 1999.

I am certainly not a reactionary, but I have a hard time with that statement because it's true neither of myself nor of most people I know. In 1999 my gross income was 45K. Last year it was 74K. That decidedly beats inflation. Most people I know have not done that well, but they are pretty much even from where they were a decade ago, just keeping up. In cases where they are doing significantly worse there is a major life event that has caused that: disability, divorce, retirement.

Re: In which case there is no reason to assume median household income will ever again reach the 1999 number, ever.

Words like "never" and "ever" should be used very sparingly, and certainly not in regards to something as random as long term economic trends. I can easily imagine people in 1991 wringing their hands about how workers would never see the pay they once had in, say, 1988.

Posted by JonF | March 9, 2008 4:30 PM

JonF: the reactionaries are not those who will tell you that you are better off nor are they those, who like you, are better off. It is instead those who will they to tell you that because GDP grew, the economy is good, or some other non-relevant factoid. BTW, if your household income is 74,000, then you are doing quite well. If someone else in your household makes 50,000, you are wealthy. If you are well off or wealthy, it is likely that your acquaintances are too. Congratulations.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | March 9, 2008 5:29 PM

"Another way this can ahppen is if the number of households increases while the average size of houesholds decreases."

As I've said before, the decrease in the size of households is not really a positive indicator. Nor is the increase in population and divorce that causes the increase in the number of households. I don't think the decrease household size actually explains the decrease in median household income, but even if it did, it would still be bad.

"In the late 90s you had an awful lot of IT consultants cahsing in on the Y2K panic and raking in big salaries as businesses were pretty willing to pay whatever was asked in exchange for getting the (potential) problem fixed."

You're making my argument for me. Those IT consultants were already in the upper half. That their earnings went up didn't really affect the lower classes, did it? Look, those of us who are reasonably well educated can make money whether the economy is going up or down. I considered cashing in on my Fortran knowledge during the Y2K opportunity. I just had better ways to make money. But other people did cash in. But they were already the ones were were doing fine. In a crisis, the people who already have extensive skills are the ones who will win. And they did. But how did the rest of the people do?

Posted by fostert | March 9, 2008 5:34 PM

The median household earned $48,201 in 2006, down from $49,244 in 1999, according to the Census Bureau. It now looks as if a full decade may pass before most Americans receive a raise.

This seems fishy. Might it have something to do with the Demographic increase in retirees? Or the influx of foreign, low-wage workers?

Posted by Shinyk | March 9, 2008 5:35 PM

BTW, the per-capita numbers are another example of why the Bush-McCain-Kennedy policy of massive unskilled immigration is a lousy idea for the GOP

I see Fred already beat me to it on the low-wage immigrant point.

Posted by Shinyk | March 9, 2008 5:41 PM

Re: If someone else in your household makes 50,000, you are wealthy. If you are well off or wealthy, it is likely that your acquaintances are too. Congratulations.

My partner makes c. 35K. That does not make us "wealthy" (certainly not in a high cost of living area like S Florida) but it does boost us into the lower ranks of the upper middle class. However, few of my acquaintances or relatives are there. For one thing, gay people tend to have more varied social contacts than many other groups since we tend to bond on the basis of shared orientation not shared income or class.
I have friends living at home with parents they are so poor and others doing about as well as I am, and others somewhre in between. As for my family members they are all over the map. My step-sister is a tool-and-die maker, who has just kept up with inflation (but recently had her overtime cut). My step-mother is retired and as such is doing worse than she did when she was working; my step-brother went through an ugly divorce a few years back and works in a construction-related-- ouch.
All in all, I do not agree with either the (long-term) pollyanna picture of the economy peddled by the Right, since I do believe we have some serious issues with regard to equity and basic fairness and that too few people are enjoying the benefits of our rising productivity. But I also cannot buy into the "We're all doomed" shtick peddled by the Left either. We are somewhere in the middle, muddling through, and yes, we could and should do better but neither are we in an epochal calamity.

Re: Those IT consultants were already in the upper half.

That's absurd. Computer programmers (I used to be one) earn a modest middle-class income usually. Briefly some of them really cashed in, then bore the brunt of the 2000-01 tech bust.

Posted by JonF | March 9, 2008 5:50 PM

I'm not an economist, and even I know there is a lot of crappy analysis going on here, on both sides.

Other people are picking on Fred, so I will pick on Leonhardt/Matt: the Americans who were working in 1999 could have been getting real raises all along, provided there were enough new Americans entering the workforce at lower real wages to drive down the real median wage. For that matter, many Americans in the workforce and who were at or below the median in 1999 could have been getting real wage increases while people at or above the median were experiencing real wage cuts, and you could get this effect if the balance was right.

In other words, a systematic problem in these discussions is that people treat classes like the median household (or various percentiles, if you want to get more fine-grained) as cohorts, when in fact people are constantly moving between these classes, and indeed some people are exiting the workforce entirely while new people are arriving.

So, the upshot is that comparing something like the median household in 1999 to the median household in 2006 does not tell you much on its own, because those are not the same people in 2006 as in 1999.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 6:01 PM

My partner makes c. 35K. That does not make us "wealthy" (certainly not in a high cost of living area like S Florida) but it does boost us into the lower ranks of the upper middle class.

I know we use some fucked up class definitions in America but even by our standards I think the idea that $35k puts you anywhere in the ballpark of upper middle class is nuts.

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 9, 2008 6:04 PM

By the way, this is sorta a defense, and sorta not, of JonF.

During the period in which people are working, it is to be expected that on balance, the people they know will be gradually doing better and better. That is because presumably the people they know are roughly in the same age cohort, and as an age cohort is moving through its working years, that cohort as a whole tends to get more productive (through training, experience, and so on), and real compensation rises as a result. So, his anecdotal experience is probably pretty representative of what has been going on among most such age cohorts.

But conversely, JonF is likely going to have much less of a sense of how people who are like the way he was back in 1999 are doing now relative to how he was doing then, or similarly how people like he is now were doing back in 1999 relative to how he is doing now. So, his anecdotal experience is probably representative, but also not really on point if you aren't trying to track his specific cohort.

But again, it is not exactly JonF's fault he headed down this path, seeing as how Leonhardt and Matt made it sound like the data in question is reflecting what is going on among cohorts, when in fact it isn't.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 6:12 PM

So, the upshot is that comparing something like the median household in 1999 to the median household in 2006 does not tell you much on its own, because those are not the same people in 2006 as in 1999.

How, exactly, should the demographic phenomenon of "people...constantly moving between...classes" be quantified in order to make the model more statistically valid? Please advise.

Posted by James Gary | March 9, 2008 6:26 PM

James Gary,

I think it is important to note it isn't a question of the statistics in question being invalid. Rather, it is a question of how certain people are trying to interpret these statistics, and in general of what questions the statistics can answer, and trying to track how certain groups of people have been doing since 1999 simply isn't the sort of thing this kind of statistical information can address. But as previously noted I am not an economist, so I am the wrong person to ask for the nuts and bolts of how to design a model and/or study for that purpose.

That said, I know people do collect all sorts of cohort data about these matters, so if you were interested in tracking what has been happening to those households who were located around the median in 1999, I suspect it is possible. In fact, I suspect it has already been done in some form. So, my suggestion would be to start by seeing if someone had already done whatever it is you would like to see done, and if not then to ascertain what data is available and work from there.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 6:36 PM

Fostert,

"Someday, Americans will understand math enough to grasp the difference between median and mean (I learned it in 9th grade)."

After you're done patting yourself on your back, read what I wrote again, slowly if necessary. You can move your lips while you read if it helps:

"And of course since the economy never really re-reached its 1999 peak before the current downturn"

U.S. GDP in 1999: $9.255 trillion

U.S. GDP in 2007: $13.86 trillion

Now, did I say anything about median or mean income here? No. I gave figures for GDP (the "G" in "GDP" stands for "gross", not "mean" or "median"). All I did was refute Matt's false claim that the U.S. economy peaked in 1999.

As for your next couple of sentences:

"Yes, the real mean household GDP went up, but the real median household income went down. The only way this can happen is that the gains to our economy benefited the upper half of the population far more than it benefited the lower half."

The other way for this to happen is if you import more poor people by the millions, which is, of course, what we did.

Posted by Fred | March 9, 2008 6:46 PM

I know we use some fucked up class definitions in America but even by our standards I think the idea that $35k puts you anywhere in the ballpark of upper middle class is nuts. That would be 35k + 74k, Ed Marshall. Thats pretty darn good. JonF lives in a household at twice the median income. Fucked up or not, its upper middle class in America, in 2008. It may or may not be in 2009.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | March 9, 2008 8:01 PM

The delightful thing about morons like Fred is that, when called morons, they tend to dig themselves in deeper and deeper, making ever simpler and more moronic mistakes.

Posted by 23456 | March 9, 2008 8:20 PM

Fred- Actually, you implicitly did say something about mean income. The economy grew at a faster rate than population. And that means that mean income grew in the past 10 years. That was the reason you put that statistic up. You may have been too ignorant to understand the implications of what you were saying, but I usually assume people understand what they're saying. My bad. As for the peak, there really was a local peak in 1999. The economy has since outgrown that peak, which is what economies almost always do. Even when they are weak. To put in perspective, GPD grew faster under Carter than it has under the current administration. And the Carter years weren't so great.

As for the immigrant comment, yes, immigrating poor people means that there will be more poor people. But if our economy relies on immigrating poor people, that's not really a good thing is it? It still reflects a fundamental weakness in our economy. Trying to mask weakness in the economy with the fact that economy cannot afford to pay its own people is pretty damn, well, weak. And it still does not disprove the fact that the benefits of our economic growth fall on the already wealthy instead of the poor.

Posted by fostert | March 9, 2008 8:24 PM

Fostert,

"Fred- Actually, you implicitly did say something about mean income."

Wouldn't it have been easier to admit you were wrong than to take this preposterous tack?

Posted by Fred | March 9, 2008 8:58 PM

"That would be 35k + 74k, Ed Marshall. Thats pretty darn good"

Sometimes I need someone to really put my life in perspective. I always thought I was upper middle class, but apparently I'm rich and didn't even know it. I guess being rich ain't all it's cracked up to be. But I still can't afford the annual fee at the local country club, so maybe I'm not really rich.

Posted by fostert | March 9, 2008 8:58 PM

"Wouldn't it have been easier to admit you were wrong than to take this preposterous tack?"

This is basic math, it's not preposterous. Divide GDP by the population, and you pretty much get mean (not median) income. I know division may be a little difficult, but it's actually a fairly well accepted practice in mathematics. And your belief that you somehow defeated Matt's argument by showing that GDP is higher now than in 1999 is just plain silly. Yes GDP is higher. GDP always increases in the long term. The question is whether GPD growth is above or below that long term trend line. Right now, it's below, and by a lot. It will look better in the future as long term growth will be slow enough to lower the trendline, but that's not a positive thing.

Posted by fostert | March 9, 2008 9:25 PM

"This is basic math, it's not preposterous."

Now you're just being obtuse. What was preposterous was your reading non-existent "implications" into my first comment and telling me what I was thinking when I wrote it.

Posted by Fred | March 9, 2008 10:16 PM

I just want to note it isn't obvious to me that if immigration was leading to a drop in the median income that would be indicative of some sort of fundamental weakness in the economy. Rather, it seems like more of a choice with no obvious grounds for preference (whether the United States should have a slightly higher population but lower median income, or a slightly higher median income but lower population).

Indeed, it seems likely that at a minimum, the higher population scenario might lead to a higher total GDP, which could be good for, say, national security. And it is at least possible it would be good for GDP per capita, even if it was not good for median income. In fact, it could even be better for the existing cohort on a median income basis as well, even though it is worse for median income with the extra immigrants included in the population.

In short, I don't really see any easy answers here about what is preferable, and what counts as a good sign for the economy. But that is the dismal science for you.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 10:35 PM

Fostert,

My impression was that American fertility rates have been relatively steady since the early nineties. The decline in household size has been driven by the tendency of my generation to delay marriage and by the demographic bulge of empty-nested baby-boomers. Only the first of these would reduce the median household's income, though. While I'm sure my parents were devestated when I moved out, I can't say that it had much impact on their earning potential.

Also, I think you are not giving Fred enough credit. Matt tried to extend the trend in median household income into a condemnation of the economy as a whole. He claimed that it never reached its 1999 peak (which is clearly false) and Fred provided the numbers to rebut him on this narrow point.
Matt also mentioned the median household income, but Fred did not, nor did he refer to it in his rebuttal. You interpreted Fred's post as part of the more general discussion of medians, but there is nothing in the text to support such a reading.

Posted by heedless | March 9, 2008 10:51 PM

fostert

The upper quintile for household incomes begins at 88K and the top 5% at 157K. If you went just by the quintiles, upper middle class would be from 55K to 88K. The top 1% skews everyone's perception.

Let me know if you would like to trade incomes so you can test out middle middle class since rich apparently isn't working out for you.

Posted by switch | March 10, 2008 4:22 AM

I tend to think of the "upper class" as those who can maintain a relatively high standard of living using the income from their wealth rather than the income from their wages, with wage income defined broadly to include the income from company pensions, retirement accounts directly funded by saved wages (e.g. 401Ks and IRAs), and Social Security. Using that definition, even professionals who are well into the top percentile of the wage income distribution may still be "upper middle class" as opposed to "upper class" (particularly in places like, say, NYC or SF, where it is pretty easy to spend a lot of money on things like rent).

On the other hand, just because you work doesn't mean you aren't in the upper class. The question (as I would define it) is whether you need the income from your work to maintain a high standard of living. Accordingly, there are many "upper class" people (people who could stop working and live very well off the income from their wealth) who choose to work anyway--sometimes just to get even wealthier, but sometimes also for non-pecuniary reasons such as enjoyment, altruism, fame, power, or so on.

Anyway, I think that approach makes more sense than trying to draw some line based on income percentiles, particularly considering the dramatic differences in costs of living in different places and the variability of income (e.g., an income line could make some borderline people's class status differ on a yearly basis). And for what it is worth, my proposed definition is in line with the more traditional notions of the middle class, although Americans tend to redefine the "middle class" as they see fit.

Posted by DTM | March 10, 2008 8:10 AM