What's Chuck J. Doing ?

D

Deleted member 51

Guest
This first article supports what you say, but not in the way or the means that you are saying.





Sowell is playing head games with his own abstracts and suppositions while accusing others of the same.

No, there is not as much mobility between classes as in the 80s or so.

The widening gap between high and low incomes and disappearing of the Middle Class income is well documented by looking at the census statistics. It is also an extremely reliable indicator of a nation’s economic health.
 

The_Fixer

Well-known member
Sowell is playing head games with his own abstracts and suppositions while accusing others of the same.

No, there is not as much mobility between classes as in the 80s or so.

The widening gap between high and low incomes and disappearing of the Middle Class income is well documented by looking at the census statistics. It is also an extremely reliable indicator of a nation’s economic health.
Sowell's stat's are taken from the IRS figures, which also identifies with an individual's earnings movements.

Census figures identify with a collection of groups at a point in time, not the bigger picture.
 
D

Deleted member 51

Guest
Sowell's stat's are taken from the IRS figures, which also identifies with an individual's earnings movements.

Census figures identify with a collection of groups at a point in time, not the bigger picture.
I don’t know where you got that idea about Census numbers as a collection of groups. Census numbers are an individual count of people with personal door to door follow up so every person in every dwelling is counted. Those are the raw numbers and as accurate as individual count gets. I worked for the US 2020 Census and assure you there are no group counts, only individuals, and accuracy is strict with lots of checking and double checking up on each other and the workers work independently of each other, too.

The source of the figures wasn’t my point, though the Census counts illegals as well, but the IRS only counts those filing taxes, so there is that discrepancy. Still, not my point.

Sowell has redefined FOUR income classes instead of the usual three we use here and changed part of the rich to “upper middle class”. Did you not notice that?
 

The_Fixer

Well-known member
I don’t know where you got that idea about Census numbers as a collection of groups. Census numbers are an individual count of people with personal door to door follow up so every person in every dwelling is counted. Those are the raw numbers and as accurate as individual count gets. I worked for the US 2020 Census and assure you there are no group counts, only individuals, and accuracy is strict with lots of checking and double checking up on each other and the workers work independently of each other, too.

The source of the figures wasn’t my point, though the Census counts illegals as well, but the IRS only counts those filing taxes, so there is that discrepancy. Still, not my point.

Sowell has redefined FOUR income classes instead of the usual three we use here and changed part of the rich to “upper middle class”. Did you not notice that?
My mother in law used to talk about the two middle classes, so the idea is not new at all , or even exclusively Sowell.
Upper and lower middle class is a definite thing in Commonwealth countries (Possibly US as well?). People do exercise regards to those distinctions here.

The groups I refer to is from the data the census collects, people are compiled into various groups at that point of time. I'm not dismissing what they do, their figures hold an importance as well. But it does not usually delve into comprehensive individual histories.

We had a census here a few months ago, and it was only 65 questions. Nothing about past history other than your last address, ethnicity, religious, employment and marital status.

I think what I was trying to say (badly) was that the census groups of middle and upper class people would not necessarily have been the same people from the previous censuses.

The IRS tracks individuals and their income trends - this is part of what alerts them to anomalies that may require them to investigate certain groups or people. Their figures would also show what class(es) individuals belong to and show that the majority of people in all groups cycle their way through them. It is a dynamic figure.

So if you were upper income bracket, you may not be there next year. Middle classes cycle both ways and for many, the lower class tend to move in and out of it as well. There are those who are fixed at their levels, but apparently, it is the minority of them.

One example is if you sold your house and had the cash in the bank at Census time. It would have shown you as a top 5% earner for instance. When the next census comes along, you likely would have bought another house and show up as an upper or lower middle class earner.
 
D

Deleted member 51

Guest
My mother in law used to talk about the two middle classes, so the idea is not new at all , or even exclusively Sowell.
Upper and lower middle class is a definite thing in Commonwealth countries (Possibly US as well?). People do exercise regards to those distinctions here.

The groups I refer to is from the data the census collects, people are compiled into various groups at that point of time. I'm not dismissing what they do, their figures hold an importance as well. But it does not usually delve into comprehensive individual histories.

We had a census here a few months ago, and it was only 65 questions. Nothing about past history other than your last address, ethnicity, religious, employment and marital status.

I think what I was trying to say (badly) was that the census groups of middle and upper class people would not necessarily have been the same people from the previous censuses.

The IRS tracks individuals and their income trends - this is part of what alerts them to anomalies that may require them to investigate certain groups or people. Their figures would also show what class(es) individuals belong to and show that the majority of people in all groups cycle their way through them. It is a dynamic figure.

So if you were upper income bracket, you may not be there next year. Middle classes cycle both ways and for many, the lower class tend to move in and out of it as well. There are those who are fixed at their levels, but apparently, it is the minority of them.

One example is if you sold your house and had the cash in the bank at Census time. It would have shown you as a top 5% earner for instance. When the next census comes along, you likely would have bought another house and show up as an upper or lower middle class earner.
Okay, that helps explain a lot, thanks!

Our last Census had so many obstacles from politicians playing games, it was ridiculously short.

The Census itself doesn’t do a lot of compilations - other agencies do. They release the raw figures in various ways without the personal information. So I see what you’re saying about how it’s grouped, and this one did not ask personal financial information at all. It would have to be used against IRS information for a financial picture.

Thomas Sowell is brilliant. I have a lot of respect for him, but he is also opinionated, which colors which information he chooses to present and how. But he won’t fudge information or fake it and he’ll use the best sources available. I’m not concerned about his information sources because he’s reliable there.

He has not provided actual statistics of people moving between income brackets against age brackets, just an opinion. I’d love to see the stats there. Although we have an aging population, many were in a good wealth accumulating period in the 80s and 90s so the picture could be quite a bit different. A breakdown something like those over $120,000/year against $120,000-80,000 and $40,000-$80,000, $80,000-40,000 and then below would present a better picture, I think, because at that middle level, every $5,000 is tight if you’re a homeowner. Below $40,000, you’re not a sole homeowner unless you’re supported in some way.

But how do we even define middle class anymore?
 

Chuck J.

Election Fraud Has Consequences
Oh really?

The middle class in the US constituted the largest percentage of the population in circa 1970. Now it shrank.
But during Carnegie's day it was smaller than today. Let me give a specific example:

When the Titanic sailed on its first and last voyage, it was the most luxurious ocean liner afloat. And yet it had a capacity for 833 First Class Passengers, 614 Second Class and 1,006 in Third Class.

So in 1912 the middle and upper class was so small at the time that the most luxurious ship on the world had to dedicate 40% of its capacity for the working class.


Hard to say which is the most luxurious liner today, but let me give you a hint all of them have a 3rd class capacity of 0. No need to fill the ship with working class people, the middle and upper classes are so large that they alone keep that industry going.
You're using statistics again, And using them incorrectly. Sounds like a $cientology thing.

Seriously, do you get out much? Do you use your eyes and observe things? Sheesh. You don't even live in the USA. I don't either, but I'm there every week. And I see things.

If you think the "middle class" is stable or not smaller than it was I just don't know what to say to such blindness.
 
Last edited:

Chuck J.

Election Fraud Has Consequences
I'm watching Battlefield Earth - A Saga of the Year 3000 :hysterical:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/kGXvVCOium7j/

It's like driving by a car accident. You want to look but you know it's probably better if you don't.

I saw it when it first was released and completely forgot almost all of it. So, so bad in spots and almost good in others. I can see how it could have been an OK sci-fi movie but I suspect the mighty midgets' (Dave the Movie Mogul) interference in it prevented that.

I think the most egregious goof was not the savages learning to fly military jump jets in one week, which is bad enough in itself.
But the fact that it's "A Saga of the Year 3000" and the jets and anything in general would even be remotely functional or structurally intact after 900 or 1,000 years. Not likely.

The fuel would be bad or evaporated.

I could go on.
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
1. First, the current Middle Class in the USA is BOTH what you call “Working Class” and “Middle Class.” Nobody really uses the term “working class” here because the middle class WORKS. Classes are defined primarily by income, social status and where you live.
Whenever I wrote "working class" treat it as if I wrote "blue collar/lower calss". That should disambiguate it a bit.

You're using statistics again, And using them incorrectly. Sounds like a $cientology thing.
Sure, give me the statistics you are using and we can talk. I'm the first one to admit that I'm wrong when people prove that the numbers don't add up.

If you think the "middle class" is stable or not smaller than it was I just don't know what to say to such blindness.
I think the middle class (% of the total population) is larger than it was in 1912, but smaller than it was in between 1950-1990. I'm sure it shrank after the financial crisis and then bounced back a bit, but I'm not sure how biog the 2007-2010 shift was. That's how I see it.
 

The_Fixer

Well-known member
Thomas Sowell is brilliant. I have a lot of respect for him, but he is also opinionated, which colors which information he chooses to present and how. But he won’t fudge information or fake it and he’ll use the best sources available. I’m not concerned about his information sources because he’s reliable there.

<snipped>
Yes he is opiniated.

Not like our lot here though huh ;)

But you would have to read his books to see where he got his data from. These live interviews don't have the time to get into that part of things, unless it's important to the discussion.
 
Top