July 6, 201511 yr Interesting thought there. I'd be curious to know what the middle class perceptions were in the 90s vs. the 2000s and now. Just anecdotally it seemed more positive in the 90s. We felt like we were doing better even if it was just incremental. The 2000s have been ugly with the worst of it for the middle class happening since Obama took office.
July 6, 201511 yr Interesting thought there. I'd be curious to know what the middle class perceptions were in the 90s vs. the 2000s and now. Just anecdotally it seemed more positive in the 90s. We felt like we were doing better even if it was just incremental. The 2000s have been ugly with the worst of it for the middle class happening since Obama took office. [ATTACH]51292[/ATTACH] On the first - the 90s and yes, the (Bill) Clinton years - especially the 2nd term - were solid growth and everyone seemed to improve. 401Ks were doing well for those who took advantage of them due to the steady rise in the stock market. Technology markets were still growing (though the tech bubble was real), housing prices were steady in rising and those wanting to move to a bigger house as their families grew could leverage that - in a reasonable manner vs the later years where flipping houses was prevalent. The housing bubble, also very real, was at least in part driven by the elimination of capital gains on houses if you lived in it for two years. I knew people who planned on moving every two or three years just to take advantage of that. But in general the 90s were a steady, good time. If you lost your job odds were good you could find another relatively quickly in a similar salary range. Also, remember there were 2 years of decreases in the federal budget deficit. That was driven by higher capital gains tax receipts, reflecting the steady rise of the stock market. On the second bolded point. What is the alternative to 'incremental'? As the tech stock market bubble and housing bubble have shown - radical improvement is usually just that - a bubble and false sense of better.
July 6, 201511 yr When I say 'incremental' in that instance I'm thinking hey everybody is getting their 3% raise every year. That probably describes what most people experienced. Even in the boom times of the 90's 401(k) and individual investing still didn't significantly touch much of the middle class and certainly not the lower class. The one positive that I didn't give credit to is your statement that if you lost your job you could find a similar or maybe even a better one pretty quickly. I think that's pretty accurate. That's obviously not true in the 2000s until now. Unemployment and underemployment have been awful. I am a prime example of being underemployed. I know a number of other people who are also way over-qualifed for their new 'career'.
July 6, 201511 yr I just looked up 401(k) participation rates and noted the following: 1990 - 19MM participants (in the entire country) 1995 - 28MM 2000 - 40MM
July 6, 201511 yr Median income might have dropped 3K per year but 25 Million more people ( in the past few years ) are getting Obama food stamps and free cell phones . While our veterans can't get health care they need . If people cant see its a democrat strategy to get as many people on the doll then you just dont care or not watching. It doesnt fit the democrat narrative to strengthen the middle class , can't play that class warfare card that way . The whole 1% facade .. ehat a bunch of useless tools .
July 6, 201511 yr Author Median income might have dropped 3K per year but 25 Million more people ( in the past few years ) are getting Obama food stamps and free cell phones . While our veterans can't get health care they need . If people cant see its a democrat strategy to get as many people on the doll then you just dont care or not watching. It doesnt fit the democrat narrative to strengthen the middle class , can't play that class warfare card that way . The whole 1% facade .. ehat a bunch of useless tools . I don't think it fits either Reps or Dems narrative. We are talking nearly 40 years of stagnation. I don't think we can pin this on a guy who's just been in office 6 years. TBH if overtime rules change this may make a considerable change in wages of middle class.
July 6, 201511 yr Dems led the way , hapless R's followed . Now we all are going to suffer the consequences .
July 7, 201511 yr I just looked up 401(k) participation rates and noted the following: 1990 - 19MM participants (in the entire country) 1995 - 28MM 2000 - 40MM 401Ks were new in the mid-80s. That is right when I came of college. I guess the best advise I got was from my first manager who said - 'if we had these when I was your age, I would be retired by now.'. So I was all in from the start. The time-value of money principle helped, along with dollar cost averaging. And the 90s were a good time to be investing in 401K - usually up, and when down the dollar cost average principle would just buy more shares. Unfortunately, even those who took advantage took a hit in 2008. The worst case was to be 100% invested AND panic after the plunge. Many were and many did and lost over 50% of their 401Ks and have never recovered.
July 7, 201511 yr Author Dems led the way , hapless R's followed . Now we all are going to suffer the consequences . And vice versa, but I do agree.
July 7, 201511 yr When I say 'incremental' in that instance I'm thinking hey everybody is getting their 3% raise every year. That probably describes what most people experienced. Even in the boom times of the 90's 401(k) and individual investing still didn't significantly touch much of the middle class and certainly not the lower class. The one positive that I didn't give credit to is your statement that if you lost your job you could find a similar or maybe even a better one pretty quickly. I think that's pretty accurate. That's obviously not true in the 2000s until now. Unemployment and underemployment have been awful. I am a prime example of being underemployed. I know a number of other people who are also way over-qualifed for their new 'career'. If you are doing the exact same job year after year - 3% is probably generous. Some companies do not have COL raises, strictly merit raises. You better not just punch the clock in that environment. But that is what promotions and/or job-hopping is about. Go for the promotion if you loke the company and feel well treated. Or job-hop if better opportunity arises. Sitting back and playing it safe gets ... maybe 3%. And some companies do practice the annual trimming of dead wood. You do not want want to be in the bottom 5% ranking in those companies. Today is different on finding a replacement job - especially for upper middle. If you are over 100K in salary now and lose your job you know the odds are very, very long against you. It has created more fearful work enviornment do to that. And one where risk taking is more difficult. Knowing the headcount cut is a constant action means taking a risk being low person on the totem pole. So people are also less inclined to take job opportunity risk as the 90s.
July 18, 201511 yr You want to stimulate the economy, give some one who lives broke, check to check 100,000.00 instead of billions of dollars in bailouts to companies. Watch how fast the money gets recurculated instead of being a bonus to someone who is already rich. The government got this one wrong. I'm ready to go shopping!
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.