coming late to the party, let me say, Harrison, that this was nearly perfect from my perspective. I am 50, am honored and still in love with my work in alternative education, and barely breaking 40K after nine years. I am convinced we are raising a weaker people, and possess a much more shallow collective conscience. I refuse to surrender my values, and I incessantly teach them in the ongoing hope of bolstering one life at a time. beyond that, I work to avoid bitterness. call me crazy.
(3) doing great by any means, but the standards by which we define poverty and how many hours are needed to "support a family" are changing. The middle class in America is really doing okay. We're doing better than the europeans and better than we used to be (make sure to include benefits when looking at stats) and most statistics support this. We live like kings and we owe it to competition and innovation.
@fizzingwhizbeee In 2009, there were 43.6 million people living below the poverty line. The 2009 poverty minimum income was $22,050 for a family of 4, and for a single person it was $10,830. The guidelines haven't changed since 2009.
The average wage for a middle class male has lowered by $800 since the 1970s. The only reason median income has increased for couples is because record numbers of families now have both spouses working.
@fizzingwhizbeee It used to be that a single-earner families WERE the median. Now single earner families have sharply fallen behind, the median being $42,300.
In the early '70s the average single-earner family was saving 11% of its income. Now, the median income is a family of two earners and is saving little to none of its income, and the average debt went from 1.3% of family income in the early 70s to 12% of income now.
One might blame irresponsibility, but I blame the rising cost of living.
@fizzingwhizbeee It used to be that a single-earner families WERE the median. Now single earner families have sharply fallen behind, the median being $42,300.
In the early '70s the average single-earner family was saving 11% of its income. Now, the median income is a family of two earners and is saving little to none of its income, and the average debt went from 1.3% of family income in the early 70s to 12% of income now.
One might blame irresponsibility, but I blame the rising cost of living.
@fizzingwhizbeee@fizzingwhizbeee It used to be that a single-earner families WERE the median. Now single earner families have sharply fallen behind, the median being $42,300.
In the early '70s the average single-earner family was saving 11% of its income. Now, the median income is a family of two earners and is saving little to none of its income, and the average debt went from 1.3% of family income in the early 70s to 12% of income now.
@fizzingwhizbeee It used to be that a single-earner families WERE the median. Now single earner families have sharply fallen behind, the median being $42,300.
In the early '70s the average single-earner family was saving 11% of its income. Now, the median income is a family of two earners and is saving little to none of its income, and the average debt went from 1.3% of family income in the early 70s to 12% of income now.
@RipleyisBA (3) to when savings and debt is expected to shrink. Also, this generation is "invincible". Average wage: Bet you aren't counting health benefits. Check. Bet your bones a health plan is worth more than $800 a year. European studies: do tell.
Meanwhile, one can find a huge amount of information about the growing amount of wealth contained at the top earners of this nation, so far as their wealth expanding during the recession.
Also, there are a disturbing amount of studies proving that many European countries have far more economic mobility than Americans do; a total refutation of the American dream.
@fizzingwhizbeee My issues are mostly within our system, in regards to the insane wealth divide between the upper and lower classes, but the rest of the world is improving their income distribution, whereas we are swiftly getting worse.
And, I don't believe it's just an economic problem, but a cultural one, as I stated in the video.
Your points were excellent, by the way, and I'm glad we're having this conversation.
@RipleyisBA Love ya too Harry. Wealth divide: If you could take someone earning $0 a year and with a snap of the fingers and no harm done to anyone turn them into a billionaire with billions not just in paper but in actual productive wealth, would you? Instinctively you would say yes because there is one less homeless and no one is hurt... except the statistics. You can only have a wealth divide when there is wealth to have. The reason we have such a gap is because it is possible(!) to become(2)
@RipleyisBA (2) a billionaire in this country. Now the opposing hypothetical: if you could poof a billionaire off this earth, destroy his wealth and help no one, would you? It would improve "income distribution"... just a thought. Poverty line- the dollar number hasn't changed but the standard of living sure has. Wait... since 2009? What's happened in two years? Oh yeah the statist. Savings: Thank the keynesians for that. If deflation was the norm we would be saving more. It just doesn't make(3)
(2) I'd also like to suggest that because of free-market driven efficiency, even with a constant real salary, your standard of living would still rise over time. Crops produce more food, TVs are color, ipods have more gigs, not to mention the inventions of ipods and TVs. How we define "support a family" has changed drastically. Now if you're one of the 38% of "poor" that doesn't receive satellite or cable, you are "unable to support your family". This doesn't mean everyone in America is (2)
Measure success by the middle class: The US median disposable income is second highest in the world. The average salary is affected by outliers or "uber rich" but the median or middle-man is not. If only the wealthy are getting wealthier than median would stay the same. And if you think europeans are doing better because of the larger middle class, then why are the middle-men worse off in Europe? Can't speak for Luxembourg... (2)
Wow, you are extremely smart. I've been subscribed for a while and your videos keep getting more and more on point. It's too bad other people can't see the truth about our downtrodden society.
coming late to the party, let me say, Harrison, that this was nearly perfect from my perspective. I am 50, am honored and still in love with my work in alternative education, and barely breaking 40K after nine years. I am convinced we are raising a weaker people, and possess a much more shallow collective conscience. I refuse to surrender my values, and I incessantly teach them in the ongoing hope of bolstering one life at a time. beyond that, I work to avoid bitterness. call me crazy.
woodlandfox2112 5 months ago
@woodlandfox2112 Thank you. And I agree 100%.
I wouldn't call you crazy. Hell, it's nothing but sanity that compels you to act on your principles.
RipleyisBA 5 months ago
(3) doing great by any means, but the standards by which we define poverty and how many hours are needed to "support a family" are changing. The middle class in America is really doing okay. We're doing better than the europeans and better than we used to be (make sure to include benefits when looking at stats) and most statistics support this. We live like kings and we owe it to competition and innovation.
fizzingwhizbeee 5 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee In 2009, there were 43.6 million people living below the poverty line. The 2009 poverty minimum income was $22,050 for a family of 4, and for a single person it was $10,830. The guidelines haven't changed since 2009.
The average wage for a middle class male has lowered by $800 since the 1970s. The only reason median income has increased for couples is because record numbers of families now have both spouses working.
(continued)
RipleyisBA 5 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee It used to be that a single-earner families WERE the median. Now single earner families have sharply fallen behind, the median being $42,300.
In the early '70s the average single-earner family was saving 11% of its income. Now, the median income is a family of two earners and is saving little to none of its income, and the average debt went from 1.3% of family income in the early 70s to 12% of income now.
One might blame irresponsibility, but I blame the rising cost of living.
RipleyisBA 5 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee It used to be that a single-earner families WERE the median. Now single earner families have sharply fallen behind, the median being $42,300.
In the early '70s the average single-earner family was saving 11% of its income. Now, the median income is a family of two earners and is saving little to none of its income, and the average debt went from 1.3% of family income in the early 70s to 12% of income now.
One might blame irresponsibility, but I blame the rising cost of living.
RipleyisBA 5 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee @fizzingwhizbeee It used to be that a single-earner families WERE the median. Now single earner families have sharply fallen behind, the median being $42,300.
In the early '70s the average single-earner family was saving 11% of its income. Now, the median income is a family of two earners and is saving little to none of its income, and the average debt went from 1.3% of family income in the early 70s to 12% of income now.
(continued)
RipleyisBA 5 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee It used to be that a single-earner families WERE the median. Now single earner families have sharply fallen behind, the median being $42,300.
In the early '70s the average single-earner family was saving 11% of its income. Now, the median income is a family of two earners and is saving little to none of its income, and the average debt went from 1.3% of family income in the early 70s to 12% of income now.
(continued)
RipleyisBA 5 months ago
@RipleyisBA (3) to when savings and debt is expected to shrink. Also, this generation is "invincible". Average wage: Bet you aren't counting health benefits. Check. Bet your bones a health plan is worth more than $800 a year. European studies: do tell.
fizzingwhizbeee 5 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee
Meanwhile, one can find a huge amount of information about the growing amount of wealth contained at the top earners of this nation, so far as their wealth expanding during the recession.
Also, there are a disturbing amount of studies proving that many European countries have far more economic mobility than Americans do; a total refutation of the American dream.
(continued)
RipleyisBA 5 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee My issues are mostly within our system, in regards to the insane wealth divide between the upper and lower classes, but the rest of the world is improving their income distribution, whereas we are swiftly getting worse.
And, I don't believe it's just an economic problem, but a cultural one, as I stated in the video.
Your points were excellent, by the way, and I'm glad we're having this conversation.
Thanks for watching!
RipleyisBA 5 months ago
@RipleyisBA Love ya too Harry. Wealth divide: If you could take someone earning $0 a year and with a snap of the fingers and no harm done to anyone turn them into a billionaire with billions not just in paper but in actual productive wealth, would you? Instinctively you would say yes because there is one less homeless and no one is hurt... except the statistics. You can only have a wealth divide when there is wealth to have. The reason we have such a gap is because it is possible(!) to become(2)
fizzingwhizbeee 5 months ago
@RipleyisBA (2) a billionaire in this country. Now the opposing hypothetical: if you could poof a billionaire off this earth, destroy his wealth and help no one, would you? It would improve "income distribution"... just a thought. Poverty line- the dollar number hasn't changed but the standard of living sure has. Wait... since 2009? What's happened in two years? Oh yeah the statist. Savings: Thank the keynesians for that. If deflation was the norm we would be saving more. It just doesn't make(3)
fizzingwhizbeee 5 months ago
(2) I'd also like to suggest that because of free-market driven efficiency, even with a constant real salary, your standard of living would still rise over time. Crops produce more food, TVs are color, ipods have more gigs, not to mention the inventions of ipods and TVs. How we define "support a family" has changed drastically. Now if you're one of the 38% of "poor" that doesn't receive satellite or cable, you are "unable to support your family". This doesn't mean everyone in America is (2)
fizzingwhizbeee 5 months ago
Measure success by the middle class: The US median disposable income is second highest in the world. The average salary is affected by outliers or "uber rich" but the median or middle-man is not. If only the wealthy are getting wealthier than median would stay the same. And if you think europeans are doing better because of the larger middle class, then why are the middle-men worse off in Europe? Can't speak for Luxembourg... (2)
fizzingwhizbeee 5 months ago
@fizzingwhizbeee excellent points
JaneEyre29 5 months ago
Wow, you are extremely smart. I've been subscribed for a while and your videos keep getting more and more on point. It's too bad other people can't see the truth about our downtrodden society.
SixthSenseSynesthete 5 months ago
@SixthSenseSynesthete Hey, thank you! This comment is much appreciated.
RipleyisBA 5 months ago