Tons Of Farang In Thailand Are In Trouble

[siamamerican]

Well put RB. I can't think of anyting to add to your argument so I will just agree whole-heartedly.

Why? Extremely one sided post with a few good points and many exaggerations.

A hard post to reply to - if I touch on western government programs and legislation that assist the disadvantaged, that is all RB would focus on. I will refrain from mentioning them.

Do you think the wealthy would be worse off if Capitalism wasn't held in check. You could make the argument that many government programs need to be discontinued or amended, and I would agree.

As individuals, our decisions are in large part, based on improving our individual status. We aren't saints. Many of the laws and government programs protect society from the very people that support those laws. We are smart enough to understand our own flaws as a whole, if not individually.

I for one belief in less government, but also belief that unrestrained capitalism with no laws that help the disadvantaged would end badly.

In the end, the imperfect system seems to be working fine. The poor are arguably not worse off that they were 50 years ago, and the middle class is in great shape. The wealthy keep getting wealthier compared to the non-wealthy, but the rest of are not any worse off because of it.

There is usually a middle ground and without compromise, the changes we all seek will be harder to realize.

[BADBRAD]

Well put RB. I can't think of anyting to add to your argument so I will just agree whole-heartedly.

Why? Extremely one sided post with a few good points and many exaggerations.

A hard post to reply to - if I touch on western government programs and legislation that assist the disadvantaged, that is all RB would focus on. I will refrain from mentioning them.

Do you think the wealthy would be worse off if Capitalism wasn't held in check. You could make the argument that many government programs need to be discontinued or amended, and I would agree.

As individuals, our decisions are in large part, based on improving our individual status. We aren't saints. Many of the laws and government programs protect society from the very people that support those laws. We are smart enough to understand our own flaws as a whole, if not individually.

I for one belief in less government, but also belief that unrestrained capitalism with no laws that help the disadvantaged would end badly.

In the end, the imperfect system seems to be working fine. The poor are arguably not worse off that they were 50 years ago, and the middle class is in great shape. The wealthy keep getting wealthier compared to the non-wealthy, but the rest of are not any worse off because of it.

There is usually a middle ground and without compromise, the changes we all seek will be harder to realize.

I agree with you that capitalism should not run rampant and I agree that the middle class is in great shape, but if we are talking about the US then that middle class is shrinking rapidly while the lower class grows and the upper class is getting richer but not expanding much in terms of numbers. I would have to disagree with your assertion "that the imperfect system seems to be working fine." You must be a Republican.

I don't think that RB ever said there should be no laws to help the disadvantaged or that capitalism shouldn't be held in check. What I got from his posts were that many of the laws which are supposed to be helping the disadvantaged are really just there to maintain the status quo. I think you will find that the vast majority of Americans are not happy with this status quo, but as RB stated "thanks to poor voter turnout and apathy, wall to wall tv and encouraged racism" there doesn't seem much light at the end of the tunnel.

[siamamerican]

Well put RB. I can't think of anyting to add to your argument so I will just agree whole-heartedly.

Why? Extremely one sided post with a few good points and many exaggerations.

A hard post to reply to - if I touch on western government programs and legislation that assist the disadvantaged, that is all RB would focus on. I will refrain from mentioning them.

Do you think the wealthy would be worse off if Capitalism wasn't held in check. You could make the argument that many government programs need to be discontinued or amended, and I would agree.

As individuals, our decisions are in large part, based on improving our individual status. We aren't saints. Many of the laws and government programs protect society from the very people that support those laws. We are smart enough to understand our own flaws as a whole, if not individually.

I for one belief in less government, but also belief that unrestrained capitalism with no laws that help the disadvantaged would end badly.

In the end, the imperfect system seems to be working fine. The poor are arguably not worse off that they were 50 years ago, and the middle class is in great shape. The wealthy keep getting wealthier compared to the non-wealthy, but the rest of are not any worse off because of it.

There is usually a middle ground and without compromise, the changes we all seek will be harder to realize.

I agree with you that capitalism should not run rampant and I agree that the middle class is in great shape, but if we are talking about the US then that middle class is shrinking rapidly while the lower class grows and the upper class is getting richer but not expanding much in terms of numbers. I would have to disagree with your assertion "that the imperfect system seems to be working fine." You must be a Republican.

I don't think that RB ever said there should be no laws to help the disadvantaged or that capitalism shouldn't be held in check. What I got from his posts were that many of the laws which are supposed to be helping the disadvantaged are really just there to maintain the status quo. I think you will find that the vast majority of Americans are not happy with this status quo, but as RB stated "thanks to poor voter turnout and apathy, wall to wall tv and encouraged racism" there doesn't seem much light at the end of the tunnel.

Independent, but I've backed republicans in greater numbers than democrats. Voted for Bush (ouch!) and also voted for Clinton.

Agreed, Americans aren't happy with the status quo, but when have they been. This is human nature and probably a good thing.

What your source for the middle class shrinking. I know the income disparities are increasing, as I stated in my post. The median income in the US has increased every decade the last 50 years. The average Joe is doing just fine as the wealthy take a bigger piece of the pie.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc...ncome_over_time

I think the issue is how you describe the middle class. Bellow is a pole that was in a PBS article, asking family what they considered middle class.

50% of those families who earn between $20,000 and $40,000 annually considered themselves middle class

38% of those families who earn between $40,000 and $60,000 annually

16.8% of those families who earn over $110,000 annually

In my opinion, the median income, obviously, is a better reflection of the middle class in terms of wealth.

Edited September 3, 2007 by siamamerican

[kat]

Your post is tiresom of pure BS about a principal stance you lack any knowledge about.

So I will settle with a short quote from you:

Under your beliefs, it is fine for private corporations to privatize water, sanitation, and baby formula in developing countries, and then charge astronomical prices that the majority of the population can never afford.

Privatize baby formula? Didn't know it rained from the heavens, as gift from the Gods.

So yes, I think that anyone that makes a commodity and sells it can sell it at whatever price they want. If the majority can't afford it...uh...are you saying there is only one company that sells water and that people can't filter their own pumps? Your post is filled with wierd confusing arguments that I really-really don't have time to respond to. The above snippet will have to be a symbol of it.

Right, this is supposedly your principled stance, which you have obviously chosen to know only what you want to know. Thanks for selectively choosing one example out of an array of others, but let's deal with the one you chose.

In one example of unregulated "free markets" and "free choice", many large corporations such as Nestles and others have gone into Africa and other indigenous societies to market baby formula at the knowing expense of infant mortality. Since you say that I am tiresome, it is tiresome for me to explain some very obvious results of your oh-so high and pompous principled "stance", so I will post a link and some excerpts of those results:

http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issu...04/formula.html

http://www.ethics.emory.edu/news/archives/000152.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2667401.stm

"Nestle sends its representatives to developing countries, dressed in white so as to appear as 'knowledgeable' medical personnel. They give free samples of formula to hospitals and health workers. As the process of birth is moving from the traditional home and family environment into the increasingly medicalized, western arena, so millions of mothers are at the mercy of the staff they encounter. Nestle gives gifts and incentives to local health officials, as encouragement in promoting their products, and therefore discouraging breastfeeding. Representatives from the charity Baby Milk Action heard Nestle employees telling midwives in Africa that "all Western women use formula to feed their babies, so that they grow up big and strong."

They also found posters advertising Nestle formula on the walls of clinics in South America, and advertisements promoting formula in a national parenting magazine in India. What these companies fail to do, however, is to provide adequate information about formula feeding. The women are in no way given the unbiased and adequate information that the WHO code requires, for them to be able to make informed choices. Nestle and the other companies do not teach these women about sterilizing the bottles they use, and they provide no resources with which to do this. The mothers then use dirty water mixed with formula, which causes severe diarrhoea and dehydration in the babies, which kills them. The formula also does not provide the same natural immunization against other diseases that breastmilk does. "

There are also moves by multilaterals and private investors to privatize the public water utilities in developing countries. I am not talking about bottled water companies like in the West, I'm talking about taking the free, public water source and privatizing it into a commodity.

You should really check your own understanding before you question someone else's.

OK OK you guys got me on that one, and I stand corrected. By the way who was John Lennon anyway?

A guy who didn't care for his first-born child.

A first-born child who never became a big rock star, but did produce one good LP called Vallote.

Life outside society may be "Nasty, Brutish and Short" perhaps something akin to New Guinea for the average citizen of a western liberal democracy. Perhaps what they want is the retreat of the state from areas better left to individuals. Dont forget most legislation which promotes social justice has an altogether different agenda. Developments in social welfare systems and education to enable healthy better educated soldiers to fight wars for oil. The Uks health service arises out of the original need to prosecute wars more efficiently, not in the sense that social pioneers saw it but in the fact it got passed by an entrenched ruling elite. They dont give anything away for nothing. Laws and executive orders continue to be promulgated every single day of every week of every year. When are laws ever removed or codified? Where the state and its laws exists as a referee between couples and families people will use those systems to solve their problems. Arbitration and reconciliation would be better avenues to explore. It also makes the state a party to the process of having a child which it isn't. Whilst children need to be protected it would of course be much better if having kids was more difficult and social responsibilty were the norm rather than the exception. Where you have a leader who doesnt know the truth from a hole in the ground and lied to start a war how can you expect the state to be of much use in setting examples of probity and honesty.

Any sane man or woman who has children and abandons them to fend for themselves is less than human. Usually its men and such men should have their balls cut off to stop it happening again. I would rather have their ex partners do it than the state. I know that for lots of abandoned women without recourse to law or money or power it's a dream, but all it needs is for it to happen and a jury of peers to acquit even if perverse and arbitrary and perhaps more pioneers will do it. Failing that, perhaps a tattoo across their foreheads reading "I ABANDONED MY WIFE AND CHILDREN" and I am not joking, would serve as a warning to other women.

Having kids is the most important thing an individual can do. Too many regard it as an accessory or an add-on rather than a lifetime's committment. I haven't got kids for precisely that reason.

Finally, I feel that this is a very intelligent counterpoint to my argument about what I was speaking against so strongly above. I will be back to discuss more in-depth later (I know, I keep bringing up time because I have major life issues to deal with right now), but I will briefly explain more about my perspective now.

I don't disagree with the major tenets of libertarianism (individual liberty and freedom, personal responsibility, less government), but I do disagree vehemently about individual liberty and the enforcement of human and equal rights. We know from history and from current example that without an overarching government that can codify fundamental principles of justice, equality, and human rights, the powerful and wealthy will be the groups setting that bar according to their own needs and interests. We can see throughout history with the American Founding Fathers (as so many American libertarians are enamored of mentioning) who had both indentured servants, slaves, and women as chattel; we can see this in the history of the labor movement before there were workers' rights, we can see this with women before they had the vote and equal rights (well close anyway, in the West) and the Civil Rights Movement, we can see it in the movement for public education and public libraries, and we can see it in the differences in say Asia and Thailand, where men can abandon their children with impunity, resulting in an overwhelming number of women entering the commercial sex business and commercial exchange of longterm relationships.

Taking this further, we can see how the principle of free markets, individual liberty, and little government intervention works with the sale of girls and children by their own families, with very little outcry or attention until the GOVERNMENTS of Western countries created a pressure impossible to ignore.

This is why I believe the principles are good, but the concept of personal responsibility differs for everyone, and there is no way that the mixture of the market and freewill are going to create socially benevolent outcomes - only enforcements and laws make that happen on a reliable scale.

First thing wrong with your fundamentally optimistic approach is that it is just that. The powerful and wealthy do set the bar according to their needs. How could it be otherwise when the government and its institutions is set up for that very purpose. Any social advancement for the mass of people is the minimum that the ruling elite can get away with. Only a multi millionaire can be president. Name a president who was not a member of the ruling elite or who was not in the pocket of same. If you look at ruling elites and business leaders over time very little change in personnel is evident. The ruling elite are entrenched. Its true of every other system in a western liberal democracy where the organs of goverment, press, army and communications are in the hands of the rich and powerful. What did dear rupert ever do for the ordinary guy? Except distract him with a diet of sleaze and tits and sky TV from making any empowing changes in his or her own life. As long as there are well meaning liberals to aid and abet such deception by their touching faith in "the system" real change remains a distant prospect. Unfair trade and protection, tied aid and discriminatory tarrifs ensure the third world remains poor. Yes sure we can legislate to stop them selling their daughters and criminalise them but the ruling elite will do fukc all to change the economic pressure that drives families to such madness. The rules by which we live are the rules of the ruling class and thanks to poor voter turnout and apathy, wall to wall tv and encouraged racism nothing much will change. "The ruling ideas at any time are the ideas of the rulers" Well meaning apologists are the first line of defence for the exploiters and abusers. You make their arguements for them and as one of the underclass you can be trusted.

A real nice touch to try and allege that I am an apologist. Let me tell you what you got right: I am part of the underclass, and as such, I know the difference between people who know what that's like, and the privileged lefties who are enamored with the idea of anarchy.

*self-edited for inflammatory remarks; I don't want the mods on me.

Edited September 3, 2007 by kat

[TAWP]

kat>> Your arguments might stem from the fact that you [also] aren't a native english speaker, just tell me if it's so.

But you seem to not even realise when you have made a bo-bo and then have to steer the argument into what it's not about:

You wrote "privatize /../ baby formula in developing countries". If you didn't mean that, only that it was bad that baby formula was sold in developing countries, then it gives your post another slant.

However, first of all: Thailand is a developing country and I for one is grateful for the baby formula. Without it my son wouldn't have had enough food during his first weeks.

Your complaint must therefor be about people not understanding that 1) ads are ads and not information 2) hospitals need money and sometimes end up handing out free samples of different brands to new parents.

How is either of this a tale that liberty is a bad thing? If anything it's highlighting the importance that freedom needs to be free.

Baby food isn't dangerous. Just the other day a poster here told us about his mother in law that wanted to use dirty water to feed his baby - should we blame lack of education or God for making it rain on their roof?

[BADBRAD]

Independent, but I've backed republicans in greater numbers than democrats. Voted for Bush (ouch!) and also voted for Clinton.

Agreed, Americans aren't happy with the status quo, but when have they been. This is human nature and probably a good thing.

What your source for the middle class shrinking. I know the income disparities are increasing, as I stated in my post. The median income in the US has increased every decade the last 50 years. The average Joe is doing just fine as the wealthy take a bigger piece of the pie.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc...ncome_over_time

I think the issue is how you describe the middle class. Bellow is a pole that was in a PBS article, asking family what they considered middle class.

50% of those families who earn between $20,000 and $40,000 annually considered themselves middle class

38% of those families who earn between $40,000 and $60,000 annually

16.8% of those families who earn over $110,000 annually

In my opinion, the median income, obviously, is a better reflection of the middle class in terms of wealth.

Bush????? That says a lot. I am an Independent as well, but am proud to say have never voted Republican.

Anyways, I don't really want to argue American politics as I'm sure the mods don't want us to either. This topic was barely Thailand related to begin with and is slipping further and further away. But...... before I step away I will try to respond to your query.

I am having trouble (I admit I only tried briefly) finding numbers to back my assertion that the American Middle class is shrinking, but I thought everyone knew that. I would refer you to an article by Paul Krugman an economist and writer for the New York Times at http://www.alternet.org/workplace/48988/.

Of course the median income is increasing decade by decade but is it keeping pace with the increases in cost of living? I think not. You say "the average Joe is doing just fine," which is of course subjective, but compared to the average Joe of 60 years ago or even 30? Again, I don't think so.

Anyways, back to the topic.

Edited September 3, 2007 by BADBRAD

[kat]

*TAWP:

Privatizing baby formula was one of the things I wrote very fast, so it is a semantic error, not one of content. I should have said "substitute" baby formula, and didn't bother to correct it because I listed many other examples, but this is the one you decided to harp on. I am not steering the argument into any direction, other than the one that you chose with your example.

I am taking the principles of libertarianism and applying them to real-life examples. You can go back to my prior post and read what I'm saying to you, because it's all there and I'm not going to repeat it.

We started this "discussion" by talking about the role of government in enforcing alimony, and the role of personal responsibility, law, human rights, and the market. I am addressing this in my examples.

**edit (add TAWP quote):

"Your complaint must therefor be about people not understanding that 1) ads are ads and not information 2) hospitals need money and sometimes end up handing out free samples of different brands to new parents.

How is either of this a tale that liberty is a bad thing? If anything it's highlighting the importance that freedom needs to be free."

I am not talking in slogans here, TAWP. In fact, I see that as a major problem with your "stance". I am taking what I see as the elements of libertarian arguments and applying them to real social and market scenarios, such as the baby formula situation in Africa, the large scale child abandonment issue in Thailand, and the free market scenario of selling underage children without government interventions, all of which you have ignored thus far.

Edited September 3, 2007 by kat

[kat]

Your post is tiresom of pure BS about a principal stance you lack any knowledge about.

That could be because Kat tends to look at things from a real-world perspective, not some fantasy ideology that will never make it out of the confines of obscure talk radio and webcasts.

You summed it up beautifully. The worst arguments here don't seem to go beyond talk radio or Fox News, and at best Ronald Radosh from seminar.

[siamamerican]

Independent, but I've backed republicans in greater numbers than democrats. Voted for Bush (ouch!) and also voted for Clinton.

Agreed, Americans aren't happy with the status quo, but when have they been. This is human nature and probably a good thing.

What your source for the middle class shrinking. I know the income disparities are increasing, as I stated in my post. The median income in the US has increased every decade the last 50 years. The average Joe is doing just fine as the wealthy take a bigger piece of the pie.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc...ncome_over_time

I think the issue is how you describe the middle class. Bellow is a pole that was in a PBS article, asking family what they considered middle class.

50% of those families who earn between $20,000 and $40,000 annually considered themselves middle class

38% of those families who earn between $40,000 and $60,000 annually

16.8% of those families who earn over $110,000 annually

In my opinion, the median income, obviously, is a better reflection of the middle class in terms of wealth.

Bush????? That says a lot. I am an Independent as well, but am proud to say have never voted Republican.

Anyways, I don't really want to argue American politics as I'm sure the mods don't want us to either. This topic was barely Thailand related to begin with and is slipping further and further away. But...... before I step away I will try to respond to your query.

I am having trouble (I admit I only tried briefly) finding numbers to back my assertion that the American Middle class is shrinking, but I thought everyone knew that. I would refer you to an article by Paul Krugman an economist and writer for the New York Times at http://www.alternet.org/workplace/48988/.

Of course the median income is increasing decade by decade but is it keeping pace with the increases in cost of living? I think not. You say "the average Joe is doing just fine," which is of course subjective, but compared to the average Joe of 60 years ago or even 30? Again, I don't think so.

Anyways, back to the topic.

Easy to take a stance on hunches and that is exactly what you're doing. As you stated in the above, "I think", "I am having troubles", and the best of the group - "I thought everyone knew".

Your assertion in the second to last paragraph is incorrect. The income is adjusted for inflation, using 2003 dollars. The middle class is financially better off than 50 years ago. Many sources other than the source I listed can verify the middle class is wealthier each decade that passes.

Waiting on actual data to back up the the shrinking middle class. You'll just find people like yourself stating hunches as if they're facts. Stop guessing and try to look for the truth. Hey, you might prove me wrong.

Edited September 3, 2007 by siamamerican

[ding]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/passports_child_support

WASHINGTON - The price of a passport: $311,491 in back child support payments for a U.S. businessman now living in China; $46,000 for a musician seeking to perform overseas, and $45,849 for a man planning a Dominican Republic vacation. The new passport requirements that have complicated travel this summer also have uncovered untold numbers of child support scofflaws and forced them to pay millions. The State Department denies passports to noncustodial parents who owe more than $2,500 in child support. Once the parents make good on their debts, they can reapply for passports.

Now that millions of additional travelers need passports to fly back from Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean and South America, collections under the Passport Denial Program are on pace to about double this year, federal officials told The Associated Press.

In all, states have reported collecting at least $22.5 million through the program thus far in 2007. The money is then forwarded to the parent to whom it is owed.

Some people never learn.

A boxer paid $39,000 in back child support to the state of Nevada last year to get a passport, which he lost. This year, his promoter had to loan him $8,930 so he could pay off his new child support debts and get a new passport to fight overseas.

In one case last year, a man got his parents to pay his overdue child support — $50,498 to the state of Illinois.

"For us, it's been amazing to see how people who owe back child support seem to be able to come up with good chunks of money when it involves needing their passport," said Adolfo Capestany, spokesman for the state of Washington's Division of Child Support. "Folks will do anything to get that passport, so it is a good collection tool."

The $22.5 million reported to have been collected through the program this year is a conservative estimate. Some states voluntarily report the payments to the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, but other states don't.

It took all of 2006 to collect the same amount under the program, which began in 1998.

Also contributing to the increased collections was a drop in the threshold for reporting child support debts to the State Department, from $5,000 to $2,500. As a result, 400,000 more cases were submitted to the department.

The state of Washington obtained $24,000 for Teresa Markley through the program. The money accrued over a couple of decades. She said she could have really used the money in past years, and at one point in the 1990s went on welfare for a few months to make ends meet. While her children are now grown, she said the payment still meant a great deal to her.

"What it means to me now is just to have some validation for the suffering I went through," said Markley, a resident of Tacoma, Wash.

Jeannette Dean of Seattle said she had to tap into her retirement savings and her son's savings bond to help pay for basic necessities after Washington state was unable to help her collect delinquent child support payments.

But this year, she received about $36,000 through the passport program. She said the money will be used to replenish the lost savings.

"It has given back to having a normal life versus struggling to pay dental bills and hospitals bills and things like that," Dean said.

The passport denial program is just one of several tools the government has to collect overdue child support. Overall collections totaled about $24 billion last year.

The largest share by far — $20.1 billion — came from withholding from a worker's paycheck. Unemployment insurance or state and federal income tax refunds can also be seized. States with lotteries also can deduct delinquent payments from winnings. Some states submit the names of those behind on their payments to credit reporting agencies.

Payments generated through the new passport requirements are an important sliver of what states collect each year on behalf of about 17 million children, said Margot Bean, commissioner for the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement.

"We often get payments of over $100,000," Bean said. "For whatever reason, this was the only way we could get the money."

For some families, the payments can mean the difference between having to rely on the government for assistance or not relying on it, Bean said. In cases where families have needed cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program, a portion of the payments received through the passport program is used to reimburse the government.

Another jump in collections from the Passport Denial Program can be expected next year or in early 2009. That's when the new passport requirements will likely take effect for land and sea travelers too.

---

Looks the feminists have gained complete control of the USA government afterall. You hate to see this hit so many guys who ended up in bad marriages and were ruined by their wifes. Its amazing how much power the women have in the USA.

How many farang will have to leave thailand? This could wipe out 50% of the farang expat population.

How does this affect the job market and the real estate market. For investors, how are you planning to take advantage of this?

Chyssakes, maybe I should give my ex an all expensive paid vacation!

[siamamerican]

Bush????? That says a lot. I am an Independent as well, but am proud to say have never voted Republican.

Hmmm, doesn't sound Independent to me. A little juvenile, yes.

[geriatrickid]

wow, what a gamut of views, all of a sudden nestle gets blamed because some parent buggers off and abandons his financial obligations. The reality is this, if Mr. US citizen wants the benefit of the US taxpayers largesse by way of a passport and all of its benefits, then he can't expect the US taxpayer to pay for his obligations now can he? Jeez this is such a no brainer.

[BADBRAD]

Easy to take a stance on hunches and that is exactly what you're doing. As you stated in the above, "I think", "I am having troubles", and the best of the group - "I thought everyone knew".

Your assertion in the second to last paragraph is incorrect. The income is adjusted for inflation, using 2003 dollars. The middle class is financially better off than 50 years ago. Many sources other than the source I listed can verify the middle class is wealthier each decade that passes.

Waiting on actual data to back up the the shrinking middle class. You'll just find people like yourself stating hunches as if they're facts. Stop guessing and try to look for the truth. Hey, you might prove me wrong.

Ok SiamAmerican, I finally had some time this morning to search for the facts I already knew were out there. Again, I think we are off topic, but I felt I had to reply.

My data for the shrinking middle class is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/busin...ape_091704.html

My data for the fact that that middle class is having a harder time making ends meet is at http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/genera...dle-cover_x.htm and also at http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/010682.html

I think I proved you wrong, but wasted far too much of time doing it. Cheers!

Edited for typo

Edited September 4, 2007 by BADBRAD

[BADBRAD]

Bush????? That says a lot. I am an Independent as well, but am proud to say have never voted Republican.

Hmmm, doesn't sound Independent to me. A little juvenile, yes.

Jeez! Just when I thought we were having an intelligent discussion you decide to get personal? I am young (relatively), but hardly immature. Because I am young I have only had the oppurtunity to vote in 3 Presidential elections and given the choices of candidates you can hardly blame me for not voting Republican in any of them. I have voted Republican on rare occasions in other races, but was previously only referring to presidential elections.

[siamamerican]

Easy to take a stance on hunches and that is exactly what you're doing. As you stated in the above, "I think", "I am having troubles", and the best of the group - "I thought everyone knew".

Your assertion in the second to last paragraph is incorrect. The income is adjusted for inflation, using 2003 dollars. The middle class is financially better off than 50 years ago. Many sources other than the source I listed can verify the middle class is wealthier each decade that passes.

Waiting on actual data to back up the the shrinking middle class. You'll just find people like yourself stating hunches as if they're facts. Stop guessing and try to look for the truth. Hey, you might prove me wrong.

Ok SiamAmerican, I finally had some time this morning to search for the facts I already knew were out there. Again, I think we are off topic, but I felt I had to reply.

My data for the shrinking middle class is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/busin...ape_091704.html

My data for the fact that that middle class is having a harder time making ends meet is at http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/genera...dle-cover_x.htm and also at http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/010682.html

I think I proved you wrong, but wasted far too much of time doing it. Cheers!

Edited for typo

Brad far from proving me wrong, you actually made my case. Did you actually read the links you posted. Click on the first link (Washington Post). Now go to the very bottom right of the article, under the heading "Smaller raises".

It states that the middle class is earning more (income adjusted for inflation). Much more! The paragraph also states the upper classes are getting richer, which is exactly what I wrote.

Informative article! I had no idea the poor increased their income more than the middle class.

Sorry about the juvenile comment in my earlier post. It was a stupid comment - probably just a little embarrassed that I admitted voting for Bush.

[BADBRAD]

HAHA! No worries Siam! I knew it was the Bush thing that got you going and I really took no offence to the juvenile comment. Believe me, I have been called far worse!

As to our little debate; Yes I read the article I referneced, I never disagreed with you that the upper class is getting richer. That much is obvious. As far as the middle class goes the statistics available seem to be often contradictory. No one really seems to agree on what defines the "middle class." However the lower left of the same article you mentioned states that, "the percentage of people living in families on both the low and high ends has been rising. A SMALLER SHARE EARNS INCOME IN THE MIDDLE-between half the median and double it." That seems to back my argument in my original post on the topic that the middle class is shrinking while the lower class grows. The lower middle of the page states that "Those in the top 5th of household earners have seen their share of national income climb to nearly half. The middle share, meanwhile, has been flirting with its lowest level in decades." Again this reaffirms your assertion that the upper class is getting richer (something I never refuted), but also backs my statement that the middle class is getting a smaller peice of the pie than they were a few decades ago. I dare say that while the article supports some of both of our points, in terms of our main point of contention; is the middle class shrinking, I think it supports me. It does seem that we are finding more common ground though.

I'm going to have to leave it at that for now as my TV time for today is up. However, I look forward to anything further you may have. Although I see you are never going to admit I was right.

[siamamerican]

HAHA! No worries Siam! I knew it was the Bush thing that got you going and I really took no offence to the juvenile comment. Believe me, I have been called far worse!

As to our little debate; Yes I read the article I referneced, I never disagreed with you that the upper class is getting richer. That much is obvious. As far as the middle class goes the statistics available seem to be often contradictory. No one really seems to agree on what defines the "middle class." However the lower left of the same article you mentioned states that, "the percentage of people living in families on both the low and high ends has been rising. A SMALLER SHARE EARNS INCOME IN THE MIDDLE-between half the median and double it." That seems to back my argument in my original post on the topic that the middle class is shrinking while the lower class grows. The lower middle of the page states that "Those in the top 5th of household earners have seen their share of national income climb to nearly half. The middle share, meanwhile, has been flirting with its lowest level in decades." Again this reaffirms your assertion that the upper class is getting richer (something I never refuted), but also backs my statement that the middle class is getting a smaller peice of the pie than they were a few decades ago. I dare say that while the article supports some of both of our points, in terms of our main point of contention; is the middle class shrinking, I think it supports me. It does seem that we are finding more common ground though.

I'm going to have to leave it at that for now as my TV time for today is up. However, I look forward to anything further you may have. Although I see you are never going to admit I was right.

We are both putting spins on our arguments. Case and point - you stated above that the main point of contention was that the middle class was shrinking. Below is what I stated on the post that started this debate.

Quote

"In the end, the imperfect system seems to be working fine. The poor are arguably not worse off than they were 50 years ago, and the middle class is in great shape. The wealthy keep getting wealthier compared to the non-wealthy, but the rest are not any worse off because of it."

End of Quote

I never stated the the middle class was not shrinking. My point above was that the middle class is wealthier than 50 years ago. In real dollar terms they are much wealthier. This was confirmed in Washington Post article you referenced.

Your rebuttal was that the middle class was shrinking. This might be the case, but hard to prove. The definition of middle class is subjective. All the data I've looked at shows the wealthy increasing their share of the income pie, but the non-upper class income increasing in real dollar terms. The median (50% above and 50% below) US income has grown consistently over the last 50 years.

Now, I'll take a stab at your argument that the middle class is shrinking. It can't shrink by literal definition. The subjective measurements can only change. The real data shows the person in the exact middle of the US population has seen his income increase in real dollar terms each decade over the last 50 years. Sorry, I already said that. To be honest, this is a pointless argument (too subjective). I'll stand by my original quote and leave it at that.