- #176
CAC1001
ParticleGrl said:I'm not arguing that per-capita income doesn't relate to standard of living. I'm saying its a useless statistic for arguing whether the incomes for the middle class are stagnant, as all of the gains could be made by the upper class.
The middle income quintile hasn't seen as many gains, but that is totally different than a term such as "the middle class." Upper-quintile also doesn't mean "upper-class." Because the middle quintile hasn't seen many gains doesn't mean that the people in said quintile have not seen gains. Many of these gains made by the "upper-class" can actually be people moving out of the middle quintile and into the upper quintile. But as people move out of a lower quintile and into the middle quintile as well, the statistical category can remain unchanged, while the upper quintile ends up "gaining."
Its a good thing people also study short term mobility- http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html
Not saying the study is wrong, but always be wary of the source. The Center for American Progress is a center-left organization funded in part by George Soros. It would be like citing the Cato Institute for a study on whether NAFTA was good or not.
Long story short- the upper quintile is experiencing less income security, and hence, is staying in the upper quintile. Meanwhile, the middle quintile are experiencing more income insecurity,
Wouldn't "less income security" and "more income insecurity" be the same thing...?
and the frequency of large negative shocks is increasing. The good news is that the bottom quintile has a fairly steady rate of upward mobility. All of this leads me to stand by my assertion.
Changes in the quintiles doesn't mean changes in the people within the quintiles though. For example, the bottom quintiles making gains doesn't mean a permanent, fixed group or class of poor people are making gains, as people move into and out of them constantly. It just means that as a category, that quintile is seeing improvement.