SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (317024)12/22/2006 11:58:08 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1574261
 
"what is the middle class?? how much money ?"

Let me get this straight. Are you claiming that CEOs are middle class? Wouldn't surprise me, you are exceptionally stupid...



To: longnshort who wrote (317024)12/23/2006 9:05:59 AM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574261
 
This article below defines the middle class as earning 80 to 120% of the median local family income.

U.S. Losing Its Middle-Class Neighborhoods
From 1970 to 2000, Metro Areas Showed Widening Gap Between Rich, Poor Sections

By Blaine Harden
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A03

INDIANAPOLIS -- Middle-class neighborhoods, long regarded as incubators for the American dream, are losing ground in cities across the country, shrinking at more than twice the rate of the middle class itself.

In their place, poor and rich neighborhoods are both on the rise, as cities and suburbs have become increasingly segregated by income, according to a Brookings Institution study released Thursday. It found that as a share of all urban and suburban neighborhoods, middle-income neighborhoods in the nation's 100 largest metro areas have declined from 58 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 2000.

Buy This Photo

Jim and Lynn Russell and son Adam moved from a middle-income Indianapolis neighborhood to an outer suburb.
Jim and Lynn Russell and son Adam moved from a middle-income Indianapolis neighborhood to an outer suburb. (Photos By Blaine Harden -- The Washington Post)

Widening income inequality in the United States has been well documented in recent years, but the Brookings analysis of census data uncovered a much more accelerated decline in communities that house the middle class. It far outpaced the decline of seven percentage points between 1970 and 2000 in the proportion of middle-income families living in and around cities.

Middle-income neighborhoods -- where families earn 80 to 120 percent of the local median income --
have plunged by more than 20 percent as a share of all neighborhoods in Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. They are down 10 percent in the Washington area.

It's happening, too, in this prosperous, mostly white middle-income Midwestern city where unemployment is low and a vibrant downtown has been preserved. As poor and rich neighborhoods proliferate, the share of middle-income neighborhoods in greater Indianapolis has dropped by 21 percent since 1970.

"No city in America has gotten more integrated by income in the last 30 years," said Alan Berube, an urban demographer at Brookings who worked on the report.

"It means that if you are not living in one of the well-off areas, you are not going to have access to the same amenities -- good schools and safe environment -- that you could find 30 years ago," he said.

The decline of middle-income neighborhoods may also be a consequence of increased economic opportunity and residential mobility, especially for upper-income minorities, said Joel Kotkin, an urban historian and senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

"This is about upward mobility and class. Until the 1970s, middle-class blacks and other minorities often had little choice about where they could live," said Kotkin, the author of "The City: A Global History." He added: "They usually had to live close to lower-income people of their own race. Now, if they can afford it, they can move to higher-income neighborhoods. Dollars trump race. Many choose not to live around poor people."

The Brookings study says that much more research is needed to better understand why middle-income neighborhoods are vanishing faster than middle-income families. But it speculates that a sorting-out process is underway in the nation's suburbs and inner cities, with many previously middle-income neighborhoods now tipping rich or poor.

Several urban scholars who had no role in the Brookings study said that its findings are consistent with what they have seen in cities from Los Angeles to Cleveland, as the middle class hollows out and as an economic chasm widens between rich and poor neighborhoods.

"We are increasingly being bifurcated on an economic basis," said Paul Ong, a professor of public affairs at the University of California at Los Angeles. "It has taken a big chunk out of the middle."

In Los Angeles -- the most hollowed-out metropolitan area in the country over the past three decades -- the share of poor neighborhoods is up 10 percent, rich neighborhoods are up 14 percent and middle-income areas are down by 24 percent.

The Brookings study says that increased residential segregation by income can remove a fundamental rung from the nation's ladder for social mobility: moderate-income neighborhoods with decent schools, nearby jobs, low crime and reliable services.

Buy This Photo

Jim and Lynn Russell and son Adam moved from a middle-income Indianapolis neighborhood to an outer suburb.
Jim and Lynn Russell and son Adam moved from a middle-income Indianapolis neighborhood to an outer suburb. (Photos By Blaine Harden -- The Washington Post)

Alice McCray used to live in just that kind of neighborhood, a postwar suburb on the far east side of Indianapolis. She has not moved since 1971. It's the middle-class character of her neighborhood that has moved away and left her three-bedroom ranch house behind. With higher-income residents gone, McCray's neighborhood has tipped poor in the past decade. A third of the incoming population lives below the poverty line. Crime is up, and schools have deteriorated.

"I had nine block captains on our neighborhood watch group, and seven of them have moved, said McCray, 61, who owns a cleaning business. "They said they were not going to put up with this."

For people who do not want to put up with aging, troubled neighborhoods and have the means to do something about it, escape is remarkably easy -- in Indianapolis and across much of the country.

The housing industry in the Midwest and the Northeast routinely floods local markets with new, ever-larger houses. In greater Indianapolis, more than 27,500 houses were constructed between 2000 and 2004, even though the population grew by only 3,000.

In the process, older houses and many older neighborhoods -- such as McCray's -- have become as disposable as used cars.

Such overbuilding is rampant across the Midwest and Northeast, where the number of new houses -- almost always at the edge of metro areas -- swamped the number of new households by more than 30 percent between 1980 and 2000, according to a study co-written by Thomas Bier, executive in residence at the Center for Housing Research and Policy at Cleveland State University.

"As upper-income Americans are drawn to the new houses, neighborhoods become more homogenous," he said. Echoing the Brookings study, he said: "The zoning is such that it prevents anything other than a certain income range from living there. It is our latest method of discrimination."

In a pattern that is the mirror opposite of what is happening in the Midwest and Northeast, there is a chronic undersupply of housing in many cities on the West Coast. But it, too, has contributed to a decline of middle-income neighborhoods, said Berube, the Brookings demographer.

He said rapid population growth in cities such as Los Angeles and Seattle combines with rigid geographic and legal restraints on construction to limit housing supply. In Los Angeles, for example, the population grew by 11 percent between 1990 and 2002, but the number of housing units increased by just 5 percent.

That has pushed up the price of housing in mixed-income neighborhoods. Gentrification often pushes the poor away to less-desirable suburbs.

In Indianapolis, it is an abundance of housing that lures the middle class out of established neighborhoods.

Until last month, Jim and Lynn Russell lived with their 1-year-old son, Adam, in a middle-income neighborhood called Irvington on the city's near east side. The area of restored historic houses is 20 minutes by car from downtown, where they both work as bank executives.

But the Russells, who have another baby due in the fall, were worried about mediocre test scores at nearby public schools. They were also concerned about safety. A mass killing -- seven people shot in their home -- took place this month not far from their former house.

"Things like that don't happen in Carmel," said Lynn Russell, 31, who grew up in Indianapolis, as did her husband.

Carmel, where the Russells just bought a house, is not a close-in suburb. About 45 minutes north of downtown at rush hour, it is one of the fastest-growing communities in greater Indianapolis. Schools are among the best in Indiana, and housing is abundant and, by national standards, extremely affordable for professional couples. The Russells bought their four-bedroom house on half an acre for $230,000.

Urban planners complain that exurbs such as Carmel are bleeding cities of the middle class. But Jim Russell said he and his wife have made "the logical choice" by moving to a upper-income neighborhood that is safe, comfortable and better for their growing family.



To: longnshort who wrote (317024)12/23/2006 9:10:42 AM
From: RetiredNow  Respond to of 1574261
 
Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
Presidential Campaigns Draw Differing Conclusions From Report

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 13, 2004; Page A04

Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

The analysis, requested in May by congressional Democrats, echoes similar studies by think tanks and Democratic activist groups. But the conclusions have heightened significance because of their source, a nonpartisan government agency headed by a former senior economist from the Bush White House, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. The study will likely stoke an already burning debate about the fairness and efficacy of $1.7 trillion in tax cuts that the president pushed through Congress.

"CBO is nonpartisan, it's independent, and right now it works for a Republican Congress with a former Bush economist at its head," said Jason Furman, economic director of the presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "There's no higher authority on the subject."

Girding for the study's release, Bush campaign officials have already begun dismissing it as "the Democrat-requested report."

"The CBO answers the questions they are asked," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. "To the extent the questions are shaded to receive a certain response, that's often the response you get."

The question posed was a standard request for analysis of the type members on both sides of the aisle routinely make of the CBO. In this case the ranking Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, the House and Senate budget committees and the Joint Economic Committee asked Holtz-Eakin -- the former chief economist of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers -- to estimate the distribution of the tax cuts among income levels, and compare that to tax levels if none of the cuts were passed.

The conclusions are stark. The effective federal tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has fallen from 33.4 percent to 26.7 percent, a 20 percent drop. In contrast, the middle 20 percent of taxpayers -- whose incomes averaged $51,500 in 2001 -- saw their tax rates drop 9.3 percent. The poorest taxpayers saw their taxes fall 16 percent.

Republican aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the tax cuts actually made federal income taxes -- as opposed to total taxes -- more equitable.
They point to a different set of numbers within the CBO study that show that the rich are actually paying more in individual federal income taxes. If Social Security, Medicare and other federal levies are excluded, the rich are paying a higher share of income taxes this year than they would have paid with no tax changes, the CBO found. If none of the tax cuts had passed, the top 20 percent would pay 78.4 percent of income taxes this year. Instead, they will pay 82.1 percent. In contrast, the middle-class share of income taxes dropped to 5.4 percent, from 6.4 percent if no tax cuts had passed.

"Are the rich paying their fair share?" asked one GOP aide. "Yeah. They're paying more."

But to Democrats, the conclusion was clear. For the bottom 20 percent of households, the combined Bush tax cuts averaged $250 each. The middle 20 percent received $1,090, while the top 1 percent garnered $78,460, said Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee who analyzed the report.

The tax cuts this year will boost the income of millionaires by 10.1 percent, while middle-income families see a boost of 2.3 percent, the Democrats said.

Congressional Republican aides said the CBO analysis has its limitations. For instance, it assumes that the beneficiaries of business tax cuts passed in 2002 and 2003 are the taxpayers who own stocks, bonds and other stakes in the businesses that received the reductions. But that analysis does not consider new workers hired because of the tax cuts, or higher wages that may have been granted because of the boost to the bottom line.

It also does not reflect that during the 1990s, the tax rates on lower-income households fell considerably due to an expansion of the earned income tax credit and other forms of low-income relief. In that sense, GOP aides said, tax cuts for the wealthy were overdue.

Besides, Holt said, looking narrowly at the distribution of tax cuts ignores the broader benefits -- such as investment, consumer spending, and job creation -- that flow from leaving more money in people's hands and that are spread far more evenly through the economy.

"Tax relief is about fairness, but it's also about economic growth," he said. "So the president's tax relief was both fair and effective, when it comes to bringing us from recession to growth."

But Republicans predicted that Kerry will make the report a major political event, and Furman said the results will be too stark to spin.

"This is the first really detailed government report that says not only did the wealthy get an enormous tax cut, but, if the conclusions are what we expect, the middle class will be left paying a larger proportion of the taxes than they were before," he said.



To: longnshort who wrote (317024)12/23/2006 9:18:12 AM
From: RetiredNow  Respond to of 1574261
 
Published on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 by Bloomberg
Americans See Widening Rich-Poor Income Gap as Cause for Alarm
by Matthew Benjamin
bloomberg.com

Americans overwhelmingly say the growing gap between rich and poor has become a serious national concern, a sentiment that may bolster Democrats' plans to narrow the income divide when they take control of Congress.

Almost three-quarters of Americans believe inequality is a major issue, versus 24 percent who don't think so, according to a new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll. Most of the concern is among Democrats and independent voters, though a majority of Republicans -- 55 percent -- also called the situation serious.

``Income inequality is widening quite rapidly,'' said Alice Rivlin, a former vice chairwoman of the Federal Reserve who's now a public policy professor at Georgetown University in Washington. ``It does matter to people that there are such unequal chances to get ahead.''

A month after Republicans lost their majority in Congress, poll respondents generally expressed optimism about the economy, with about three in five saying it's doing well. They were divided over how effectively President George W. Bush is managing the economy, with almost half saying they approve of the job he's doing and about the same number saying they disapprove.

There's little concern about a housing-market collapse, with only 15 percent of respondents saying they expect home values in their neighborhoods to fall during the next six months. And while more than a third expect to spend less money on gifts this holiday season, 68 percent called their personal finances secure.

Anxiety

Still, anxiety about the growing rich-poor divide unites Americans, crossing income and political divisions. Among those earning less than $40,000 a year, 84 percent called the gap a serious problem, with more than half saying it's ``very serious.'' Among those earning more than $100,000, more than three in five said it's a serious concern. Those in the middle- income group making between $40,000 and $60,000 were almost as concerned as the least wealthy.

``The ultra rich and the rich continue to have mechanisms to make money like the stock market and executive salaries,'' Kevin Godsea, an employee with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, said in a follow-up interview. ``And the wages of middle class workers are stagnant,'' said Godsea, 30, a registered Republican in Fort Myers, Florida, who considers himself middle class.

Rich Get Richer

Income growth has begun to pick up, with average hourly wages gaining 4.1 percent over the last 12 months, the biggest increase since February 2001. Still, Census Bureau data point to a long-term trend of the rich taking home a larger slice of U.S. income every year.

The portion of national income earned by the top 20 percent of households grew to 50.4 percent last year, up from 45.6 percent 20 years ago; the bottom 60 percent of U.S. households received 26.6 percent, down from 29.9 percent in 1985, according to the Census Bureau. Meanwhile, average pay for corporate chief executive officers rose to 369 times that of the average worker last year, according to finance professor Kevin Murphy of the University of Southern California; that compares with 131 times in 1993 and 36 times in 1976.


``We are creating have and have-not classes in this country,'' said Jane Huntley, 77, a retired elementary school teacher from Brunswick, New York.

Democrats are considering proposals to shrink the income gap, such as boosting the minimum wage, scrutinizing executive pay, increasing tax credits available to the poor, and making health care and higher education more affordable.

Stagnation

Several of those ideas, if implemented, can provide immediate relief to the working poor, said Gene Sperling, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic research group in Washington. More difficult, he said, is dealing with the ``insecurity in the middle class. People want to know where the new middle class jobs are coming from,'' said Sperling, who is a Bloomberg News contributor.

Americans have become more optimistic about the state of the economy, with those saying it's doing well rising to 61 percent from 54 percent in September. That may reflect the drop in gasoline prices in the last several months and the burst of wage growth, analysts say.

Marks Improving

Bullishness rose with household income, with more than three-quarters of those earning more than $100,000 a year saying the economy is doing well. Those earning less than $40,000 were the only group in which a majority said the economy is doing badly. About seven in 10 respondents said they expect the economy to be about the same six months from now.

The poll of 1,489 adults was taken Dec. 8 to Dec. 11 and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Bush's marks on the economy also improved since September, with 48 percent of respondents saying they approve of how he's handling it, up from 43 percent three months ago. An equal percentage said they disapprove, down from 51 percent in the last poll.

``I don't take issue with his domestic policy, just his foreign policy,'' said Jon Jackson, 32, of Raleigh, North Carolina.

Jackson, a registered Republican who works as an operations manager at a snack food company, said he will spend less this holiday season than last year on gifts, mostly because he's got a new baby and health-care costs are crimping his budget.

About one in five of those surveyed said they expect to spend a lot less money on gifts this year. Almost half said they will spend the same amount and only 15 percent said they plan to increase spending.

``It's time to be really, really careful with our money because the economy is overrated,'' said Francisco Garcia, 50, a computer systems architect in Houston and an independent voter. ``With so many jobs that have been outsourced, the only thing I can compute is that a lot of people are just spending on credit cards, and that's going to cave in.''

© 2006 Bloomberg.com



To: longnshort who wrote (317024)12/23/2006 9:25:44 AM
From: RetiredNow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574261
 
Fed's Yellen: Income gap poses risk
Updated 11/7/2006 3:23 AM ET
usatoday.com

By Sue Kirchhoff, USA TODAY
U.S. income inequality has risen to such a level that "there are signs that (it) is intensifying resistance to globalization, impairing social cohesion, and could, ultimately, undermine American democracy," San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Janet Yellen said Monday.

In language rare for a central bank official, Yellen suggested that high priority be given to improving education, tax credits and other aspects of the social safety net, despite the cost in dollars and possible impact on economic efficiency, according to the text of her lecture at the University of California, Irvine.

"Inequality has risen to the point that it seems to me worthwhile for the U.S. to seriously consider taking the risk of making our economy more rewarding for more of the people," Yellen said.

Separately Monday:

•Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan said that while the housing market has not hit bottom, "The worst is behind us."

Greenspan also told a Washington meeting organized by financial services firm Charles Schwab that he is "reasonably confident" the nation will not slide into recession because businesses appear strong.

•Chicago Fed President Michael Moskow said inflation remains too high, even with slower economic growth, suggesting the Fed might have to raise rates again if price pressures do not moderate.

The Fed boosted short-term rates 17 times from mid-2004 to mid-2006. It has held rates at 5.25% since August. While the economy has slowed significantly, inflation is still running above the Fed's 1% to 2% comfort range.

Yellen's remarks focused on a longer-term economic trend: the growing U.S. income and wealth gap. She noted that during the past three decades, much of the gain from U.S. economic performance had gone to the people at the top of the income ladder.

From 1973 to 2005, real hourly wages of those in the highest 10% income bracket rose 30% or more, with big gains in the top 1%. Those in the bottom half of the scale saw 5% to 10% gains. The pattern altered a bit in the past decade, when people near the bottom actually saw faster gains than those in the middle, and the top continued to prosper.

Yellen attributed the growing gap to the higher premium for education, changes in technology and globalization. Controversies regarding executive pay "quite naturally raise concerns for the public and contribute to feelings of dissatisfaction," she said.

Yellen said inequality is higher in the USA than in other industrial nations and the safety net less generous.