Tuesday, July 19, 2016

The Donald and the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Facebook comment, slightly edited)


Image from, with caption: States of Mitteleuropa (blue) and the larger cultural sphere (outlined) that in the late 19th century comprised the German Empire, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, as well as Congress Poland and the Baltic governorates of the Russian Empire

7/19/2016

John Brown As we all know, The Donald, whose current partner is Melania, a wonderfully preserved and, in public, politely reserved 46-year-old fashion model from Slovenia, where her father was a listed member of the League of Communists (how many Americans, Republicans included, can find Slovenia on a map? -- It's "S" on the above, as if it didn't deserve its full name). 

Slovenia (even when it when a "socialist republic" of the former, relatively short-lived, "Yugoslavia") was in some ways an independent-minded entity while culturally and historically remaining bound to the now defunct centuries-lasting Austro-Hungarian Empire, of which it was once formally a part. 

The Donald seems fascinated, at least judging (perhaps wrongly, by his choice of spouses) by this now-gone vast political/cutural expression in the Old World -- the Austro-Hungarian Empire. 

Trump's previous spouse Ivana was from the former "Czechoslovakia," for a while "communist," a much redesigned area, historically, in Central Europe. but still very much palpitating, culturally, within the heart of Mitteleuropa, where the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which included Prague and stretched from Vienna to Lemberg (today's Lviv). 

So maybe The Donald is emulating the last Austro-Hungarian Emperor, Franz Jozeph, by using his mustache as inspiration or his coiffure ...

John Brown's photo.

P.S. So - Get ready for a Waltz on inauguration day -- with Arnold, at his Austrian best, as master of ceremonies!


***
Of course, some total cynics would say -- racists of the world, unite! -- that the Donald, of German extraction, is courting attractive women born on the periphery of the former Hitlerian German Reich to underscore the supremacy of Teutonic male blood and iron to make the world safe all over -- not only in Amerika, but in in every heimat of the planet ...  

OK. It's not fair and counterproductive to reduce The Donald to such insinuations/vituperations, no matter how much he appalls, and appeals, with his fascist chin, ... Ok, an "inferior" Italian-looking Mussolini chin :) ...  



image from








Monday, July 18, 2016

‘Make America Great Again’ is not a policy. It’s an exercise in mass psychology - Note for a discussion, "E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United."



  

The Republican National Convention in Cleveland this week ought to be interesting, but whether it will be informative is another question. Barring a last-minute surprise, the delegates will nominate real estate magnate Donald Trump to be the GOP presidential candidate, and he will pledge — probably repeatedly — to “make America great again.”
Just how he plans to do this (or whether the slogan is simply a clever sound bite) is something of a mystery, because Trump has advanced only the sketchiest of agendas. By now, its main elements are well-known: He would evict the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants; ban Muslims from entering the United States; slap stiff tariffs (35 percent and 45 percent, respectively) on Mexican and Chinese imports; and push Congress to pass a tax cut of $9.5 trillion over a decade.
It’s doubtful that this program could be enacted in its entirety. Shipping 11 million people out of the country — to take an obvious example — is, at best, a cruel and daunting logistical exercise. It would surely face legal and political challenges. But even if the full program were adopted, it wouldn’t restore America to some prior period of grandeur.
Think about it. If 11 million people left the country, there would be less spending.  The economy would weaken. Likewise, production of many items made in Mexico and China would not return to the United States but would shift to other low-wage countries. There would probably be retaliation against U.S. exports to Mexico ($236 billion in 2015) and China ($116 billion), costing American jobs.
As for the massive tax cut, the economy doesn’t need more “stimulus” now. The unemployment rate is 4.9 percent. If taxes were cut anyway, or used to offset a Trump-induced recession, large budget deficits would grow still larger. (This assumes — as seems likely — that the tax cuts wouldn’t be fully offset by spending reductions.)
None of this constitutes a plausible program for economic renewal. It’s a hodgepodge of mostly bad ideas that’s supposed to hypnotize large numbers of Americans who feel (understandably in many cases) that they’ve been misused by an economy that mainly serves a wealthy upper class. Their incomes are squeezed; their jobs are less secure. 
The pledge to “make America great again” is not an economic project. It’s an exercise in mass psychology. The idea is to get people to displace their anger and frustration onto groups that (in Trump’s view) have eroded America’s “greatness” — Mexicans, Muslims, the Chinese, political and financial elites, and “the media.” The Trump treatment is to peddle hatred and resentment for his political gain.
As an election strategy, this might succeed if enough people subscribe to his self-serving stereotypes. But as economic policy, it’s mostly a dud. It won’t change most people’s objective circumstances. In some cases, it may protect them from imports. But for most, it won’t provide jobs, and any income gains from tax cuts are skewed toward the rich. Sooner or later, people will recognize that they’ve been had.
Trump’s serious deficiencies are of character, not intellect. He is a salesman whose favorite product is himself. His moral code is defined by what works. What works to build his popularity is legitimate, even if it’s untrue, tasteless, personally cruel or inconsistent with what he has said before. What doesn’t work is useless, even if it involves inconvertible truths, important policies or common courtesies. 
One consequence is a paucity of genuine policy debates. Consider budget deficits. Based on current policies, the Congressional Budget Office projects that annual deficits will go from today’s 3 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) to 8 percent of GDP by the 2040s. What should be done? Trump hasn’t had much to say. (To be fair, neither has Hillary Clinton.)
There’s no secret as to what’s happening. A slowing economy is colliding with a rising demand for government benefits, driven mainly by an aging society and its impact on federal programs for the elderly. Even now, Social Security and Medicare represent nearly half of non-interest federal spending. Their share will grow.
How much should we allow the expanding benefits for the elderly to degrade the rest of government — from defense to highways to subsidized school lunches — by slowly squeezing spending that’s not for the elderly? This is a central political question of our time, and it has been evaded for obvious reasons (either taxes must go up or spending must go down). 
The role of campaigns and elections in democracies is to let the people speak. Ideally, it is to shape public opinion by informing it and allowing it to coalesce around widely shared beliefs. But when the information being served up is false, incomplete or deceptive, the process is perverse. It sows disillusion, not progress.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Robert Reich on the nation's divides -- note or a discussion, "E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United"



image from

Robert Reich on Facebook 7/17:


Excerpt:
So the Republican convention begins at precisely the time when the nation is convulsed over widening divides – not only of race but also of religion and of class -- and at a time when violence is more palpable than at any time in years. Into that breach comes Donald Trump, who has done more than any presidential candidate in American history to widen those divides, incite hatred, and legitimize violence.
How did we get to this point?

How the prosperity gospel explains Donald Trump’s popularity with Christian voters - Note for a discussion, "E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United."


washingtonpost.com [JB note -- in my modest opinion, this is one of the most perceptive pieces on the media-unexpected "Trump phenomenon."]

image from

Like Joel Osteen, Trump's brand is rooted in his own success.

By Chris Lehmann July 15

As the Republican convention kicks off next week, longtime observers of the evangelical-activist wing of the GOP are in for a long bout of cognitive dissonance. Heading up the party of the values-voting, pro-family right will be the boorish, lewd and wealth-worshiping avatar of “New York values,” Donald Trump.
For many traditional leaders of the religious right, the primary phase of campaign 2016 must have seemed like a bad dream — to be precise, the nightmare sequence that plunged George Bailey and his idyllic New England village of Bedford Falls into the unlicensed fleshpots of Pottersville in Frank Capra’s wholesome holiday classic “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Yet early indications are that white evangelical Protestants are making a wary peace with Trump, according him a 61-point lead over Democrat Hillary Clinton in a poll released this past week by the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life. That’s a nine-point bigger lead than Mitt Romney held over President Obama at this point four years ago — and Trump is determined to keep pushing his margin higher.
He’s not wrong to sense a big opportunity. Trump’s bromance with evangelicals looks unexpected only because we’re approaching it backward. It’s not so much that Trump has somehow hoodwinked or bullied the true-believing American right into an awkward set of ill-fitting cultural and political postures. It’s that a large part of the Protestant world has for decades now been embracing the brash capitalist gospel of Trumpism.
The key bulwark of faith-based Trumpism is the prosperity gospel — a movement rooted in Pentecostal preaching that holds that God directly dispenses divine favor in the capitalist marketplace to his steadfast believers. Trump assiduously courted the leading lights of the prosperity faith well before his presidential run got serious enough for him to make the obligatory rounds at hard-line evangelical gatherings, such as last month’s Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference. Last year, he hosted a conclave of three dozen leading prosperity preachers at Trump Tower, and his effort promptly netted him the vocal support of prosperity televangelist Paula White. Indeed, White is reputed to have presided over Trump’s born-again conversion.
* * *
Still, the most influential religious figure associated with Trump hasn’t officially aligned with him. Joel Osteen, head pastor of the Houston-based Lakewood congregation — the country’s largest megachurch — has a commercial brand that’s too valuable to be associated with partisan politics, so he’s tried to remain above the campaign fray (though this spring there were rumors that he had endorsed Trump). Nevertheless, the two men share an affinity of character and outlook that runs much deeper than the provisional, camera-ready alliances that make up a presidential campaign. Osteen said as much in that misconstrued would-be endorsement during a Fox News interview last fall: “Mr. Trump, he’s an incredible communicator and brander. He’s been a friend to our ministry. He’s a good man.” When Osteen launched his Sirius XM radio show in 2014, Trump was his first guest. “You can’t find a more giving, gracious person than Mr. Trump. So we feel very blessed to have him as a friend,” Osteen fawned in his trademark aw-shucks drawl. 
Osteen, like Trump, has been blessed with lavish worldly success; his net worth is reported to be north of $50 million, he has seven New York Times bestsellers to his credit and his weekly Trinity Broadcast Network show yields an average viewership of more than 7 million households, making it the largest inspirational broadcast in America.
The overlaps between the two men’s lives and career arcs must make each feel like it’s a blessing to be in the other’s company. Osteen, like Trump, is the younger-child scion of his father’s legacy: Lakewood was his father, John Osteen’s, flagship congregation, and Joel was an initially unenthusiastic successor to the pulpit — much as Donald was the junior and (initially) lesser player in the family real estate empire until the early death of his elder brother, Freddy.
Osteen was at first an indifferent apprentice to the family vocation. He has no formal theological training and dropped out of Oral Roberts University. He launched his preaching career after his father’s sudden death and has largely improvised his vision of divinely sanctioned worldly success. In much the same fashion, Trump leveraged his inherited real estate fortune into a national brand, and that brand is much more about Trump’s outsize reputation than about his material achievements — the idea of a savvy, browbeating business deal as opposed to its substance.
Osteen and Trump share the same core prosperity precepts, holding that God pushes them and their discerning followers undeviatingly upward to greater success. “Don’t put limits on God” is the mantra of Osteen’s preaching — which means, in turn, that you shouldn’t put limits on yourself and your worldly achievements. This may be why Trump appears to bristle instinctively at the notion of seeking the Lord’s forgiveness — his preferred image of the deity, too, is as a single-minded enabler of success. It’s also why Osteen praises God as a uniform promoter of personal power. “You are an amazing, wonderful masterpiece,” Osteen announces in his latest book, “The Power of I Am,” and he assures his readers that once they get in the habit of repeating success nostrums to themselves, “amazing comes chasing you down. Awesome starts heading in your direction. You won’t have that weak, defeated ‘I’m just average’ mentality. You’ll carry yourself like a king, like a queen . . . with the knowledge that you’ve been handpicked by the Creator of the universe and you have something amazing to offer this world.”
When it comes to the particular behavioral preachments of Trumpism and Osteenism, the parallels are even more striking. Each espouses wealth as an expression of personal greatness — and vice versa. True, Trump announces this message with a self-hymning candor that doesn’t strike our ears as especially spiritual. But the broader affinities that his crude songs share with Osteen’s superficially scriptural prosperity faith are unmistakable. “You have to be wealthy in order to be great, I’m sorry to say,” the mogul declared at a North Dakota campaign stopin May. Osteen, if anything, wouldn’t bother to append the “I’m sorry to say” disclaimer. Osteen’s TV broadcasts and best-selling books harp on the same basic theme: God favors believers with great riches — in recompense for their total trust in God’s worldly designs for the faithful.
He drives this point home in a homily about his father. Not long after the elder Osteen left his home denomination of Southern Baptists to preach in the Pentecostal Word of Faith tradition, he and his family hosted a visiting businessman for a week. As a gesture of gratitude, a Lakewood congregant gave the struggling minister a check for $1,000 — significant for anyone in the 1960s and especially for a struggling minister preaching to a poor flock. Nevertheless, Osteen’s father hewed to the principles of Christian charity and deposited the offering intended for his family into Lakewood Church’s collection plate.
A huge mistake, as Trump might say. Here’s Osteen’s own gloss on this 20th-century parable of the talents, from his breakout 2004 bestseller “Your Best Life Now”: “God was trying to increase my dad. He was trying to prosper him, but because of Daddy’s deeply imbedded poverty mentality, he couldn’t receive it. . . . God was trying to get him to step up to the banquet table, but because of Daddy’s limited mind-set, he couldn’t see himself having an extra thousand dollars.”
Or, translated into the rhetoric of Trumpism: John Osteen couldn’t let God lift him up from loser-dom. Sad! But since the elder Osteen’s saga is ultimately a narrative of conversion to the dictums of the modern American money cult, it of course has an inspirational happy ending. Once John Osteen set aside the pinched and confining precepts of his inherited poverty mind-set, God took control, and the Osteen clan was launched into the true American creed of material wealth. As son Joel preaches, his dad “didn’t get stuck in the rut of defeat and mediocrity. He refused to limit God. He believed that God had more in store for him. And because he stayed focused on that dream and was willing to step out in faith, because he was willing to go beyond the barriers of the past, he broke the curse of poverty for our family.” 
This is all a far cry from the God of biblical orthodoxy, who is expected to lend a semblance of justice and order to the senseless stuff of suffering, pain and death — while also explaining why the heathen rage, widows and orphans are beggared, and the wicked prosper. That’s why both Trump and Osteen draw fire from traditional religious believers across the political spectrum. But it’s also why each enjoys shocking, unparalleled success in a culture and a polity that are militantly unchastened by the lessons of the 2008 economic collapse. The American Protestant mainstream, weaned for so long on the dogmatic gospel of economic uplift and possessive individualism, no longer processes contradictory information or intimations of a different moral alignment of economic reward and punishment. Like Trump, Osteen obsessively refers to the long, impressive record of his own economic good fortune as Exhibit A in the divine sanctioning of material favor. Like Trump, Osteen cites advantageous real estate deals, zoning abeyances and luxurious personal living circumstances as the pleasing personal tokens of cosmic grace. Indeed, Osteen goes Trump one better and finds the telltale signs and wonders of God’s loving kindness even in the mundane workings of the service economy — as when he gets an air-travel upgrade or lands an especially convenient parking space.
It’s easy to make sport of such glosses on the biblical scheme of things; one would hope, at the end of the day, that the creator of the universe has more pressing items on his to-do list than Joel Osteen’s search for optimal parking or Donald Trump’s fantasias of boardroom dominance. But before cueing up the punch lines, it’s worth remembering that the vast majority of the working electorate is constantly facing down the rote indignities of the quest for competitive advantage in the workplace, in the housing economy, in the scrum for an unaffordable college degree, on the gridlocked interstates and in the clamor of airport departure gates. Is it any real mystery, then, that they would be tempted to rally to a great-leader figure assuring them that he will make them great again, in this world or the next? Behold, O American believers, the true power of positive thinking.

I rejected my parents’ WASP values. Now I see we need them more than ever - Note for a discussion, "E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United."


washingtonpost.com

They represented a different, dying vision of the GOP.


  
Pamela Constable is a member of the Post's foreign news staff. A former foreign correspondent based in New Delhi and Kabul, she reports periodically from Afghanistan and other trouble spots overseas.


My parents were the kind of polite conservatives who would have been appalled by this year’s Republican presidential campaign. They belonged to that stuffy but understated class of Eastern WASPs who were gently mocked by the late satirist William Hamilton in the New Yorker. His cartoons depicted a world of Wodehousian clubbiness, cocktail parties and golden retrievers in station wagons. One of my favorite scenes, found in his collection “Anti-Social Register,” shows a middle-aged woman at a party, looking horrified at something a man is explaining. “I simply can’t believe that nice communities release effluents,” she protests.
I grew up in Hamilton’s world, on a winding road in Connecticut near a country store and a rambling clapboard house that was the home of Sen. Prescott Bush. All the adults I knew were old-school WASP Republicans like the Bushes. I had a great-uncle who was an admiral and a godmother who was an Astor. They were gracious to everyone, self-reliant and discreet, and secure in their pedigree. There was no need to raise one’s voice or belittle those less fortunate. If one’s forebears had built empires in such grubbier pursuits as fur-trapping or rum-shipping, the taint had been washed away by generations of Ivy League respectability, good taste and noblesse oblige.
Priscilla and Cheston Constable seemed to fit the stereotype perfectly. My father, a communications executive at IBM, took the train to Manhattan every morning and mowed the lawn on weekends. My mother, a former fashion designer, volunteered at the library, arranged flowers and hosted lively dinner parties. Her philosophy of life was, “If you can’t find something nice to say about someone, don’t say anything.” I never once heard them argue.
My childhood was a cocoon of tennis and piano lessons, but once I reached my teens, disturbing news began filtering in from the world beyond. An alumna of my elementary school gave an impassioned speech about her summer registering black voters in the South. At boarding school, a current-events teacher introduced me to McCarthyism and apartheid, and I watched the funeral of Martin Luther King Jr. Filled with righteous indignation, I memorized Bob Dylan songs about poverty and injustice and vowed to become a crusading journalist. Above my study carrel, I taped the famous journalistic directive to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
The most convenient target I could afflict was my parents, who seemed more worried about their daughter turning into a hippie than about a world full of rampant wrongs. I wrote them earnest letters railing against capitalism, country clubs and colonial exploitation. I accused them of being snobs and racists and scoffed at their preoccupation with appearance. If they were hurt or offended, they never let it show, in part because I kept getting A’s and dutifully stood through numerous fittings for my debutante dress.
I hardly saw my parents during my four years at Brown, a tumultuous time that included the bombing of Cambodia and the resignation of Richard Nixon. Soon after graduation I was gone, immersed in big-city newspaper work. I spent a decade writing about alcoholics and juvenile delinquents and slumlords. Eventually my reporting took me even farther afield, to impoverished or war-torn countries such as Haiti and Chile, India and Afghanistan. It was an adventuresome and stimulating career, but it was also a kind of private atonement for having grown up amid such privilege. I rarely told anyone where I was from.
Over time, my relations with my parents settled into a long-distance detente that was affectionate but formal. We sent each other thank-you notes and avoided talking about politics. Yet even though I had run as far from Connecticut as I could, every time I called from another war zone or refugee camp, they always asked eagerly, “When might we see you again?” The guest room was always waiting, with a few ancient stuffed animals on the pillow.
Still, it was only after witnessing the desperation and cruelty of life in much of the world that I began to reexamine my prejudices against the cloister I had fled. In some countries, I saw how powerful forces could keep people trapped in poverty for life; in others, how neighbors could slaughter each other in spasms of hate. I met child brides and torture victims, religious fanatics and armed rebels. I explored societies shattered by civil war, upended by revolution, and strangled by taboo and tradition.
Visiting home between assignments, I found myself noticing and appreciating things I had always taken for granted — the tamed greenery and smooth streets, the absence of fear and abundance of choice, the code of good manners and civilized discussion. I also began to learn things about my parents I had never known and to realize that I had judged them unfairly. I had confused their social discomfort with condescension and their conservatism with callousness.
I owe these belated epiphanies to an old friend and fellow Connecticut preppie, Elizabeth Neuffer, who’d also become a war reporter. A few months before she died in an accident in Iraq, we met for dinner, and she told me that her deepest regret was losing her father while she was overseas. “Whatever you do,” she said, “make sure to spend time with your parents before it’s too late.”
I took her advice to heart. As their health declined and their horizons shrank, I stopped traveling as much and started coming home more often. I accompanied them to cocktail parties and listened to stories from their old friends. Well into their 80s, Priscilla and Cheston were a handsome and active couple, and they still cared about things I did not, such as keeping up their club memberships and their listing in the New York Social Register. My father, a dapper dresser with a walking stick, was famous for his sardonic quips and vodka martinis. No one knew how much his arthritis pained him, because he always refused a chair. My mother, who had been a designer of ladies’ gowns for Henri Bendel in the 1940s, hosted dinners wearing her own elegant costumes and held guests spellbound with her tales of the postwar Manhattan social whirl.
But now, for the first time, I saw something deeper and sadder beneath their practiced cheer. Long before their success, they both suffered growing up during the Great Depression and “the war,” as they always called it. My mother’s family lost their savings in the crash; her parents divorced, and she was forced to leave an elite private school to become a dressmaker. My father went straight from college into the Army with a captain’s commission and spent his service jumping out of planes as a paratrooper instructor — a repeated feat of courage I rarely heard him mention. He loved to make things with his hands and dreamed of becoming an architect, but after the war he was steered into the more secure world of corporate America, which paid for nice houses and good schools but gradually crushed his spirit.
Eventually, I saw how loss and sacrifice had shaped both my parents, creating lifelong habits of thrift, loyalty, perseverance and empathy for those who suffered, despite an unconscious unease with other races and classes that I’d always found hard to forgive. Rummaging through their apartment in a Connecticut retirement complex, after my mother moved into a nursing facility, I found evidence of their character in every corner. The cabinets contained wrench sets and garden shears my dad had kept in working order for half a century, and on the kitchen wall was a calendar he made each month out of cardboard shirt backs. He could easily afford the latest gadgets, but he was a true conservative who couldn’t bear to waste anything of value.
In my mother’s antique desk, I found a folder labeled “important correspondence.” Inside it, along with invitations to long-ago society balls and notes on monogrammed stationery, were half a dozen letters on lined school paper, written in a careful but shaky hand. They were from an old black man named Mr. Jenkins who had once helped her with the laundry. He was a lonely soul who drank too much and wound up in a VA hospital; the letters thanked her for being kind and treating him with dignity. At the end of his life, my mother was this man’s only friend, and his gratitude meant as much to her as an engraved plaque.
On long evenings together in the apartment, my father and I sipped whiskey sours, watched the news and discussed politics for the first time in years. He had always taken classic Republican positions against excess welfare and foreign aid, but now he confided that he was appalled at the tea party, especially its harsh stances on abortion and guns, and disillusioned by the radicalization of the GOP. I was fairly sure he had not gone so far as to vote for Barack Obama, but it occurred to me that our cerebral and courtly African American president, struggling against the tide of an angry, visceral age, had more in common with this elderly WASP gentleman than did many white Republican leaders of the moment.
In March 2013, Dad passed away at 96; my mother followed him at 97. I was relieved that they had not lived to see their party’s new standard-bearer hurling vulgar taunts and whipping up xenophobic crowds, or to witness the rout of the rational, civilized conservative norms that had defined their lives and guided public policy for a century.
Recently, when I learned that William Hamilton had died in a car crash, I thought it was a sad but fitting coda for the demise of WASP influence. The sheltered subjects of his cartoons had become a sidelined aristocracy. But at least in my family, their influence lived on: After years of joking that we cancelled out each other’s votes, I realized that the values that mattered the most to me, especially a fundamental respect for the dignity of all people, were those I had learned from them.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Upper middle class has more than doubled since 1979 - Note for a discussion, "E Pluribus Unum? What Keeps the United States United"


usatoday.com

The upper middle class in the United States has more than doubled since 1979, according to a new Urban Institute report, “The Growing Size and Incomes of the Upper Middle Class” by Stephen J. Rose.
The report shows that the upper middle class made up 12.9% of the United States population in 1979 and had grown to 29.4% of the population in 2014.
“Indeed, a massive shift has occurred in the center of gravity of the economy,” Rose wrote.
Meanwhile, the rich and upper middle class were found to account for 63% of all incomes in 2014 (52% upper middle class and 11% upper class), compared to just 30% in 1979. During that same period, middle class incomes shrunk to 26% (which was the class that reigned supreme in 1979, accounting for more than 46% of all incomes).
The study found that growth in the rich and upper middle class and the declining proportion of the population in the middle and lower classes, indicate widespread economic growth that was not distributed equally.
“On average, incomes grew 53% over the period,” Rose wrote. “If the growth had been equally distributed, then the shift upward would have been much greater. At the extremes, the proportion of the poor and near-poor population would have dropped to 12.8%, and the proportion that is rich would have barely increased (to only 0.5% of the population) because the growth among the near-rich with even growth would have been much less than what happened with uneven growth.”
Methodology
For the study’s purposes, lower, middle, upper-middle and upper class incomes were based upon three-person families making below $30,000, below $100,000, up to $349,999 and above $350,000 respectively.
The study used 1979 as a starting point because “it was the last business cycle peak before income inequality grew dramatically in the first half of the 1980s,” and “the year 2014 was chosen as the study’s end point because it was the most recent year for which income data were available.” The study also examined whether the size of the upper middle class changed dramatically after the slow growth from
2000 to 2007, followed by the deep recession of 2007.
Rose examined data from the Annual Socioeconomic Supplement to the March Current Population Survey (CPS), which collects information monthly from 50,000 to 75,000 households and is used to determine the monthly unemployment rate.

Friday, July 15, 2016

Disconnect -- a way to characterize 2016?


image from

Our current slice of history is characterized as a time of disintegration -- "things fall apart/the center cannot hold."

But I can't help but think: at a time of terror bombings, racial tensions, and war in the Middle East and elsewhere -- the U.S. stock market has reached record highs, at least for now.

Perhaps the word "disconnect" best characterizes our speck in time ...