Investment Contrarians

The Death of the Middle Class

By for Investment Contrarians | Sep 12, 2012

















The Death of the Middle ClassI love capitalism and the idea that you can generate unlimited wealth. This is the reason why the U.S. is one of the richest countries in the world, with its GDP growth driven by consumer spending. Yet despite the ability to create wealth, the income gap between the rich and poor has been rising, which ultimately impacts consumer spending. In my view, this is an issue that needs to be addressed, because there is a societal need to help the less fortunate. Of course, paying higher taxes is a form of income distribution, but given the tax loopholes, the current system of taxes as a form of income distribution may need to be fixed.

This concept of income distribution in America and other industrialized countries is becoming a real problem, especially with the great recession that began in 2008. Lower income levels impact consumer spending and economic growth; therefore, lower income levels mean lower GDP growth and an extension of the current recession.

The median family income plummeted to an inflation-adjusted $45,800 in 2010, compared to $49,600 in 2007, according to the Survey of Consumer Finances published by the Federal Reserve. The survey also indicated that the top 10% of households made an average of $349,000 in 2010 and had a net worth of $2.9 million. This translates into lower consumer spending by the middle class as income levels fade.

What is worrisome is that the recession resulted in a greater disparity in incomes between the poor and the rich. It’s common for the chief executive officer (CEO) of a large company to earn multiples of regular workers. According to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization (AFL-CIO), the average CEO of an S&P 500 company earned $12.9 million in 2011, which is 380 times higher than the average income of a worker in the U.S., which was $33,947.

In America, the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer. With more than 30 million Americans using some form of food stamps—which also impacts consumer spending—there is a great disparity of income in this country. The same is true in other countries, such as Brazil, Russia, and Venezuela.

The income gap is widening. In 1962, the top one percent of income earners had a net worth of 125 times the median household, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The income gap surged 288 times in 2010 and continues to increase. This means less consumer spending from the middle class. President Obama realizes this and wants to remedy the situation. Of course, the gap will continue to be significant, as the rich have a much larger base of wealth to work from and can accelerate the growth of their net worth much quicker. Making two percent on $10.0 million is a lot better than making two percent on $1,000.

Whatever your views on income distribution, and there will be some who feel the current tax structure is correct, the problem is that income disparity inevitably causes societal issues. In the long run, this cannot be good for America or consumer spending.

Perhaps a flat tax would work?

Some argue this system wouldn’t work. For those who are in this group, take a look at Hong Kong, which is the center of wealth and consumer spending in Asia, and you’ll see a flat tax structure could work.

VN:D [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (2 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
The Death of the Middle Class, 10.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tags: , ,

  • it_begins

    What an old and nonsensical argument. Look, if I make $1000 a year, and my neighbor makes $2000 a year, and we both get a 10% raise, I get an extra $100, but my neighbor gets $200. The "gap" between us has just grown by $100.

    This is just simple math. Those who cry about a "growing wage gap" can never be wrong on the facts, because the math always works the same, so there will always be a growing wage gap, and no elected official can ever change that. Still, they use it as a campaign slogan, as if they could do something about it, and to try and get the "poor" to vote against the "rich".

  • Bond

    Better to get $100 than $0. What if that person earning $2000 more spent more on his education? All about choices.

  • Be28

    And it's the lemmings who buy the professional propaganda machine's half-truths and lies and vote against their own best interests. Great system, isn't it.

  • Kostaghus

    I see your point. But perhaps you'd care to share with us trolls what the best interests of the "lemmings" would be in your acception of the word "interests". Would you, kindly?