On Nov 12, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Michael Pugliese wrote:
> Same Stephen Rose?
> http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?
> section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=12002
> >...One strand of this argument contends that, despite rising
> insecurity and inequality, most people are doing fine
This came up here before. Rose is really cherry-picking - he builds his argument towards the incomes of two-earner, prime-age, married- couple families, who are hardly representative of the population. He touts net worth dominated by home equity, which people can't meaningfully tap unless they sell the house and move into a trailer when they retire. It's wrong to say the American masses are suffering, but there are vast numbers barely getting by, and many of the well-off are fearful that they won't be forever (or that their kids won't be). He tries to make them disappear.
Oh and this: "These numbers all add up to this one: $23,700, the household income at which a white voter was more likely to vote Republican than Democratic in the 2004 congressional races." Race, of course, has nothing to do with this.
Doug