Joanna
mike larkin wrote:
>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009435.php
>
>
>"....Part of the problem is that Democrats have been
>misled about the state of the middle class.
>Progressive economists typically peg median household
>income at about $45,000. But that includes households
>headed by 22-year olds (who are on their way up) and
>76-year olds (who live on fixed incomes that may be
>small but are often comfortable since they have no
>dependents and limited work related expenses).
>
> Among households headed by prime age Americans —
>adults between the ages of 26 and 59 — the median
>household income is about $63,000. For prime age
>married households the median income is over $70,000,
>and it is nearly $80,000 for two-earner prime age
>households. The point is that Democrats have a view of
>the middle class that is at one place on the income
>spectrum, when the reality is in a very different
>place.
>
>This is a badly underappreciated point: America is a
>very rich country. People still have economic worries,
>but the plain fact is that the vast majority of
>Americans are well enough off that their financial
>status is not the overwhelmingly most powerful fact of
>their lives. Like it or not, this means that for about
>70-80% of the population, raw appeals to economic
>populism just don't have much salience...."
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>