The most asked about graphic element from last night's show was the chart shown in Rachel's introduction to her interview with Barbara Ehrenreich, showing the relationship between union membership and the middle class share of income in America.
The source of the chart is this report from the Center for American Progress, published just as this year's new union membership numbers were released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If you dig around in there you can find some other interesting presentations of the data.
What the chart makes me wonder is if the middle class share of income is shrinking, how is everyone else's share changing? That answer is a little harder to excavate because while the data surely exists, and there are a lot of informative reviews of that data, it mostly focuses on the gap between the top 1% and everyone else. I'm sure the graph is out there though. Let me know if you run into something that shows how the share of income for other classes grew at the expense of the middle class.
(Related: While poking around I came upon this rich interactive from the NYTimes on income mobility. Lots to digest here.)
Leave a Comment:
Almost any sane person could see what is happening. Get rid of the Unions and then you have a open shot and dragging the American work force to the third world pay rate and quality.
The real question is "Does the chart show a cause and effect or a relationship?"
I have been a union member, union steward and a labor organizer. My point is that there is a relationship, certainly, but we cannot state that union membership shrinkage caused wage shrinkage.
It is much more complex than that. For instance losing jobs overseas has shrank the job market which in turn reduces wages because of increased competition for the fewer jobs available. A unions basic power is the right to strike. If the work is taken to another country how effective is the strike?
I recommend Thomas Friedmans, "The World is Flat" to gain a perspective on how international trade has impacted our society.
I absolutely support Unions but I do not beleive they are the solution to our problems unless we Unionize the entire world.
For an even broader perspective on the economic problems the world faces I recommend, "Greed and Good" by Sam Pizzigati. It is available free online or at most public libraries.
http://www.greedandgood.org/
It would be nice if we could solve these problems by pointing to a chart or with a sound bite but we can't.
Pat P11111. I agree 100%, great analysis. Unfortunately for both the middle class AND union members, the globalization of the workforce and open trade are driving wages down and sending our unskilled jobs to low wage countries.
You can't save the middle class through just unions or a minimum wage. IMHO, only innovation (with great education) will keep our economy humming.
Perhaps libertarians are correct here and the entire world will just stabilize onto one particular wage level. If that transpires I wonder what happens to the so called "free hand" of the market? Can one really argue that the market is "free" if there is no employee incentive? Perhaps we'll end up like the people on Miranda and we'll simply give up, stop working, and die. Or go crazy and become murderous savages....ya know, whichever ;-)
Pat P11111 - you say that the lower wages are the result of jobs moving overseas more than declingin Union membership. I woudl argue that those job were moved overseas precisely because the declingin power of labor was unable to prevent job losses to cheaper overseas labor as they have in the past. The first step was moving production to the U.S. South saying that the workers there were not as problematic - then offshore omnce the workers had no organizational power to object.
you say that the lower wages are the result of jobs moving overseas more than declingin Union membership.
no i say it was the genius TAX CUTS for shipping JOBS over seas that could be competitive here if Trade Agreements was fair.
My comment about the effect of shipping jobs over seas was not meant to be a single source reason for the decline in wages but simply an example of one of the relationships involved in the whole problem.
My veiw is that the fundamental problem is greed. Capitalism is founded on the idea that profit is the goal of all economic activity. It harnesses human aquisitiveness as a motivating factor. If you provide a good or service at a cheaper price you will be rewarded with profit.
We have allowed this economic theory to dominate our political and social theory. While the GOP more directly follows the dictates of economic based politics both parties have been captured by capitalism. Money dominates our political system. Capitalism dominates our culture. Materialism rules. We obsess with the bigger home or car or new product. We idolize the rich. For most of us that is the goal in life, to become rich.
Where is our national conversation on good? It does not exist as there is no profit in it. Where is the morality in capitalism? As Rachel has repeatedly stated, don't look for it in business, its not part of the system.
Other than the scientific method, capitalism is the most effective system mankind has ever devised. It has overcame all obstacles. The end point in capitalism is a monopoly, when all opponents have been vanquished.
Greed is winning. The rich get richer. The rich by more politicians and consolidate the reins of power. And they sell us trinkets and show us commercials to makes us desire them.
And now that unions have been neutered by union busting for the past 30 years, we are now seeing calls for eliminating the minimum wage, changing rules for overtime, and a call to relax child labor laws. Coincidence? I don't think so.
ask any old Intel office and they will tell you that there are no such things as COINCIDENCE`S.
they plan there work and then work there plan.
Tom Toles commentary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/toles?hpid=z3
The natural outgrowth of the long-standing Republican strategy to overcome their demographic disadvantage at the polls and to keep power in the hands of rich, white men.
Check this out if you want some further background: http://www.alternet.org/story/151908/6_reasons_the_tea_party_is_more_dangerous_than_mccarthyism?akid=7377.257963.Oe4X-Q&rd=1&t=21
Hopefully by now, everyone can see the handwriting that's been on the wall! Since that failed grade "B" actor was gifted the Presidency, there has been an open war on Unions and working Americans, being pitted one against the other! Now is not the time to give up the fight, the right has hoodwinked and bamboozled "the people" for years into supporting their "faux distraction issues" (via culture wars), it's time for people of good conscious to stand together to beat these barbarians back behind the gates where they belong!
Unfortunately, based on what happened in Wisconsin last night, people have not seen the handwriting on the wall. There was incredible passion and the beginnings of change, but there's so much further to go.
Well maybe it's time to start waking up "the base" - you know, people that have a clue, are conscious, deal in reality and understand the concept that "shared sacrifice" doesn't leave the 95% of working Americans to tote the water for the top 2%!
I've never been very politically active... but I agree - it's time to wake up and wake up other like-minded people.
People are not quiting the union.. Their Union Jobs are being shipped over seas because of the of the UNIONS. And You forgot to mention that the poor class hasn't grown till obama took office.. Those in the Middle class have beem moving into the Rich Class. Just look at the homes people use to live in 50 years ago..and the McMansions they live in today.
I'd like to see some demographic or economic data to back up the idea that the upper class has actually grown (or that there is a proportional increase in the size of the "rich class" compared to a decline in the "middle class"). I checked in the American Community Survey (which processes US census data) but am having trouble finding anything to substantiate this claim.
sorry, the link you provided below says that the link is no longer functional.
This paper may be of interest, hoosierprof.
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/pikettyqje.pdf
Here is a link to a recent presentation presented to the Nation Labor Relations Board hearing concerning the shrinking middle class.
http://www.epi.org/page/-/EPI_testimony_Eisenbrey_July_18%20%282%29.pdf?nocdn=1
It has some fairly on topic charts and is worth reading as a whole.
What I think Bob is trying to say is that as the middle class shrinks two outcomes occur. The upper class expands slightly and the bottom class expands enormously. That's how it exists when you do not have a middle class. The upper class becomes something like 7-12 million citizens and the rest become bottom class. This has been, traditionally, the way things work when no middle class exists. The one area where Bob is incorrect is in stating that the sudden expansion of the bottom class has been because of Obama. The bottom class has been expanding in the US for almost 40 years.
I was reading his comments differently. Below, he said "over 30% of US households in 2006 earned above $75K compared to under 20% in 1980. Over the same period, the percentage of US households earning under $35K fell from 42.8% to 36.7%. Fewer households are poor, fewer are middle class, and a hunk more are above $75K."
First, if you consider 35k still "middle class" in some communities, I'd take issue with that. But second, it sounds like his last sentence implies that BOTH the "poor" and "middle" classes diminished AND that the "rich class" grew. Other data I have seen suggests that while the top 1% in the US have increased their share of the national US wealth, the share of wealth for all others has stayed either relatively stagnant or has dropped slightly.
Why the difference?
lets see the same chart of the rich class growing in numbers
as unions disappeared.
thinking you forgot the snark or sarcasm there.
if not i bet you should have no problems finding those charts to support that view.
I am making a SWAG but bet it will show VERY FEW moving up from Middle/Working class.
Retired isn't even considered. And I was just as poor before Obama took office.
you can I get an Amen on that. Most people are in the same ship now, as before Obama took office. Looks like a lot of retired people are happy now things are going. I hope the people no, Obama is going to need 4 more years to get more in bigger ship. Amen to the BIGGER SHIPS
If the Republicans have their way this will be a one party country and they will rule rather than govern. Make it harder for the poor to vote, break the unions it is all aimed at getting rid of the Democratic party. God help us all if they succeed.
This is EXACTLY what I'm afraid of! Welcome to the 21st century, oh, and don't forget to pay the taxes to your lord, serf.
It already is a one party country. The rich party. CNN had a poll that showed 70% of the population beleive the rich and corporations should pay more in taxes.
The real difference between the two rich parties is on how healthy they need to keep the serfs. One side believes they should be cheap labor that gets starvation wages and the other thinks they should get a little extra spending money cause it motivates them to work harder.
So where is that middle class moving to? YES..Look for them in the upper class.
While looking for something else, I stumbled across this Census report on household income from 2006. What’s really interesting is to look at the percentage of households in each income category and how that’s changed over time. If the prophets of doom and decline and rising inequality are right, we would expect to see, I’d think, lots more rich households and lots more poor ones as the supposed gap widens. Some prophets of doom might expect to see fewer households in the upper brackets as the highest income categories are dominated by a few people getting very, very rich.
The reality, as it turns out, is different. From 1980 to 2006, the percentage of US households earning $100,000 or more (in constant 2006 dollars) grew from 8.6% to 19.1%. The percentage between $75k and $100K grew from 10.3 to 11.3 percent. At the other end, the percentage under $15K fell from 16.6% to 13.4% and the percentage between $15K and $34K fell from 26.2% to 23.3%. Thus all three categories below $35K fell a total of 6.1 percentage points.
The middle classes fell too, though by less. The sum total across the $35K to $75K categories fell by 5.4 percentage points. In other words: the net movement of households was an 11.5 percentage point gain in households above $75K and a net reduction of 11.5 percentage points in houses below $75K. So the percentage above $75K rose from 18.9% to 30.4%. That is, it increased by over 50%.
Let me repeat that: over 30% of US households in 2006 earned above $75K compared to under 20% in 1980. Over the same period, the percentage of US households earning under $35K fell from 42.8% to 36.7%. Fewer households are poor, fewer are middle class, and a hunk more are above $75K. (And in case you were wondering, those general trends hold for black and hispanic households too – with the percentage of black households under $35K falling by 10.9 percentage points and the number above $75K increasing by 8.9 percentage points, for example.)
Throw on top of this the fact that most everything people buy costs less in real terms and you have a recipe for increasing wealth across the board. Not bad for what so many people claim is 30 years of stagnation.
Thank you, Heritage Foundation and Club for Growth for your totally unbiased take on how wealthy we all really are. I'm sure the millions of unemployed are all zipping around town in their Ferraris and Bentleys, heading to their private jets to fly off to their vacation homes in Tahiti, and giving their servants a few well-deserved days off.
I guess your solution is to simply cut more taxes, dig the deficit hole deeper, give the rich more money, give the corporations more money, and tell the rest of America that they shouldn't worry about losing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and healthcare. Let the roads and bridges crumble, keep sending jobs overseas, because dammit, we're rich, and we don't need any of that crap.
Why is it that when I see your post, the word "apologist" comes to mind?
Bob, may I remind you that 2006 was the peak of the real estate market. That was before the "big crash". In case you didn't notice, a lot has happened since then.
Convenient to quote out-of-date data.
1. inflation is not considered
2. col is not considered
3. population growth is not considered
4. ram is not considered
.....
liberals can't handle the truth. they prefer their myth that no one is doing better except those who were already wealthy.
Between 1980 and 2008 (from the non partisan Tax Foundation)
The Top 1% grew by over 40% during that 28 year period.
The Top 5% grew by over 50% during that 28 year period.
Likewise the Top 50% grew by 49% during that 28 year period.
That means Capitalism works and the ranks of the wealthy and the middle class grew by upward mobility.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
What a crock of bullsh*t.
Last year, Slate.com ran an informative series of articles on income inequality in the US. One of the articles discussed the relationship between the decline of labor unions and growth of income inequality. It's worth another read.
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266031/
Dutchie,
Good article, thanks. For me the best writing concerning wealth inequity is book by Sam Pizzigati titled "Greed and Good." It quite a book both in size and scope.
Here is a reveiw by a congressman:
It's available onlineat at http://www.greedandgood.org/
Business is against workers pooling their economic power together so that workers will be stronger as a unified group than they would be as single workers. Business thinks that's "unfair" of workers to do that. But every time a corporation is formed (under the protection of state law), that is exactly what business is doing - combining together as an economic unified group so they will be stronger than they would be if they were individual investors. Business men/investors pool their economic power (corporations); workers should do the same. Organized workers "bargain"; unorganized workers "beg."
I agree with the argument that this chart is backing up, but I have to say that's a pretty dubious chart. Showing that 2 things happen to trend down, with completely flexible and separate y-axes, is not compelling. Still, the claim it's making happens to be true. Just not a great chart.
There may be a correlation there, but the graph is manipulated so that the union membership rate and middle class share seem to be in lockstep with each other. The actual numbers say as union membership has dropped 15 percent, middle class share of income dropped 6 percent. The graph would be more truthful to the numbers if the scales were the same on both sides.
"As union membership decreases, middle income shrinks". Astounding, isn't it ? God gave, even liberals, a brain. Use it - - for a change. Why is union membership decreasing ? Because jobs that produce goods are being moved over seas. Are you stupid enough to believe that only conservative owned corporations are responsible for this ? If you are - - Please stop reading my rants, now, because there is no hope for you.
The Left wants nothing more than to have middle-class income shrink, placing more people ( voters ) in need of the government "help". That's the only way they stay in power. I know it. You know it. The liberals know it.
The only way to get the U.S. economy turned around is simple. (1) Reduce corporate taxes and give some incentive to create jobs at home. (2) Don't eliminate unions but limit their ability to shut down companies . (3) Just for good measure ; Quit blaming George Bush for the economy. Remember that most of his 8 years he had a liberal congress to work with.
God Bless America - - Even liberal pinheads.
LMAO
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!! great laugh this morning!!!!!!
(1) Reduce corporate taxes and give some incentive to create jobs at home.
yes but taxing the crap out of them for ever job send over seas! or out sourced. tax break for creating JOBS here that Americans can survive on.
(2) Don't eliminate unions but limit their ability to shut down companies .
So no collective bargaining huh.
(3) Just for good measure ; Quit blaming George Bush for the economy. Remember that most of his 8 years he had a liberal congress to work with.
LOL,,,, to bad he just hide trillions of dollars off budget! and well i will stop blaming him right after ALL the economist stops as well.
I agree, that was one of the funniest posts I have seen in years! But, I was REALLY concerned when he pointed out our secret liberal plan, to put EVERYONE out of work so that they would be supported by the government. I still haven't figured out exactly how we will fund all those lavish government benefits if everyone is out of work and not paying taxes....but I'm working on it! The master plan must not be allowed to fail over such minor technicalities! Bwaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
Yes, I love the fact that Bush, "for most of his 8 years he had a liberal congress to work with". I'm guessing that is the liberal congress that was controlled by repubs from 2000-6? Yep, I can see how 2 out of 8 years is "most of his 8 years". If your reasoning and math on such a basic point are this demonstrably faulty, it's easy to see why you are a conservative. Math and logic are not only not required on the far right---they are positively grounds for excommunication!
Both the House and the Senate (with Cheney as the tiebreaker the first two years in the Senate) were controlled by Republicans for the first six years of George W. Bush's presidency.
well i do not want to expose our plan so openly Uffdaguy.
but we plan to pay for it by raising taxes so high on all the rich people.
can not wait for my country club member's ship.
Aw man, don't confuse him with facts! It makes a rightie's head explode, and it's a real mess to clean up....all that sawdust!
"Conservatives Rule
The Left wants nothing more than to have middle-class income shrink, placing more people ( voters ) in need of the government "help". That's the only way they stay in power. I know it. You know it. The liberals know it."
Then why is it that progressives are in favor of and proposed more money for education and job training programs? The Republicans have NEVER proposed anything other than cuts in those areas. Budget cuts to those areas are what create conditions to keep people dependent on the government. You should take heed of what is happening in the UK. Any minor incident can turn into a riot when you have large numbers of people unemployed and no stake in the future. They riot because they have nothing to lose.
Evidently you didn't hear Alan Greenspan tell Rachel on Meet the Press that American corporations are setting on 2 trillion dollars worth of capital.
Or is it you opinion that if we give them another couple trillion they will suddenly creat jobs? Demand creates jobs. There is demand for products in the middle class but they have no money. They have no jobs.
No matter how many times you say, "Give the wealthy more and they will solve your problems", it just is not true.
@Pat P11111
Republicans continue to believe in the magic of trickle down economics despite the fact that it has not worked in the last 30 years. This is not dissimilar to their position on climate change. Facts are irrelevant if you have "faith" in your beliefs.
I find it interesting, too, that conservatives won't introduce/consider OTHER factors in the decline in unionized jobs. For example, there has been an enormous growth in the number of right-to-work states, or comparable situations that allow employers not to recognize unions but rather to emphasize individual bargaining.
In short, it is so much easier to require that a worker negotiate on his/her own for the wages and benefits they can accrue rather than dealing with a union, which represents (sometimes) dozens or even hundreds of workers. Larger numbers equals more bargaining power-- that's why conservative state governments have not only given tax breaks to businesses that come to their states-- they also work an arrangement that removes the power for union-minded people to establish unions or to bargain collectively.
Mike Paganucci
I agree. The only trickle down theory that works is the one where an outraged middle class grabs a pitchfork and pokes a hole in the bag of money that the rich have manipulated themselves into.
A union - paid to represent the collective intrest of workers
A lobbyist - paid to represent the collective intrest of big money
Why is it that the protection of main street is being attacked while the lobbyist are given free rein to bribe and buy our government?
We need to stand up and protect our unions WHO will protect main street workers for corporate greed? Who will protect our safety and working conditions?
DO you really believe that Lobbyist will not in short order get everything that is in favor of the worker repealed if allowed to continue with out any one to appose them?
Ever since I worked for a Pittsburgh steel company fifty years ago, I've known how very important unions are to the American way of life. Their demise is one of the most obvious harbingers of our nation's decline.
This Silicon Valley technology guy's thesis is that Technology is as much to blame (if not more) than the traditional reasons for income disparity. He thinks technology is pushing us to a jobless economy. I quipped on Twitter that "Walmart execs should pay their automated checkout Robots more so they can afford to shop in their store" but the edge is the truth about Henry Ford's insight in the 21st century. As the consumer economy goes to automated checkout, there will be 3 million more US consumers without jobs. Martin Ford wrote a book on this and regularly blogs about the phenomenon eg http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-ford/could-we-have-civil-unres_b_906478.html (interesting- it resonates with the London stories)
What happened to the text transcripts for the show after July 26th? Barbara Ehrenreich said something very important about if the unions and working class aren't being represented by the Democrats then they should go somewhere else...
Agree, Andrew, TRMS text transcripts for the last couple of weeks (after July 27) seem to be cloaked.
The top 10% are having a good old time laughing at the bottom 90% fighting each other for the scraps. When are we going to stop fighting each other and go hard against the top 10% for more than scraps??
http://sociology.ussc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth/html
The report above is Professor G. William Domhuff's updated (July 2011) research into income inequality. It includes tax distribution over time...and a comparison with other countries. Nothing on unions, but still a reat study!
Sorry! The link is:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth/html
Not Found
The requested URL /whorulesamerica/power/wealth/html was not found on this server.
Apache Server at sociology.ucsc.edu Port 80
I agree with most posts on this blog, but I think this graph is somewhat deceptive.
From eyeing the graph and doing some math, the union membership declined approx 57% and the middle class share dropped approx 11%. This graph shows almost a direct correlation which isn't true. Is there a correlation? Yes? Direct? No. The slope of the two lines should be completely different.
From Think Progress:
"As the chart below demonstrates, the sharp decline over the past 40 years in the percentage of workers organized in unions has been associated with an equally sharp drop in the share of the nation's income going to the middle class."
This isn't an equal drop, from a mathematical perspective, but there is a correlation. We should be careful with the arguments we construct as data can be portrayed deceptively. Don't get me wrong. I believe we should support unions, but using bad graphs doesn't help the cause.
It is a bad graph. Even if it had the same y-axis it is only a relationship and does not mean a cause and effect.
Showing a relationship rather than causality doesn't make it a bad graph, just one that invites further investigation.
A mathematically inaccurate graph makes it a bad one. The slopes of these two lines are portrayed to be the same. They are not.
Zero Job Growth Graph. This graph shows that Job Growth has been 0% since the Clinton presidency. Never has a decade had job growth at less than 20%. Of course most households got poorer. What obscured this was by the debt bubble's illusion of prosperity caused by the adding of 6 trillion in household debt from 2000 to 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/01/01/GR2010010101478.html
Wow, that's stark. Now who was our government led by during most of that decade?
Bush created only 1.5 million jobs in his 8 years, the worst performance by any president in modern history. Even Obama has passed him in only 2 years.
Bush created only 1.5 million jobs in his 8 years,
yes Bush will be remember as the President of the LOST DECADE!
The graph is skewed. The share of middle class wealth 53%-47% while union membership goes from 28% to about 13%. You can't say that these are comparable in scale; only that they have a similar trend, and at that, not even a comparable trend since the union membership drops at more than twice the rate.
Yeah, I love TRMS but a lot of these graphs lately have been doing that. It's a little disingenuous.
Corporations created the divide between the middle class - public vs private...with their money and their agenda.
My government union job is being out sourced more and more and my union remains speechless about our situation....not sure if there is anything they can do - the state outsourced the work. With that said, I still prefer a union job.
Josh Trevino what a jerk - - sorry listening to Al Sharpton's show. First Lazio then Trevino.
Ok did S&P just shoot themselves in the foot by lowering our debt rating? It sure seems that way and it makes no sense.
I feel sorry for America - It appears "they" have succeeded in making sure the President will not remain in the white house. We are so screwed!
I'd like to comment on the income mobility chart that was linked to. I'm one of those who started as a child in the top fifth and is now as an adult in the bottom fifth. However, what depresses me is not which fifth I am in. Making more money than everyone else is not among my life goals. What is included among my life goals, though, is making enough money to pay my bills and have a decent standard of living. Also included among my life goals is living in a country where most or all others can also pay their bills and have a decent standard of living. Increasingly that country is not America. Mobility may be nice (at least for those who are moving up not down), but even nicer is a prosperity that is broadly shared. That we are moving farther and farther away from that rather than toward it is our great tragedy.
Jennifer Crawford-3246924
You state quite clearly the problem which has reoccurred throughout history,
Plutarch:
Mahatma Gandi;