Originally Posted by
cafzali
If you examine the history of successful economies throughout the world, you'll see absolutely no economy has succeeded long term without a viable middle class and that's the direction we're going rapidly in this country. The middle class consumes the majority of the things that the wealthy produce because there's a limited market for luxury items.
Apparently you are no more versed in history than you are in business. The very concept of a large (key word there) middle class is a modern invention that resulted from the wealth produced in industrialist societies. Prior to that advent, societies were typically pyramidal shaped, with a the bulk of the population being poor, a merchant class that was somewhat larger than the upper class of the society.
That said, there is no indication that the middle class is loosing viability in this country. What they are loosing is the ability to spend beyond their means. It is no longer as viable to live on credit, which is how much of what you seem to be describing as a middle class lifestyle was supported. However, the ones who would suffer most from such a reversion to traditional economic structure would be what you call the middle class... They are the ones who most benefit from the uptick in wealth.
Another point that is relevent is that the very concept of middle class is what is causing part of the issue you are citing. Over the years a number of researchers have performed surveys where two questions have been included. 1) Identify whether you are a) middle class, b) poor, or c) rich and 2) Identify you income bracket. The results have been amazingly consistent. Up to 90% of respondents have identified themselves as being in the 'middle class', while there income levels did not meet the mathematical definition (typically second and third quartiles)... So yes, those who have actually always been poor, may in fact be now realizing that...
Originally Posted by
cafzali
On that, I'll end the politically oriented discussion and just say history will be the ultimate judge. We've tried supply side three or four times in the last 30 years and it's not worked yet because nobody ever turns down a government check, especially rural states that take money from states like New York, California and, to a lesser degree, Texas.
While not strictly true (there are a few exceptions), it does sadly seem to be all to common. And I would suspect that at least recently Texas has been providing more net to the coffers than California...