Friday, February 22, 2008

The Middle Class Squeeze

Many observers have reported on a growing sense of economic anxiety among middle class Americans. Surveys tell us they feel the nation is "on the wrong track" by margins of three to one. Consumer confidence indicators show pessimism at the highest levels in nearly thirty years. For the first time since the Great Depression there is a negative savings rate in the U.S., which is to say that average Americans are spending more than they earn and simply piling up debt.

These conditions go beyond the current slowdown or possible recession, whichever the final statistics officially determine it to be. Instead they appear to be part of an overall squeeze that has been building since the mid 1970s. It is not just a perception. The American middle class is in trouble-deep trouble.

In an important analysis in the Financial Times of London, "America's Middle Classes Are No Longer Coping," of January 29, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes, "The fact is, middle-class families have exhausted the coping mechanisms they have used for more than three decades to get by on median wages that are barely higher than they were in 1970, adjusted for inflation. Male wages today are in fact lower than they were then: the income of a young man in his 30s is now 12 per cent below that of a man his age three decades ago. Yet for years now, America's middle class has lived beyond its pay cheque. Middle-class lifestyles have flourished even though median wages have barely budged. That is ending and Americans are beginning to feel the consequences."

I find my community college students stunned to learn that from the 1950s-1970s it was customary for even blue collar American families to afford a home based on the earnings of one income. Judging from the conditions that have prevailed their entire lives this is inconceivable to them. Even with two incomes, home foreclosures are at record highs, millions are being priced out of health coverage, income and asset inequity are the greatest since the 1920s and the affordability of a four-year college education-the surest ticket into the middle class-continues to grow beyond the reach of more millions every year.

Americans have tried three successive strategies to stave off inexorable decline in their standard of living. Reich explains, "The first coping mechanism was moving more women into paid work. The percentage of American working mothers with school-age children has almost doubled since 1970 - from 38 per cent to close to 70 per cent. But we reached the limit to how many mothers could maintain paying jobs."

Yet things continued to tighten. "We turned to a second coping mechanism. When families could not paddle any harder, they started paddling longer. The typical American now works two weeks more each year than 30 years ago. Compared with any other advanced nation we are veritable workaholics, putting in 350 more hours a year than the average European, more even than the notoriously industrious Japanese."

Not even that was enough. "As the tide of economic necessity continued to rise, we turned to the third coping mechanism. We began to borrow, big time. With housing prices rising briskly through the 1990s and even faster between 2002 and 2006, we turned our homes into piggy banks through home equity loans. Americans got nearly $250 billion worth of home equity every quarter in second mortgages and refinancings. That is nearly 10 per cent of disposable income. With credit cards raining down like manna, we bought plasma television sets, new appliances, vacations. With dollars artificially high because foreigners continued to hold them even as the nation sank deeper into debt, we summoned inexpensive goods and services from the rest of the world. But this final coping mechanism can no longer keep us going, either. The era of easy money is over. With the bursting of the housing bubble, home equity is drying up."

With housing prices rising much faster than incomes, there came the inevitable point at which most people could no longer afford to buy homes at these inflated prices. "As Moody's reported recently, defaults on home equity loans have surged to the highest level this decade. Car and credit card debt is next. Personal bankruptcies rose 48 per cent in first half of 2007, probably even more in the second half, which means a wave of defaults on consumer loans. Meanwhile, as foreigners begin shifting out of dollars, we will no longer have access to cheap foreign goods and services."

Reich summarizes: "In short, the anxiety gripping the middle class is not simply a product of the current economic slowdown. The underlying problem began around 1970. Any presidential candidate seeking to address it will have to think bigger than bailing out lenders and borrowers, or stimulating the economy with tax cuts and spending increases. Most Americans are still not prospering in the high-technology, global economy that emerged three decades ago. Almost all the benefits of economic growth since then have gone to a small number of people at the very top." (emphasis added).

With an eye toward the 2008 election, Reich advises, "The candidate who acknowledges this and comes up with ways not just to stimulate the economy but also to boost wages - through, say, a more progressive tax, stronger unions and, over the longer term, better schools for children from lower-income families and better access to higher education - will have a good chance of winning over America's increasingly anxious voters."

To this I would add the effects of soaring energy costs. This long period of pain began with the first energy shocks: the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979, two events that led to the effective consolidation of the OPEC oil cartel. Much of the earlier prosperity was fueled by dirt cheap energy. It is imperative that we pursue energy independence, particularly with renewable sources, as though our economic future depended on it. It does.



4 comments:

Paul Myers said...

Is the middle class being squeezed because of the economics of the times or are they being squeezed by their own injudicious use of their own resources? You point out that the middle class is borrowing to buy their flat screen TVs, their vacations and their new appliances. Are we keeping up with the Jones because we need to, or because we have to?

It seems like more and more of my middle school students (most of whom are from middle class families) seem to have multiple game systems at home? Why? One isn't enough? There are a lot of "toys" out there that there wasn't 20 to 30 years ago. Do we have to have them all right now? Why does every kid in the house need to have a VCR/DVD player in their room? Isn't the one in the living room good enough? What has happened to a delayed sense of gratification? We, as Americans, seem to think that we have to have it all and we have to have it all right now.

And yet if someone opts out of the "have it all right now" system, they're looked at like they're nuts. Most of my students and friends think it's crazy that we won't allow our children to drive until they've turned 18. As far as I'm concerned, they have more important things to do than drive a car. Their primary job is school. Our primary job is being parents and making sure they can function at their primary job. They don't need a car. They've accepted that. They're well fed and cared for, they're not neglected and we've save much money in insurance costs. The kids are also learning delayed gratification. Perhaps, we as Americans need to step back and learn some delayed gratification as well.

We, as a family, chose to have my wife leave her job and be a stay at home mother. We took more than 50% pay cut to do that and were still able, over the course of time, to upgrade our housing situation, not once, but twice, buying into better neighborhoods and larger houses. This was done in Southern California, one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. How were we able to do that? We were observant about what we were spending and we saved. We didn't go in debt. In fact, the only thing we owe money on right now is our mortgage.

Maybe more of us would be better off if we didn't do so much conspicuous consumption and learned a little self control and delayed gratification. I realize this approach won't solve all the ills that ail the American economy, but it would probably wouldn't hurt.

glasses upsidedown said...

I agree fully with your comments about the attack on our middle class, (see the book Nickeled and Dimed in America) but do you think the average citizen understands what is happening. I don't and think that our political process now involves diverting our attention from real issues. Watch, soon McCain and republicans will be trying to inflame the dialog by using immigration, homosexuality, gay marriage, loyalty based on who loves our soldiers the most. I the mean time discussion about our day to day lives and the econmy will not be addressed effectively or will be obfuscated to the point they won't be addressed.

By the way Gnu, keep up the good work on the blog. I'm becoming a fan.

Kayaxeman said...

I completely agree with Webfoot's comments about the middle class propensity toward instant gratification and consumerism. Most of the debt incurred is not necessary. What will be frightening is when times are tough enough to force "necessary" consumer debt (food, housing, etc.). In the meantime, we are continually being led to the trough by our own government, whose answer to the current economic doldrums is to borrow money from future generations to give us all a "tax rebate" that will most likely wind up as more hi-def televisions and blueray players.
Where (who) is the candidate who can convince the middle class that saving, down-scaling and eco-friendliness will ultimately bring more happiness than a bunch of fancy cars and gadgets?

Steve Natoli said...

Great wisdom in the three comments so far. Webfoot and Mr. H. are right to point out the effects of consumerism. Thousands of the best minds of our age are engaged in an around the clock campaign to bombard humanity with the message that buying the product or service they advertise is the path to fulfillment, acceptance, success, status, sex and true happiness itself. Other such minds are adept at convincing the multitudes that lack of money presents no obstacle thanks to the easy credit they are happy to provide. These campaigns are based on increasingly sophisticated psychological research. It's not easy for the human mind to resist an average 25 hours a week of exposure to intricate conditioning like this.

With that said, it is still true that in absolute terms the share of wealth earned and owned by the top 1-2% has increased markedly since the 1950s-1970s. People traded in their cars much more frequently than now and bought swimming pools, Barbie dolls and hi-fi systems back then that weren't necessary either. But the income cushion they enjoyed then is thinner now.

Don and H. also mention a concern that speaks to the reason I do this blog. Yes, I too feel most people are not well informed as to what's going on. They are easily distracted by what Paris and Britney are doing this week; they are easily if temporarily pacified by a small tax rebate or a nice scapegoating foray on the part of their political leaders. I think most folks know they don't understand and simply hope our leaders do and will try to make things right. They don't comprehend the institutional impediments that make that so difficult. I'm hoping this blog can aid in the effort to make things more clearly apparent to more people. In so doing people can muster the resolve to demand the kinds of steps that are necessary rather than fall for the palliative expediencies proffered by self-serving special interests and politicians too timid to upset the apple cart and tell folks what they don't want to hear.