The Uprising of the Middle Class

[Ludicus]

The middle class has less money and bigger bills. Polls continue to show that the demonstrations are supported by most French people: of two-thirds of the country.
What we have seen is a combination of rising inequality and real wage declines. It's not just in France. There are clear signs that European voters are angry and are turning away from the mainstream parties.
In your opinion, what are the economic and social factors behind the uprising of the middle class on a European or even a global scale? please discuss.
Hundreds of arrests in Paris as 'gilets jaunes' protest turns violent ...

[Love Mountain]

Wealth is rapidly being concentrated on the top, while social services are being cut. I think many of the issues stem from the fact that the wealthy can quickly and effectively use their resources to influence the political process. The middle class is either too busy or unable to do the same. What need to happen is for governments around the world to give more tools to the non-wealthy to exercise political power and to keep them politically engaged. A more technocratic society should also be encouraged. Money simply needs to have much less influence on politics. Otherwise... well, the tables are already skewed heavily for the wealthy.

[Prodromos]

In truth all income classes have seen gains in income over the past few years. The standard of living has also increased significantly for most people; people today have access to inventions that people 20-30 years ago could only dream of: health care innovations, entertainment, Internet, home appliances, etc. In general people today are better off than ever before (materially).





https://www.investors.com/politics/c...ert-samuelson/

This conclusion is exceptionally important, because the CBO study is arguably the most comprehensive tabulation of Americans' incomes.

Most studies of incomes have glaring omissions. Some only examine before-tax income; others, after-tax. Many don't include some government benefits — for example, food stamps, Medicare or Medicaid (health programs for the elderly and poor). Others exclude employer-paid health insurance, which is a big item. The CBO study covers all these areas.

It confirms that the rich have catapulted ahead of most Americans, including many with six-figure incomes. The richest 1% of U.S. households had average pretax incomes of $1.855 million in 2015. The growth has been astonishing. From 1979 to 2015, pre-tax incomes of the top 1% jumped 233%. That's more than a tripling. (All figures are corrected for inflation.)

But it's not true that no one else had gains. If the bottom 99% experienced stagnation, their 2015 incomes would be close to those of 1979, the study's first year. This is what most people apparently believe.

The poorest fifth of Americans (a fifth is known as a "quintile") enjoyed a roughly 80% post-tax income increase since 1979. The richest quintile — those just below the top 1% — had a similar gain of nearly 80%. The middle three quintiles achieved less, about a 50% rise in post-tax incomes.

These seem small, but over four decades, they're meaningful. It's doubtful that most Americans would prefer to revert to the world as it was in 1979 — a world without smartphones, the Internet, most cable television or laparoscopic surgery.

Why then the belief in stagnation?

One plausible theory is that the gains in any one year are so small that most people don't recognize them. Instead, they feel they're marching in place. The demands on their income — for housing, food, college tuition, vacations and much else — swamp tiny gains.

Glance at the table below. It shows that modest income gains were widespread.

For the period 2000 to 2015, it gives the average gain in after-tax and after-transfers (government benefits) income for each quintile, from poorest to richest. The year 2000 was chosen as the base to dispel any notion that income gains occurred in the 1980s or '90s. Interestingly, the relative gain for the poorest quintile was about twice the increase of other quintiles (again: a quintile represents a fifth of the population).

Reality of Income Inequality

Although higher incomes could — in theory — reflect generous tax cuts, that doesn't appear to be the case. In 2015, the richest 1% paid an average federal tax rate of 33%, close to the 1979 rate of 35%.

With income inequality rising, it's not surprising that richer groups have actually provided an increasing share of federal tax revenues. In 2015, the richest quintile of Americans paid 69.5% of revenues, up from 55.1% in 1979. The share of the top 1% (included in the richest quintile) went from 14.1% in 1979 to 26.2% in 2015.

That's in America, though-- not sure about France. The French protestors are apparently demanding more government benefits but lower taxes. That is not going to happen. A free lunch only exists in the realm of minotaurs and cyclopes, despite what socialist politicians tell you.

[Ludicus]

. What need to happen is for governments around the world to give more tools to the non-wealthy to exercise political power and to keep them politically engaged. A more technocratic society should also be encouraged. Money simply needs to have much less influence on politics. Otherwise... well, the tables are already skewed heavily for the wealthy.

Yeah, I agree.

-----


May 1968: A Month of Revolution Pushed France Into the Modern

I think what we're seeing now is the may 68 of the middle class.Not exactly the same, but...

--

Macron to hold emergency meeting

Across France, gilets jaunes demonstrated all day on Saturday in cities or blocked roads and toll booths, with some briefly storming the runway at the Nantes airport and others blocking major motorway junctions or targeting prefects’ offices and tax offices.
On Sunday morning, Paris authorities were attempting to clean the facade of the Arc de Triomphe which had been covered in graffiti, including in large black letters: “The yellow vests will triumph.”
The gilets jaunes have significant support from the general public and are proving the biggest headache yet for Macron.

'State of insurrection' as fuel tax riots engulf central Paris | Reuters

“We are in a state of insurrection, I’ve never seen anything like it,” said Jeanne d’Hauteserre, the mayor of Paris’ 8th district, near the Arc de Triomphe.

The popular rebellion erupted out of nowhere on Nov. 17 and has spread quickly via social media, with protesters blocking roads across France and impeding access to shopping malls, factories and some fuel depots. The protests began as a backlash against Macron’s fuel tax hikes, but have tapped into a vein of deep dissatisfaction felt towards the 40-year-old’s economic reforms, which many voters feel favour the wealthy and big business.
Many on the outskirts of smaller provincial towns and villages have expressed anger, underlining the gap between metropolitan elites and working class voters that has boosted anti-establishment politics across the Western world.

[Paggers]

French politics certainly is robust.Voters may be turning away from mainstream parties as there seems to be a rise in single issue politics (thanks to social media) and the non-mainstream parties seize on this. Quick-fix politics is always popular for a while.I don't take too much interest in French politics, but as I understood it, Macron isn't leader of a mainstream party, more of a movement?From the little I've read about him, it seems he's a democratically elected, autocratic leaning President (or, impolitely, a jumped-up little ), who is now receiving a hands-on lesson in the politics of the street.These things usually die down when the weather turns towards winter.

[Aexodus]

Macron is such an idiot if he thinks he can make people turn to renewables (or which I support as it kills a flock of birds with one stone) by increasing fuel tax 23%. You subsidise green energy you little Scotland has the same problem where the SNP wants to entirely ban diesel cars in a couple of decades. But they both think they have a God given destiny to make their world a Utopia, and they know better.

“We must not change course, because the policy direction is right and necessary,” Mr Macron said in a televised address outlining his plan for a transition towards cleaner energy.

The words of a technocrat who doesn’t understand the real world.

[conon394]

The words of a technocrat who doesn’t understand the real world.

If the policy made sense and was need ... I mean like regulating the Medical profession, food safety... Just think how cheaper you car would be without airbags, seat belts, or any other safety feature. Dammit I could open my Tylenol bottle a lot faster w/o all those stupid security seals... damn technocratic regulators why are they making life hard ... oh forgot this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders

[Aside interest thought if that happened today and the prime suspect was muslim you suppose they call it murder or terrorism?]

On Macrom I would say this looks like real poor execution. Shared sacrifice works best when people feel there is sharing. By all accounts the riches 1% were likely to gain substantially out of the 2018/19 budget. Toss a blunt large flat tax on gas something obvious to consumers and defiantly regressive and somebody did not do enough thought experiment on that one. I assume the screw in the budget is because of some reduction in capital gains or dividend taxes or property taxes. Does France have an income tax? The better policy would have been to raise the gas tax but rebate it via the income tax to lower income individuals. Even red state Idaho recognizes that the sales tax is regressive and has a sliding scale rebate to people via their tax return.

[Aexodus]

Just think how cheaper you car would be without airbags, seat belts, or any other safety feature. Dammit I could open my Tylenol bottle a lot faster w/o all those stupid security seals... damn technocratic regulators why are they making life hard ... oh forgot this

But what downsides do any of those have. Who is protesting those.

[athanaric]

The middle class has less money and bigger bills. Polls continue to show that the demonstrations are supported by most French people: of two-thirds of the country.
What we have seen is a combination of rising inequality and real wage declines. It's not just in France. There are clear signs that European voters are angry and are turning away from the mainstream parties.
In your opinion, what are the economic and social factors behind the uprising of the middle class on a European or even a global scale? please discuss.

Dramatic increases in fuel prices are going to hit the rural population hardest. Same with the Diesel hysteria in Germany (supposedly harmful concentrations of CO2 and NOx leading several major cities to ban at least some types of vehicles with Diesel motors). I also think that they're feeling the negative impact of other aspects of globalization.
This is on top of the constant belittling of the indigenous rural population as uneducated, gun-toting, xenophobic rubes by the upper classes (including media and "progressive" politicians). All part of a general conflict of interest between urban centres and more rural areas.
IMO the people doing the burning and looting are most likely the usual suspects looking for an excuse to engage in violence and criminal activity, and hiding behind a "noble cause". Just like we've seen at other events, like the various G20 protests. They'll end up giving the protests a bad name tainting the movement as a whole (which, presumably, is just what the government wants).

[conon394]

But what downsides do any of those have. Who is protesting those.

Back in the day more or less all of the industry for certain and people in general. Government busy bodies that were inflicting cost upon the public and drove up expenses. In general safety improvements were never welcomed and oft criticized as driving up prices.

But again the problem here I think it bad implementation. A striking rise in gas taxes is regressive and will obviously hurt those who drive more rural areas, and poor in general. I would have expected a European pol to be astute enough to either phase that in or have system to rebate it somehow to poorer people. I not familiar with the goal was to reduce emissions or reduce cars. If the former, it seems to me some more nebulous carbon tax or VAT application would not have been to provocative, if the Later surly subsidizes to encourage electric vehicles or buy a substantively more fuel efficient ones would have been the better option (with a slow multi-year increase in gas taxes). Subsidize installing more solar panels on homes and buildings.

[Ludicus]

I think that something new is happening. It's not just taxes. The common people wants to have a voice and "change" the Republic. For those who understand French, check the video- André Lannée, a gilete, suggested organizing facebook referendums to elect two gilets jaunes representatives for every region. He says,
"once elected, the group could then propose new legislation.We will arrive at the Elysée with a demand. It will be an official delegation, legitimate as it has been elected by popular referenda. We are not going to smash anything up, there is no interest in smashing up our country.We let nothing go; we continue"
https://www.facebook.com/andre.lanne...5856954209809/
---
A IFOP poll showed Macron's popularity had dropped to a new low of 23%. Sondage : Emmanuel Macron au plus bas, Edouard Philippe en forte ...
----
Next Saturday, more protests and Paris St-Germain-Montpellier: Saturday's Ligue 1 game postponed... at the request of the police.
----

Now...Trump.
The ineffable Trump can't keep his mouth closed (thinking about it, - Donald Trump Tops Google Images Searches for 'Idiot' | Time)

Paris riots: Trump retweets false claims about the protests in France ...

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump evidently decided it was time for him to weigh in on the protests — by sharing a tweet from Charlie Kirk, a 25-year-old conservative political activist and ardent Trump supporter, with his millions of followers.
There’s one problem, though: Nothing in the tweet is even remotely accurate.
Trump’s disregard for the truth and active attempts to create his own reality — and to convince his supporters of that imagined reality — are nothing new.
But the fact that the sitting president of the United States either does not understand or is deliberately misrepresenting the basic dynamics of a massive political crisis roiling one of America’s closest allies is deeply disturbing.

Trump retweeted,

There are riots in socialist France because of radical leftist fuel taxes. Media barely mentioning this America is booming, Europe is burning. They want to cover up the middle class rebellion against cultural Marxism “We want Trump” being chanted through the streets of Paris.

"We want Trump being chanted through the streets of Paris"!!!
A delusional fiction by the President of the US.

[Love Mountain]

In truth all income classes have seen gains in income over the past few years. The standard of living has also increased significantly for most people; people today have access to inventions that people 20-30 years ago could only dream of: health care innovations, entertainment, Internet, home appliances, etc. In general people today are better off than ever before (materially).





https://www.investors.com/politics/c...ert-samuelson/


That's in America, though-- not sure about France. The French protestors are apparently demanding more government benefits but lower taxes. That is not going to happen. A free lunch only exists in the realm of minotaurs and cyclopes, despite what socialist politicians tell you.

This is America...? You do realize that this is income after transfers right? Let's talk about the study your article so heavily relies on.

Income trends before taxes & transfers 1979-2015

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And this is after those transfers 1979-2015

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In other words, if you note the transfer differences, the "socialist politcians" that keep prattling on about free lunch and "failed" policies are responsible for almost half of the income growth for the lowest quintile, and ~25% of the income growth for middle quintile. So if you're trying to make the same point that article is, that "income inequality is a myth", you've picked a remarkably poor article to do so. Not only does it make it strikingly clear just how inequitable the distribution of income is today, it makes it clear that the income growth has been grossly uneven.

Here is the study in question,

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115...ncome-2014.pdf

And it's conclusions and analysis are strikingly different from those in the article. For example, the article starts out with, "The top 1% have grabbed most income gains, while average Americans are stuck in the mud.Well, it's not so. That's the message — perhaps unintended — from the Congressional Budget Office, which reports periodically on the distribution and growth of the nation's income. It recently found that most Americans had experienced clear-cut income gains since the early 1980s."

I mean really? That's the "untended" message? I think the actual message, if you don't selectively parse the study that is, show a clear trend that the top 1% have indeed grabbed most of the income gains. Here's an excerpt from the section, Trends in Income after Taxes & Transfers. It says the following, "Households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution—ranked by income before transfers and taxes— experienced the most volatile and significant cumulative growth in income after transfers and taxes. In 2014, real income after transfers and taxes for that income group was 228 percent greater than it was in 1979, CBO estimates. Most of that growth and volatility stemmed from the growth and volatility in income before transfers and taxes (which rose by 221 percent)—although changes in average federal tax rates over time for the group exacerbated the variation in the cumulative growth rate. "

Meanwhile, "For the middle of the income distribution—measured here as the middle three quintiles, which make up the 21st to 80th percentiles—cumulative growth in real income after transfers and taxes was significantly slower than that for the two higher income groups: about 42 percent. Real income after transfers and taxes grew much faster than income before transfers and taxes for this group (which rose by 28 percent)"

Now I'd like to bring your attention to two major sections in this short excerpt. First, the fact that real income after transfers and taxes (which is a net negative for the top 1%) is 220%+ since 1979. Meanwhile, for the middle quintile, or the "average American" the income growth since 1979 is only 42%, 5 times less than the top 1%. Now fine, 42% is still a significant growth rate, even if it is 5 times less, let's not be Communist, right? That is until we see that if we take away the transfers, or the so-called government theft, their income growth is only 28%, which is significantly less, not to mention 7-8 times worse than the top 1%. The share of transfers in the income growth rate for incomes is even worse for the bottom quintile, where the income growth drop-off is from 69% after income & transfers to a measly 26%, before income & transfers. I mean this is ridiculous. 26% divided by 35 years is 0.75% of income growth per year. The real GDP of US has grown by almost 250% 1979-2014 for comparison. I think it's clear who captured the majority of the growth gains there.

Now of course people would prefer to live in 2014 than in 1979, but really? Is that your glorious argument? "Don't complain you have a smartphone". I'm not gonna go into the fact that a large portion of the technologies in your smartphone are the result of government funded research and projects, but suffice to say you can't say stagnation isn't real, demonize the government, and claim all of the progress made at stopping stagnation made by the government. That's just dishonest.

[Ludicus]

Now of course people would prefer to live in 2014 than in 1979, but really?...

Obviously. Good post.

---

The French protests, like Brexit, are a raging cry for help from the disenfranchised.

Revolt against fuel prices has morphed into a full-blown rejection of Macron’s agenda from those struggling to survive...Macron... Does he wonder whether this is a revolt or a revolution? In both scenarios, he occupies the status of the hated king.

Rising rents, prices and taxes, high levels of unemployment in rural and peri-urban areas, generalised precarity, stagnant wages: the yellow vests movement has united people from all political fronts around common ground: the anger of all those who barely earn enough to live. “The elites are talking about the end of the world (*) while we’re talking about the end of the month,” a yellow vest protester told Le Monde

(*) climate change

[Prodromos]

Every single income class is richer today than in the past. When people today complain about "income inequality", they are not complaining about getting poorer; they're complaining about not getting as rich as other people, despite still being richer than they were before, and certainly richer than the vast majority of people on Earth. This has nothing to do with poverty. It's just greed, envy, and resentment. And then the "solution" is always to simply take by force from other people. Nothing moral or admirable about any of this.

[Love Mountain]

Every single income class is richer today than in the past. When people today complain about "income inequality", they are not complaining about getting poorer; they're complaining about not getting as rich as other people, despite still being richer than they were before, and certainly richer than the vast majority of people on Earth. This has nothing to do with poverty. It's just greed, envy, and resentment. And then the "solution" is always to simply take by force from other people. Nothing moral or admirable about any of this.

Real median household income is barely improving from the year 2,000. Percentage of people in poverty in America has remained steady. Census poverty line is based on, "As with the poverty guidelines, they represent a federal government estimate of the point below which a household of a given size has pre-tax cash income insufficient to meet minimal food and other basic needs."

So that hasn't improved. I really don't see what I'm supposed to be so stoked about when it comes to household incomes. I guess everyone has smartphones and facebook now? Whoopedi-ing-do.

[Prodromos]

$62,000 and this dude's complaining about poverty. Amazing. Right next door in Cuba people would be lucky to make $300/year (no typo). Even in most European countries the median household income is $10,000-30,000. And that's just money. Billionaires in 1900 had a lower standard of living than the average person today.

https://fee.org/articles/you-are-ric...d-rockefeller/

smh

[Love Mountain]

$62,000 and this dude's complaining about poverty. Amazing. Right next door in Cuba people would be lucky to make $300/year (no typo). Even in most European countries the median household income is $10,000-30,000. And that's just money. Billionaires in 1900 had a lower standard of living than the average person today.

So a billionaire in 1900 has a lower standing of living than a person with 62,000$ today. Are you serious? What, because he can't use Twitter? Moreover, we're talking about stagnation, the median household income has barely budged. I addressed the poverty argument by highlighting that poverty has actually increase in absolute terms, and remained stable as a percentage.

https://fee.org/articles/you-are-ric...d-rockefeller/

smh

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/us/am...ort/index.html

"Maudine Fall has spent her life working minimum wage jobs. At 56 years old, she became homeless. Although she continues cleaning and catering, she rarely gets more than 30 hours of work a week.
Occasionally, she stays in shelters, some nights she sleeps on the street. The worst part she says; you can never let your guard down."

Pathetic beggar. All she's fit for is licking my boots. Bootstraps lady, bootstraps!

[Muizer]

I think in western European democracies 'the people' are to blame for much of their own problems. A growing proportion seems to only accept leadership if, and for as long as, they're told they can have whatever they want. They do not take 'no' for an answer, and in times of adversity the only political survival strategy that works on them is to play a blame game. The 'elite' did it. The 'immigrants' did it. The EU did it. Try to sell the harsh reality that, sorry, you gave us a mandate and this is the best we could do within our limited room for manoeuver and you end up slaughtered at the polls. Sure there are political establishments, but when ever have there been more and bigger new political movements than today? Macron's en Marche is probably the biggest out there! Certainly the French are the last who could claim to be under the thumb of a political elite or corporate money. Their 'revolt' was Macron and I am not at all under the impression Macron is doing things that are frightfully out of step with his election campaign. So who got it wrong here. Macron, or the people who voted for him?

[Aexodus]

A problem with the French system ‘ight be that you don’t actually need that much support to win. I think Macron was only supported by 24% in the first round, and le pen was 21%. Considering that this is mostly a rural and working class rebellion, I do not think that this demographic voted for Macron in any kind of large way.

[Heathen Hammer]

The problem is that people in the West can hardly be held responsible for what their governments are doing. Most of Western neoliberal regimes are democracies only in name and are pretty much textbook oligarchies, where democratic institutions exist in theory but are functionally controlled by interests of financial elites. French government is a perfect example of such state.
The current events show that West and Europe in particular are in dire need of overhaul of their electoral system and government structure, to avoid a situation where countries like France are run by unpopular politicians that were paid into power by billionaire interests.