Obviously this idea has become conventional wisdom even though its not very correct.

Analysis of the statistics suggests otherwise.

Income for highly educated, highly skilled individuals does seem to be growing faster than the average. But income for the middle class (pick a lower income limit for the range) is growing as well. This growth is contrasted with lower income groups which include disproportionately large numbers of new immigrants who are often low skilled, poorly educated and are not nearly as productive as the middle class and upper middle class folks. (Incidentally statistics seem to show that these new immigrants typically progress toward lower middle class status, a constrained success which can perhaps be explained by a lesser cultural emphasis on education.) In addition we have and have had a substantial tranche of people who don't seem to fit well into the economy and are not keeping pace with middle class and upper middle class folks. Everyone who pays attention knows about this problem and is at wits end about what to do about it. Liberals have no, not any programmatic idea about how to deal with this except to pay public school teachers more money.

Further when the NYT and other MSM print articles that bemoan growing inequality,, when they get beyond a few anecdotes, almost never look at lower income class earnings taking into account the numerous support programs that exist, Earned Income Tax Credit and Food Stamps among the major ones. This means they don't even understand or are ignoring the true degree of income inequality. Nor do they come to grips with the structural character of the "inequality".

All of this adds up to what can be characterized as growing inequality in aggregate statistics but is related to situations which that are far more benign then represented or are already being addressed by existing government actions (though one can obviously argue about the level of help provided).

From a policy perspective people typically think in New Deal type of programs even though our inequality problem is not massive unemployment among people are very willing to work and are very productive. The policy remedies that would seemingly flow from liberal perceptions of inequality would be a massive jobs and/or welfare program that would primarily benefit new immigrants and benefits programs that would layer on additional help without taking account of what’s already being done. In other words, programs that either will become wildly unpopular, or don't make sense.

This is very insulting.

There is absolutely no way around the fact that the United States has the second lowest minimum wage of all developed countries (after Japan) despite having some of the highest executive pay. (Okay, third if you count Spain, but you're still behind Greece.) Next door in Canada we're almost a third higher.

What you're saying is, "You're not poor, but those evil Liberals have convinced you are. Now shut up and stop being a nation of whiners.)

The fact is, if your job could be offshored, it already would be. That argument against higher wages is pretty stupid. Americans are probably the hardest working and most productive employees in the world, and need to be paid better.

The USA including the so called poor have higher living standards than most countrys including Europe. Our poor would be middle class in Germany. So to go to a socialist system like Obama wants would mean higher unemployment and lower standard of living for us all.

Breaker:

Is it true that Household Median Income finally reached what it was in 2001 after adjusting for inflation? Doesn't say much for the middle class, does it?

What Hoover "did' not do, Bush did. During Hoover's administration, everyone lost in income. During Boy-George's administration, 95% of the taxpayer's lost in income while the other 5% either were stagnant or gained in income. Reason why? The 2001/2003/2006 tax breaks were skewed towards 1% of the taxpayers.

This is a typical liberal response wherein you're trying to "win" the debate by throwing out stupid moral comments. My past was carefully worded so it was difficult for you and your ilk to scream racism as I suspect you'd love to do.

You could start by telling us what you think is poor. 100k a year, 50k. I'll bet a dollar to a donut you never heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit before you read my post and don't have a clue as to how it works. Wise up.

Incidentally it was a Nixon administration initiative.

Its really your point of view that's insulting. You assume the poor are to be treated like children as opposed to adults who have responsibility to deal with their problems. And you and your like will decide what's best for them.

Please try harder to find good statistics.

Try Carp Diem which shows that household income has been flat primarily because households have been decreasing in size. Unless you believe that a smaller household needs as much income as a bigger household, your statistic is meaningless.

Lol. Define what you mean by skewed. The tax cut had greater tax rate reductions for the middle class than for the top %. The consequence of that is the relative tax rate on the rich is greater than it was during Billie-boys term.

And try to explain what you think is a fair tax cut given a tax cut is in the works. An $ equal tax cut seems grossly unfair, and is also difficult because of the large percentage of people who pay NO NOT ANY income tax. An equal $ tax cut would have put many more people into this group. I think the more people who pay taxes of some sort so they understand directly that the government costs money rather than simply as a source of handout.

We can argue separately whether the tax cut was a good idea, but given you are going to cut taxes, the $ amount of reduction for the "rich" is simple arithmetic. They get more of a $ cut because of the incredibly obvious fact that they're paying a lot more in taxes prior to any cut.

This is exactly the sort of nonsensical slogan that liberals throw around all the time. Like addressed above. The middle class, or more precisely the upper middle class is declining numerically as a group because they're becoming what people tend to term as rich.

What is a higher minimum wage an indicator of? Greater stupidity.

Economists have shown again and again that raising the minimum wage results in lost jobs for the poor.

Liberal economists who've thrown in the towel on this issue because of their political affiliations don't disagree but argue its not such a big effect so who cares.

But I think it matters more than that. We know as a fact that that the most reliable way to escape poverty is "GET A JOB". Any job is better for upward mobility than no job.

And being from Canada I guess you've got an excuse for not knowing about our Earned Income Tax Credit. Anyone who HAS A JOB at the minimum wage is eligible for a supplement from the federal government through the tax system. So how does the US minimum wage look when you factor that in?

And what a great program. An Earned Income Tax Credit program or increase in that program is such a better idea than a higher minimum wage because it encourages people to get JOBS without trying to force employers to pay them more than they're worth, which as I've said, employers don't do.

On the other hand, maybe things are different in Canada. Maybe you economy can generate income without jobs.