The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class with Elizabeth Warren

I was watching a video by Elizabeth Warren of Harvard Law School on the topic the other day. The gist of it is (I think) basically that housing and healthcare are taking up most of the money of the middle class. In the 1970-ties a single earner could bring in enough money to support the whole family. Now in the middle class both parents have to work, which doubles the financial risk for the family if one of them (for example) looses a job. If you are interested: the link is [VIDEO]

> This is especially important in US because the cost of living is high Cost of living in the US expensive? Have you traveled to Europe or Japan? Life is way more expensive in Europe , and in some European countries salaries are way lower than in the US. It's raising kids what is more expensive in the US than in Europe: * ‘Why Middle Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke’ [LINK] * The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class [VIDEO] * The Two-income Trap By Elizabeth Warren, Amelia Warren Tyagi [LINK] Solution : Move to Europe. I did the opposite. I moved from Europe to the US, but that's because I don't have kids.

I'm a bit disappointed in all this "bah humbug, I can manage my credit cards" attitude. That site is specifically for people who are struggling to manage their finances. I'm not really sold that their reasons for not accepting credit cards make sense (lack of fraud protection is the biggest problem). But it makes some psychological sense. You don't see a lot of AA meetings held in bars. Also, complaining that the average yokel can't manage their credit is like complaining that users can't deal with a command-line interface. Sure the discipline to learn it would pay off, but most people aren't wired that way. Furthermore the credit system as we have it now is designed, by very talented professionals, to prey on common flaws in the human mammal's ability to assess risk and future obligation. Everybody has something that they're irrational about. Don't make me ask you how much time you've spent on WoW this month. Lastly, those of us on this board are probably lucky to have relatively high-paying jobs, even if we were less-than-perfect students or tried startup life for a while. The demand is just that great. But software is a huge anomaly in the North American economy. Wages for most people have been flat, relative to inflation, for decades. And furthermore, the risk of sudden and prolonged drops in income has been much higher since 1970 or so. For hackers that means okay, okay, I'll take the stupid J2EE job . For the average North American worker, it might mean accepting some s

In 2007, before the financial crisis and before becoming Chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel investigating the Troubled Assets Relief Program, Dr. Elizabeth Warren gave a very interesting talk at UC Berkeley titled "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class." [VIDEO] At the time I thought it was a little alarmist, but in view of recent developments I recommend watching it (58 minutes, sorry). It speaks directly to the point about wages and how middle class households employ revolving credit to make up the the difference. The graphs and data are interesting.

>I'm not sure that housing/medical/car are more expensive. I don't know about comparing 2010 to 1990, but I do know that if you compare roughly 2000 to 1970, all of those expenses went down. ... I'm fairly certain she showed that medical expenses + housing + need for a second vehicle accounted for the majority of the change in expenditures for the average nuclear family. I haven't read the book yet, but I've watched her talk. This is where she talks about changes in expenses: [VIDEO] Edit: Skip to here if you can't spare four minutes extra for some exposition: [VIDEO]

This is where she addresses the change in housing. She doesn't discuss square footage, rather number of rooms. [VIDEO] This is where she addresses health insurance: [VIDEO] And here the additional risk with needing to take off work for medical care: [VIDEO] Also, as she clearly shows in her book, a family needs a second worker to have a higher standard of living (bigger house, two cars, better medicine) than their parents. This is not her view, nor what she argues with her data. You are certainly free and encouraged to interpret the data yourself, but it was unclear that you were giving your own view and not her's, which is what I found so confusing. This is why my approach to this conversation was one of correction, not discussion. I tend to agree with her analysis of the data and feel that yours is misleading. I suspect that this arises from a difference in priorities or viewpoint that would be impossible to address in this space. You have, however, inspired me to read her book, so for that I thank you.

Several points The study looks at income, not wealth ("riches"). To maintain a middle class lifestyle, one must today make a proportionally far larger expenditure for housing, education and transportation. In constant dollars, cost per square foot of housing has increased dramatically (even with the recent declines). It is now necessary to pay for daycare (due to two-income households) and for college (high school used to be sufficient). Most households now have two cars rather than one (due to two-income households). Further, because two income households make commitments based on two incomes, they are not prepared for the loss of income from either spouse, whereas formerly, there was reserve income potential in the stay-at-home child rearing spouse. The above is mostly summarised from a presentation by Elizabeth Warren here: [VIDEO]

The costs of living have been going down for the past 50 years at an incredible pace. No it has not: [VIDEO]

This is a great point. Not to get political myself, but if you compare this talk to Elizabeth Warren's "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class"[1] from a few years back, it's night and day. Before she made economic claims, she described her exhaustive process with government agencies to get reliable data; the ways she tested the data when it seemed implausible; the various theories she tested and rejected to explain the data ... it's gripping stuff, because she develops insights based on research and hard-nosed science. That's what TED should be about. [1] [VIDEO]

This is very interesting. I think it's also worth pointing out that the data tends to show that the use of personal bankruptcy to game the system is actually very low. I find that when the subject is brought up in a political context, this distinction is often not made. Here is a great lecture from Elizabeth Warren on the subject: [VIDEO]

I'd advise giving this a watch. The data has surprised everyone, including the people researching it: [VIDEO]

Elizabeth Warren has answers: The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class with Elizabeth Warren [VIDEO] Everyone should watch the video. She answers for the question of having more cars etc.

> It is unclear if there actually has been a enormous shift in incomes in the way it is being presented in the media. It's pretty clear: [VIDEO]

The reverse is true: there a more two income earners now but household income hasn't increased as much. Per person is flat. [VIDEO]

It's more complicated than that. You need to live in a cheap part of town to afford rent but your city is un-walkable and has poor public transportation? Buy or lease a car so you can reliably get to work on time. You have a family and want to send your children to the best (or even decent) public schools? Live in a more expensive area - you have to buy access to good schools in many places, and the monthly payment on a mortgage for a house is cheaper than renting. You want a college education? Pay up. You want health care? Better have good insurance. There are many reasons that people have debt, and it's not all exorbitant spending. At the same time SOMEONE is profiting off that debt, and they have a vested interest in keeping that debt alive. This is a good talk that discusses nonintuitive pains the middle class is experiencing: [VIDEO]

This 2008 talk by Elizabeth Warren shows how much more complicated the situation is than the picture you paint. [VIDEO]

Elizabeth Warren gave a talk about this about a decade ago (before becoming a senator): [VIDEO] For a family of 4 compared 1975 to 2005, all inflation-adjusted: Median housing went up by 76%, median number of rooms only went from 5.8 to 6.1 (5% increase), and the house is older. 74% increase in median health-care costs for a family of 4 with employer sponsored health-care. 52% increase in spending on cars, but cars are cheaper; many more families have 2+ cars. Childcare went from the median family of 4 spending $0 to being a significant expense. Tax liability went up by 21%

If you look at a chart of TV prices over 50-80 years, this has always been a trend [1]. Institutes using this as an argument for declining poverty are missing the point that while most goods have gone down in cost over the years, services (childcare) and things of value (education) have gone up substantially [2]. [1]: [LINK] [2]: Elizabeth Warren's classic "Twin Income Trap" talk: [VIDEO]

> Single income households were a common occurrence, since dual income households competing for housing were not out competing single income houses. And I don't mean this in a crypto conservative way, even Elizabeth Warren wrote a book about it: [LINK] I haven't read the book, but her speech a decade ago is really eye opening. [VIDEO]

This talk by Elizabeth Warren, before she was a US Senator, talks a lot about this problem of essentials like housing, education, and healthcare going up much faster than, say, a new TV price: [VIDEO]