> The share of Americans who are in the middle class is smaller than it used to be. In 1971, 61% of Americans lived in middle-class households. By 2023, the share had fallen to 51%
In 1970 1 oz of gold was ~$35 (by statute); today gold is $5,100; a few years ago it was well under two thousand dollarydoos.
Almost everybody is broke. A better way to look at this is to realize that 2025 was the highest year of spending by the Top [whatever-percentage] of consumers. The US fiat dollar's superior global position is waning, and this'll rot all economies & classes.
We're literally watching the final steps of "Trickle Down Economics" — where the wealth falls up [first slowly, then fast]. Add in some thinking machines — and it's just 21st century "slavery... with extra steps" (–R&M)
You cherry picked a line and didn't include the rest:
> But the gains for middle‑ and lower‑income households were less than the gains for upper‑income households
And you're making claims that are only talking about income (where the evidence suggests that inequality is increasing) to suggest that people are better off.
Where is the evidence that "all income levels are doing better"?
You are not able to talk about these separately. Inequality is increasing, but everyone's incomes have also increased. That means everyone has more money to spend, but also some people have more money than others. Why is it so hard for your to understand this?
The original article is literally focusing on a single metric to make a wider point about inequality — does that mean you agree that it's not a valid way to analyse the data. Particularly if the conclusion doesn't seem to be borne out by actual studies in the area.
∴ If a certain quintile of population is gathering more resources, necessarily other sections of the population are losing compensatory access to these same resources.
----
We can argue zero-sum (or not) all day long, but wealth inequality is increasing (globally, as well as US) and it shows most (anecdotally; statistically) along borders of haves & have nots.
I happen to live along such a border, as do both of my wealthier brothers (I'm the one on the other side of the tracks, but I live respectfully, with simple grace). The majority of americans are broker than broke, whether they live in a big financed house or a cardboard box — the latter's net-worth may actually be higher (if @ $0.00).
----
However you want to define metrics / sources, when the majority of your citizens are living paycheck-to-paycheck, or not able to come up with $1000 for an emergency expense without going into debt — you live in a fiscally unhealthy society.
----
When the majority of US stocks transacted in 2025 were done in darkpool (i.e. not public) marketplaces your financial markets are no longer participating in daily public price discovery.
----
I am the black sheep [blue collar electrician] of my family (they're all "professionals" [lawyers, politicians, engineers]); we still maintain respectful conversational tones (mostly) but none of my many family members lives outside of Top 5% income brackets, so they absolutely do not live in the same world as a median income earner experiences (like me; perhaps not you?).
Perhaps there is a Top20%/80% line that it takes living beyond to actually experience the reality of wealth inequality. I've seen both sides — that's about where I'd place it.
----
Let's continue this discussion, but I only log on a few times a week. I appreciate attempting to understand different perspectives (share yours?).
Certainly the higher your fiscal positioning, the better each recent decade has felt. Sure, we all have color TVs in our pockets [/s == "rich"], but can young people even afford to educate themselves in this economy?!
I know some very poor (and rich!) doctors and lawyers. Student loans and privatized healthcare are both evil within the USA — they can capture/demoralize just about any professional.
