Further, there are still some families in his “favored fifth” with dual-earners in solid middle-class jobs but without higher education-such as a line worker and a plumber-so I think we need a more fine-tuned definition of those who have the opportunity to “opportunity hoard.” To this end, in my own work, I define “professionals” as those in the top 20 percent where at least one person in the family has a college degree, a distinction that pulled 3.2 percent of “favored fifth” families back into the middle class. Because of this, many in the top 20 percent aren’t the elite professionals Reeves writes about.
#Upper middle class crack
Take Denver, for example, where according to 2014 data, that income puts a family at about the 75th percentile, or San Jose, where it takes an income of $178,000 a year for a household to crack the top 20 percent. In many cities, a family income of $112,000 a year cannot guarantee broad-based access to the American Dream, as he claims. However, Reeve’s top 20 percent definition also has a number of drawbacks. What’s more, he believes that parents-and their kids, as they grow into adulthood-engage in unfair “opportunity hoarding,” limiting access to “merit” for the bottom 80 percent. This means that they are able to develop more of the kind of “merit” (his quotes) that is valued. He marshals persuasive evidence to show how, from birth to college, children of upper middle-class parents have better access to the training needed to develop the kinds of skills and attributes rewarded in the labor market. He argues that our nation is witnessing the emergence of rigid class distinctions and homes in on the advantages that upper middle-class families confer on their progeny. His focus on the top 20 percent stems from his belief that the problem isn’t income inequality per se, but rather class privilege. Reeves’s frame makes for a sharp contrast-and quite intentionally so-with previous commentators and experts, notably Piketty, who have argued that the most important inequality trend is the growing divide between the top 1 percent and the rest of society. Disaggregating the data, however, we see that over that 34-year period the top 20 percent saw their incomes rise by 101 percent per adult, while the remaining 80 percent saw a paltry 21 percent growth per adult, after adjusting for inflation. Data from economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman show that between 19, average national income per adult grew by 61 percent in the United States. This group has seen sharper increases in income than those with incomes in the bottom 80 percent. There are compelling reasons to focus on the top 20 percent. That’s households earning at least $112,000 a year. Reeves focuses on what he calls the “upper middle class” or the “favored fifth,” which he defines as the 20 percent of U.S.
While I’m sympathetic to his aims, I think that there’s a stronger call to action than he envisions.
#Upper middle class how to
In response, Reeves aims to show in Dream Hoarders how to recreate broad-based access to the American Dream. The United States, the nation that Ronald Reagan called “the shining city on the hill” and a place where anyone could grow up and make it up that ladder, now has a class system as rigid as that of Old Europe. But he also contends they’ve done something very selfish and unfair-they’re pulling the ladder up behind them. In a short book with a long title, Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and What To Do About It, Reeves argues that “upper middle class” Americans are doing quite well, with incomes continuing to rise. In fact, he wants them to accept their fair share of the blame. Richard Reeves wants his readers to understand that it’s no accident income inequality is rising and the rich are pulling away from everyone else.
0 kommentar(er)
