Wikinvest Wire

Not a Good Decade to be Middle-Class

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Sometimes you have to wonder what the plan is for the middle-class in this country.

It's pretty clear what the plan is for the middle class in Asia. Increasing in size and beginning the transition from saver to consumer must be at the top of the list - all part of a multi-decade process to wean itself from Western export dependence and to ultimately become both the manufacturing and consumption center of the world.

In the U.S., you often hear about all the new jobs that have been created in the last few years - 4.5 million they say. But, with falling real wages, the middle-class must surely be decreasing in size. And, a negative savings rate must now indicate that the transition from saver to consumer is about complete.

It seems there's an ongoing shake-out in the middle-class in the U.S., and for those departing, there are only two directions to go - up or down.

In this story from the Associated Press yesterday, the situation is neatly summarized:

Gary Colflesh, 56, of Bloomingdale, Ohio, said there are few jobs in nearby Ohio or Pennsylvania for workers to move to.

"They're destroying the working class. Why can't people see this?" asked the 38-year veteran. "Anybody who works in manufacturing has no future in this country, unless you want to work for wages they get in China."
...
Economists agree the outlook is changing for workers who moved from high school to good-paying factory jobs two and three decades ago, or for those seeking that lifestyle now.
...
"Those jobs are disappearing," says Patrick Anderson of Anderson Economic Group in East Lansing, Mich. "The ... low-skill, upper-middle-class way of life is in danger."
The ongoing negotiations at bankrupt Delphi Corp, are representative of what is happening with middle-class employment today. Over 30,000 workers could have their pay reduced by more than fifty percent in order to compete with foreign manufacturers.

A reduction such as this, of course, is far superior to a one hundred percent reduction in wages, but nonetheless would present a number of very serious lifestyle adjustments.

The standard of living to which the middle-class have become accustomed appears to be under siege - wage pressures resulting from rebalancing a very unbalanced global trade equation are clearly beyond the control of unions.

From last week's excellent L.A. Times story about job security and pensions, the view of management is clear.
Since arriving at Delphi in July, the former Chrysler executive, who has led other troubled companies such as Federal-Mogul and Bethlehem Steel into bankruptcy, has made a series of incendiary remarks seemingly calculated to push the company's unions to within a hair's breadth of a strike.

"Paying $65 an hour for someone mowing the lawn at one of our plants is just not going to cut it in industrial America," he said at one news conference, a reference to the average combined wages, benefits and pensions of an hourly Delphi worker.
For those younger workers fortunate enough to maintain a middle-class income and lifestyle long enough to retire in coming decades, there will be more surprises in store.

Employers are dramatically revising the long term promises made to their workforce in an attempt to regain their competitiveness with employers overseas who have made no such promises.
"The nation used to have big units of production like the car companies that needed very predictable workforces," said Alicia H. Munnell, a retirement expert at Boston College and former Clinton administration economist. "Pensions helped firms to retain people by raising employees' benefits the longer they stayed, and to signal them when it was time to go.

"But the economy is much more competitive today," Munnell said. "For companies, that means fewer long-term promises like pensions. For workers, it means having to be agile, entrepreneurial. They have to be ready to switch jobs and employers at the drop of a hat and manage their retirement money all on their own."
Managing their retirement money on their own sounds like it's going to be a difficult transition. As Social Security is the primary or only source of income for a surprisingly large number of seniors, it is likely that this will only increase over time, since workers in the U.S. seem to be particularly challenged when it comes to savings.

But that's a problem for another day.

Today's concern is jobs, and in particular what jobs are replacing the higher paying middle-class jobs that have supported the middle-class in the U.S. for generations.

In the 1990s there was lots of talk about "re-training" for new computer jobs, and having looked at the Professional and Business Services jobs created in the previous decade, this seems to have worked out reasonably well. Re-training for computer work was a passable plan to cope with a changing business world.

But, what about today?

There have been lots of new jobs related to real estate, but all indications are that this trend is slowly coming to an end. People will adapt, they say. People will do whatever it takes.

Las Vegas is a good example of people doing whatever it takes - a good example of the modern day middle-class lifestyle. In addition to recent real estate jobs, there has been a steady rise in the number of blackjack dealers and food service workers required to support the businesses in this town.

From part two a recent PBS documentary about the history of Las Vegas, we learn of food service jobs, readily available for those who are eager to "re-train" in this new decade:
In Las Vegas, you can embark upon a career as a food server, which anywhere else in the country is not considered a good job. You can provide very well for your family in these positions that in other places are not considered good jobs.

Pull the tray back behind his head, there we go. May I? May I? Clockwise, OK, clockwise, clockwise.

We train people, the technical skills, how to carry a tray, how to say, "may I take your plate?" as opposed to, "are you done?" You know, how to correctly pour a cup of coffee so that it, it comes within a quarter inch of the top.

You've got to announce: "Coffee?" Coffee and pour.

Our industry demands a level of customer service, of guest service, that is so high that a large part of what we do in addition to the technical skills is train people on focused eye contact, how to relax, how to smile, how to communicate with the guest.

Do you put the butter on the French toast? Do you put the syrup on the French toast? Do you put the powdered sugar on the French toast? Yes, sprinkle the powdered sugar on the French toast.

My goal when I send people out into the industry is that they communicate to the guest that each and every guest is important, not just to me, but that they're important to my hotel, to my restaurant, to my city. We are driven by tourism and if the guest stops coming back, we stop having employment.
This decade is not shaping up very well for the middle-class. It's shaping up wonderfully for the rich - low taxes and reasonable investment returns should sustain that group for years to come.

But, this is not a good decade to be middle-class.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm conflicted on whether the middle class is becoming worse off or better off in recent years.

You can pull up the data from the census bureau and see that real median income (not wages) has been rising steadily, despite the fact that real wages have been falling almost continously since the 70s. The best explanation I've heard of this is that there are more wage-earners per household now. So does this make us better-off or worse off, and is this is a good or bad change?

Trivially speaking, households are better off materially, but it seems that individuals are working harder for that. Whether this is good or bad is an ethical call: maybe having an adult who is dedicated entirely to staying at home is a wasteful luxury we simply cannot afford anymore as a society.

There's another aspect to the condition of society picture that I have seen and experienced personally but which seems to get no "air time": young adults seem to be in a tight financial position for a greatly extended period of time compared with the past. Myself, for example: I am 26 with a graduate degree and still have not reached positive net worth.

Personally I can say the expense of education is a huge factor, and for others delving into home ownership for the first time, large equity values are a major challenge (in fact they locked me out completely, which is why I don't own). Expensive health care also factors in, creating large out-of-pocket costs or reducing wages and salaries in proportion to the true cost of premiums (I'd be making 10% more if the health care benefit was of trivial cost, for a healthy person like myself).

Finally, I think the young are a population especially effected by the squeeze of globalized labor: more education and training is required to find a competitive occupation domestically. This extended phase of education has a direct cost and an opportunity cost (both large).

What we are seeing happen domestically with the disappearance of "blue collar" middle-class jobs is basically what happened in Britain, with the changes Thatcher pushed the country through. Britian is better for it now, as they are an affluent, modern, information economy--but the transition period was very painful.

I think the next 20-50 years will be extremely turbulent, as globalization subjects all nations to unprecedented forces. Its hard to call them good or bad, but certainly pain will be felt, and many will feel wronged. My guess is that the effect will be especially acute in the US, which will no longer be able to maintain a position of global economic hegemony (especially in the face of China, India, and Europe, particularly eastern).

Damian said...

I think another interesting trend is the huge rise in costs for higher education. Whereas it was possible for my parents to send all three of their kids to college, I don't see how I could possibly do so without the kids (and me by extension) taking on a huge amount of debt.

Education is gradually (or not so gradually) becoming the world of the rich. If you are very poor and work hard, higher education is possible - but the middle class gets squeezed out.

Worker 17 said...

I work in a white collar job requiring a much higher level of education than workers in manufacturing. I'm part of the hot new service-based information economy. Yet I'm not exactly burning up towards wealth.

Pay growth is stagnant. Retirement money? Almost all of it comes right out of my paycheck. I pay for healthcare. Vacation and sick days very limited. And I've actually got a better package than all those folks doing contract work.

At what point does Joe Paycheck figure out that the values-based politics of today is like worrying about church attendence while living in a town located below a dam that's starting to burst?

Anonymous said...

Damian:

The high cost of higher education is due entirely to demand. When Joe Abercrombie wants the "college experience" (i.e. beer and hot and cold running women) and the parents are more than willing to pay beaucoup bucks, and the university looks the other way when his ACT score is 22, yeah you bet college is going to be expensive. Moreover, the quality of education suffers as a result because most students aren't there to learn, they are there to party. Call me a raving communist, but it might be time to switch to a merit-based education sistem like in (dare-I-say-it) FRANCE. They don't baby you with progress reports and homework. You study, and you take an exam. If you don't pass, it's game over man and you may not proceed to the next level, or please insert another credit and try again.

(why do I feel like an old curmudgeon today?)

Philip Brewer said...

Whether the middle class is "better off" or not is a somewhat subtle question. It has a lot to do with what is important in life, and a lot to do with how things turn out in the future. But the middle class is unquestionably living at a vastly higher standard of living than it used to.

It is now ordinary for young people to set up housekeeping on their own (rather than living at home or in dorms) much younger than a couple of generations ago. It used to be quite common for house owners to "take in boarders"--something that is quite rare nowadays, when even students expect to be able to rent an apartment.

In terms of stuff there is even less comparison. It wasn't so long ago that a color TV was a major investment. Now it's practically a disposable item (and a small, cheap one probably comes with a DVD player built in). A hundred years ago it might have been the savings of a generation to set a young family up with a basic set of household goods. Nowadays, you can outfit a kitchen for cooking and serving meals on a single paycheck of a minimum-wage worker.

Check out what the standard of living that qualified as "middle class" in 1960. A frugal person today could reach that standard of living with an income well below the poverty line. Of course, that person would be considered to be living in poverty by today's standards.

Anonymous said...

OK, so maybe it's not feasible these days to pay that guy mowing the lawn the equivalent of $65 an hour. But you know what? The pompous ass that made that statement is probably making 10000 times what the lawn guy makes. Why does that still "cut it" in industrial America? I caught a segment on CNBC the other day in which they were discussing executive compensation. One imbecile actually said something to the effect that they have a different system in Japan and it hasn't worked out too well. HUH? Yeah, I guess that's why GM is kicking Toyota's ass and Ford is eating Honda's lunch.

As far as re-training goes, I'm surprised you didn't mention that once we got all "trained up" for those more technical jobs, they started shipping these overseas too.

I don't claim to have the answers but it's very discouraging that virtually noone in government seems to really give a damn.

Anonymous said...

No Fortunate Son:

Here's some good news for you. After the whole love-affair with "offshoring" blossoming a few years ago, people found out that in the long term it's actually *more* expensive to outsource your technical staff. Take the example of programming. When you have programming done out of house, you lose control over the quality of work and whether or not the product even meets basic requirements. Half the time you have to hire an expensive US contractor to fix the mess sent to you from Bangalore. The result is that there has been an upswing in programming hires recently, particularly those with lesser experience, also in part due to a recent drop in computer science graduates.

Other stable technical fields IMHO are civil engineering and bioscience. Doctors and lawyers still make the big bucks today too.

Anonymous said...

Time to circle the wagons this is what I recommend to be able to retire at some point in your life:
1. Get a federal or state job with a pension, don’t do private sector. If you can become a fireman, policeman, or EMT since they have low education cost with high benefits and no outsourcing.

2. Reduce as many expenses as you can to maximize savings.

3. Buy a rural home to retire in; rent it out if not close to your fed job, this has better tax brakes anyway. The home needs to have a well and septic so you have no monthly expenses. But be sure to wait a few years after the bubble pops, the last pop took 6 years to hit bottom so don’t be in a hurry, such save up a big down payment. It is far better to by cheap with a high interest rate then just the opposite as today. Also look for a property that can have a 2nd rental income while you live there, such as a granny unit or a home that can be split.

4. While your young (and can still be excepted) get residency in a country that has a national health care system such as Canada. Then if you later find your self unemployed with need for health care you have a back up.

5. Put investment savings in a Roth IRA over a standard IRA knowing that taxes will go up at some point to pay for this so call war on terror.

6. Be careful investing in stocks, its easy money when it goes up but it sure set a lot of us back in 1999. A small business may be a better use of your time and money. It is easier to set up 10 businesses that pay $1000/mo then 1 that pays $10000/mo.

Anonymous said...

Some creative suggestions.

Although better paying low level jobs like manufacturing are on their way out, few other low level jobs are subject to globalization, but they do face immigration. Many better paying high level jobs are also subject to globalization, probably more so than low level jobs. Avoid jobs that involve sitting at a desk and can be done remotely, and avoid jobs that require only your mind. An element of physical presence is necessary.

L'Emmerdeur said...

(sorry, I can't email you from work)

If you want your IQ to drop by around 10 points or so, read this.

Ritholtz said...

I've been fascinated by "The Disconnect and Economic Classes"
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/09/recovery_bypass.html

The takeaway is the Middle Class is diminishing, and a new class of Ultra-Wealthy is on the rise . . .

Anonymous said...

I'm a plutocrat. I'm in the top five percent.

You'll have to have guns to confiscate my wealtn.

Tim said...

l'emm:

"But these days, information, fear, hype, and data get translated into stock prices much more quickly and effectively than they did in the 1990s. And thanks to the scar tissue from the 1990s bubble, investors have become somewhat inured to hype. As a result, they anticipate and discount the effects of booms and busts long before they actually materialize."

Whew! This explanation for the VIX combined with Brad DeLong sounding the all-clear on the inverting yield curve must mean that it's time to party!

Barry:

Interesting take on the ultra-wealthy - we'll be hearing lots more about this in coming years. A while back I looked at the data on new millionaires (excluding the value of their primary residence) and that number has been increasingly briskly in recent years.

Anonymous said...

This is an interesting post, and some interesting discussion.

Fundamentally, the problem is that the opening up of vast new pools of labor in the formerly communist countries and in still socialist India has significantly reduced the marginal cost of labor and raised the marginal cost of capital, with all the effects those changes will have on wages and corporate profitability in the United States.

Add to that the impact of overly accomodative monetary policy on (inflated) asset values, and you have a prescription for gross inequality and greater difficulty in moving up the socio-economic ladder.

Although it is probably also a topic for another day, take a look at what at least one commentator has to say about the expected rate of return on financial assets (in this case, stocks):

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc060103.htm

Then think about what that means for a whole host of retirement-related issues: personal retirement savings, pensions, retiree healthcare, labor relations, the list goes on and on.

Anonymous said...

A while back I looked at the data on new millionaires (excluding the value of their primary residence) and that number has been increasingly briskly in recent years.

The "millionaires (excluding the value of their primary residence)" statistic is completely bogus, especially in California, where all you have to do to be included is to take out a big honkin' mortgage on your "primary residence" and buy a "rental" or a "vacation home," or invest the proceeds somehow.

Worker 17 said...

"I'm a plutocrat. I'm in the top five percent. You'll have to have guns to confiscate my wealtn."

Well, sure. That's the way it historically works. Good thing the proletariat won't be able to find any guns in America should they get restless.

IMAGE

  © Blogger template Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP