Middle Class Messaging

When discussing income or wealth inequality, the numbers are clear, the rich have gained a lot at the expense of the middle and lower classes here in the US, but that message is usually too muddied to get to the mass of the American middle/lower class.

Look at the quotes from these posts: [Reality Base: US vs France] with links to this [NYT: Economix: What does Economic Growth Mean for Americans] and this [NYT: Jobs will follow a strengthing of the middle class]

"Consider now the longest period featured in their Table 1, from 1976 to 2007. The authors estimate that over that period the average annual income of all families in the United States grew at an average annual compound growth rate of 1.2 percent. But the data reveal that for the top 1 percent of income recipients, average real income grew by 4.4 percent a year. They captured 58 percent of the growth in total income over the period.

By contrast, for the bottom 99 percent of Americans, average family income over the same period grew by only by only 0.6 percent a year. Within that broad 99 percent, however, some lower-income groups probably saw their real income fall." [NYT: Economix: What does Economic Growth Mean for Americans]

and

"While Americans’ average hourly pay has risen only 6 percent since 1985, adjusted for inflation, German workers’ pay has risen almost 30 percent. At the same time, the top 1 percent of German households now take home about 11 percent of all income — about the same as in 1970." [NYT: Jobs will follow a strengthing of the middle class]

I think most middle and lower class Americans don't have a clue what all these numbers mean. Sure, they know that 4.4% is more than .6% but don't have a feel for what that difference means over time, then throw in the "adjusted for inflation" and you've lost the low-info voter. Hell, I'll bet a lot of people in my area, Tea-Bagger Heaven, think they're in the top 1% and it's those "slacker, welfare people that are in the bottom 99% so screw-em". They just don't get a long paragraph, filled with numbers, covering a long time span, adjusted for inflation, etc. Combine that with a general distrust of the liberal academic elite and these articles are doing nothing for their intended audience.

This direct comparison of the US to those "weenie-socialists" in France is better but most people still aren't going to get it.

Average real income per family in the United States grew by 32.2 percent from 1975 to 2006, while they grew only by 27.1 percent in France during the same period, showing that the macroeconomic performance in the United States was better than the French one during this period. Excluding the top percentile, average United States real incomes grew by only 17.9 percent during the period while average French real incomes — excluding the top percentile — still grew at much the same rate (26.4 percent) as for the whole French population. Therefore, the better macroeconomic performance of the United States and France is reversed when excluding the top 1 percent. [NYT: Economix: What does Economic Growth Mean for Americans]

The leaders of the left in this country need to understand that if you want to get the "Rich are doing great at your expense" message to the mass of working class Americans, the message needs to fit cleanly in a 30 second soundbite or on a bumper sticker. If not, you're just wasting time.

... maybe they should read this... [Made To Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive While Others Die" by Dan Heath]

tnb