The "All Volunteer Military" works because "most" are from middle class families

[SoCalDem]

NOT poor ones as Rangel claims..

So said the news-chicklet on CNN..Her source for that gem of information?

A study done by the Heritage Foundation.

These are the same folks who probably include a family of 4 with a $25K income, as "middle-class"..

The mis-identification or FAILURE to define "middle class" is what is at the heart of moast of our legislative issues.

I remember reading somewhere that over 70% of people "polled" said they were "middle class".. That's a mathematical impossibility..

My guess is that the higher ranking military and the "lifers" may be "middle class", but the rank and file are NOT..

Does that make military service bad? Nope..

But someone at the DNC better start neutralizing that den of vipers known as the "Heritage Foundation"..

Their "studies" are behind a lot of legislation..bad legislation..and the press never even mentions who they are..

[Selatius]

1. Yeah, the Heritage Foundation, the same guys who helped sell the Iraq War.

This is not a think tank. This is a septic tank full of shit.

[TahitiNut]

2. The median wage in 2005 was

[SoCalDem]

3. Individual or family wage?

I have a hard time reading all those fangandled charts & stuff...:hi:

[TahitiNut]

10. Individual worker - all jobs.

In other words, a worker with two jobs isn't counted twice. It's the sum of all wages earned in that year for each worker.

[SoCalDem]

11. If I read that correctly then, 25K would only put them at the 10% level?

:shrug:the BOTTOM 10%

[TahitiNut]

12. Not quite accurate.

What you're probably seeing is the fact that the least-paid 50% of workers shared wages that received about 15% of all wages earned. At the other end of the spectrum, the highest-paid 10% of workers received about 35% of all wages earned.

It's about the equity of wage distribution ... a more formal way of saying "war on the middle class."

[Trillo]

16. So $64,285 is 50% of all wages?

What is the dollar value where the green line intersects with 50% of total wages? It doesn't seem to be marked on the chart.

If 70% (total wages) correlates to $90,000., then each 10% line should be $12,834. (90K divided by 7), and 5 times that (50%) would be $64,285.

About $64,285 seems the real middle class in 2005.

[TahitiNut]

21. Well, all people earning up to $65K together earned just about 56.2% of all wages paid.

It's important to think of the green line as the SUM of wages paid to workers earning from LOWEST to HIGHEST wages. It's called a Lorentz curve. (See http://economia.is-there.net/the-lorentz-curve/ ). Thus, straightline arithmetic on wage-levels yields non-intuitive (and probably meaningless) results.

All workers who paid OASDI taxes on their ENTIRE wages (i.e. they earned $90K or less) received just shy of 70% of all wages paid - and they were about 94.1% of ALL workers. In other words, only about 5.9% of workers earned over $90K - wages not subject to OASDI taxes because they were over the 'cap.' (But they together received over 30% of all wages paid.)


Q: "What is the dollar value where the green line intersects with 50% of total wages?"

A: That's about $57,500. Again, workers earning up to about $57,500 together received half of all wages paid. But that's over 85% of all workers. Less than 15% of all workers together received the other half of ALL wages paid.

So, if "middle class" means "bottom half" of all wages paid, then I suppose one could say it's up to about $57,500. I wouldn't, but one could.


To give an example of how straightline arithmetic doesn't work for a curvelinear series, consider that (in that chart) 97.87% of all workers received wages under $140,000. Together, they received 81.3% of all wages paid. On the flipside, 2.13% of all workers received 18.7% of all wages paid.

Further, 99.53% of all workers received wages under $300,000. Together, they received 90.1% of all wages paid. The remaining 0.47% of all workers together received 9.9% of all wages paid.

Those at the top get lion-sized shares of the wage pie. (That's what a Gini ratio describes. That's what the nearly vertical slope at the right side means - and the flat slope at the left.)

Remember, if EVERYONE GOT THE EXACT SAME WAGES then the green line would be straight, at 45 degrees from the lower left to the right top. The 'sag' in that line portrays anormous disparity in wages paid to workers. The whole question becomes 'how much sag is too much?' The 'sag' is only half as much for European countries and Japan.



It takes a bit of straighforward interpolation from the data provided by the Social Security Administration (which they obtained from the IRS) to determine these boundaries. When I've tried to examine the IRS data, it's been obfuscated (using IRS smoke and mirrors) to the degree that I can't easily extract better than what they provide the SSA for calculating the AWS (used to make year-to-year adjustments in benefits, wage cap, etc.)


Sorry about the edits ... eyeball parallax. (I misread some figures in my spreadsheet and had to fix them.)


PLEASE NOTE: The reason I figure 84.8% of all wages are subject to OASDI tax (instead of, say, 70%) is because those workers earning over 90K still pay OASDI on their first $90K. Thus, that amount must be added to the 70% figure (which relates to the TOTAL wages paid to workers whose ENTIRE wages are taxed).

[Trillo]

23. Thanks for the explanation.

I really didn't mean for you to go to such lengths, it was just a generalized brief comment/question. However, you did explain well, thanks for taking the time to do so. When I looked at the graph, it was curious that the green line approximately intersects the horizontal axis's 85% (by eyeballing it) and the 50% vertical axis.

"Less than 15% of all workers together received the other half of ALL wages paid."

It strikes me that 50% of total wages paid is an important point, no matter how the semantics of rationale work out.

I think that figuring out how to make the economic system more equitable for everyone is one of the bigger challenges for the Democrats: how to best mitigate the extremes of poverty and wealth. Perhaps right behind the wars.

[TahitiNut]

24. You're welcome. The income inequity is a big problem, as this graph shows ...

As I noted above, the "sag" in the wage distribution line (the Lorenz curve) indicates how little the lowest-paid get compared to the highest paid. In essence, it's a picture of the impoverishment of the 'middle class.' But there's a single number, the Gini Ratio, that actually describes how severe this inequity in income distribution has become.

The above graph shows the history of this in the U.S. over the past fifty-seven years. In the late 60s and early 70s, when the federal minimum wage was the highest, the income distribution in the U.S. was also the most equitable. This was also, as most on DU would agree, a high-water mark for liberlism in this nation. Organized labor was healthy and the "war on poverty" was seeing progress.

Then the cheap labor, predatory, union-busting plutocrats gained power during Reagan/Bush and alter administrations.

We've seen thirty years of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We're now more precarious economically than we were immedicately befor the Great Depression. We've become a banana republic.

[TahitiNut]

22. Addendum to my post above ...

Here's one 'read out' of the table I use, perhaps easier to review and understand.

Workers with wages below $5,000 comprised 17.0% of all workers and together received 1.2% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $10,000 comprised 26.9% of all workers and together received 3.3% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $15,000 comprised 35.5% of all workers and together received 6.3% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $20,000 comprised 43.7% of all workers and together received 10.3% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $25,000 comprised 51.6% of all workers and together received 15.2% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $30,000 comprised 58.8% of all workers and together received 20.8% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $35,000 comprised 65.3% of all workers and together received 26.7% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $40,000 comprised 70.9% of all workers and together received 32.5% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $45,000 comprised 75.6% of all workers and together received 38.1% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $50,000 comprised 79.6% of all workers and together received 43.4% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $55,000 comprised 82.8% of all workers and together received 48.1% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $60,000 comprised 85.5% of all workers and together received 52.4% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $65,000 comprised 87.7% of all workers and together received 56.2% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $70,000 comprised 89.5% of all workers and together received 59.6% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $75,000 comprised 91.0% of all workers and together received 62.6% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $80,000 comprised 92.2% of all workers and together received 65.3% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $85,000 comprised 93.2% of all workers and together received 67.7% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $90,000 comprised 94.1% of all workers and together received 69.7% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $95,000 comprised 94.8% of all workers and together received 71.6% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $100,000 comprised 95.4% of all workers and together received 73.2% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $105,000 comprised 95.9% of all workers and together received 74.7% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $110,000 comprised 96.3% of all workers and together received 76.0% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $115,000 comprised 96.7% of all workers and together received 77.1% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $120,000 comprised 97.0% of all workers and together received 78.1% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $125,000 comprised 97.3% of all workers and together received 79.0% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $130,000 comprised 97.5% of all workers and together received 79.9% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $135,000 comprised 97.7% of all workers and together received 80.6% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $140,000 comprised 97.9% of all workers and together received 81.3% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $145,000 comprised 98.0% of all workers and together received 81.9% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $150,000 comprised 98.2% of all workers and together received 82.5% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $155,000 comprised 98.3% of all workers and together received 83.0% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $160,000 comprised 98.4% of all workers and together received 83.5% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $165,000 comprised 98.5% of all workers and together received 83.9% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $170,000 comprised 98.6% of all workers and together received 84.4% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $175,000 comprised 98.7% of all workers and together received 84.8% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $180,000 comprised 98.7% of all workers and together received 85.1% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $185,000 comprised 98.8% of all workers and together received 85.5% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $190,000 comprised 98.9% of all workers and together received 85.8% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $195,000 comprised 98.9% of all workers and together received 86.1% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $200,000 comprised 99.0% of all workers and together received 86.4% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $250,000 comprised 99.3% of all workers and together received 88.7% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $300,000 comprised 99.5% of all workers and together received 90.1% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $350,000 comprised 99.6% of all workers and together received 91.2% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $400,000 comprised 99.7% of all workers and together received 92.0% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $450,000 comprised 99.8% of all workers and together received 92.6% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $500,000 comprised 99.8% of all workers and together received 93.2% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $1,000,000 comprised 99.9% of all workers and together received 95.9% of all wages paid in 2005.


And more ...

Workers with wages below $1,500,000 comprised 99.972% of all workers and together received 96.78% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $2,000,000 comprised 99.982% of all workers and together received 97.27% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $2,500,000 comprised 99.987% of all workers and together received 97.59% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $3,000,000 comprised 99.990% of all workers and together received 97.83% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $3,500,000 comprised 99.992% of all workers and together received 98.02% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $4,000,000 comprised 99.994% of all workers and together received 98.16% of all wages paid in 2005.
Workers with wages below $4,500,000 comprised 99.995% of all workers and together received 98.28% of all wages paid in 2005.

[RethugAssKicker]

4. The Heritage Foundation is nothing more than an elite racist group

You are right. Their studies are behind many policies adopted by the Rethuglicans.

What they mean by middle-class is White, therefore the army is now better.

[BlooInBloo]

5. rofl! That study also calls high-school educated "highly educated" - roflmao!!!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm


And then there's this money quote:

"A military draft along the lines proposed by Rep­resentative Rangel would press thousands more Asian–Americans into service, as well as thousands of Americans who decline to be racially categorized. In contrast, a draft could deny blacks, whites, and others the freedom to enlist in the Army once their racial quotas were filled."

:rofl:

[greenbriar]

6. Rangel says this

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Middle income is the middle, right?

It's all about the math.

If you make $55,000; you're middle income - if you'd consider $34,000 middle income too.
If you make $88,000; you're middle income - if you'd consider $18,000 middle income too.
If you make $100,000; you're middle income - if you'd consider $7000 middle income too.

The first is the middle quintile of US annual gross incomes.
The second is the middle three quintiles of US annual gross incomes.
The third is the 10th through the 90th quintile.

There are just as many poor as there are rich, or else the people in between wouldn't be in the "middle". I don't care where a person lives or any other arbitrary groupings that are used to rationalize a feeling that $250,000 is modest.

Me? I'm on the lower end of the middle quintile, but with a family of five. I think that the middle quintile is middle income - $34k - $55k/year

[SoCalDem]

9. Fun With Math.. I think I had a textbook with that title

in 4th grade :)

Republicans have THE math.. Karl said so :hi:

[daleo]

14. I think you meant to say percentile, in the last example

It's a nice example though, of how flexible a vague term can be. I think the middle two quartiles is often used (25th to 75th percentile) as well.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Oh, right. Thanks for the catch.

:hi:

[Virginia Dare]

8. If the Heritage Foundation came up with that statistic...

then it must be false.

[berni_mccoy]

13. 100% WRONG ON ALL ACCOUNTS!

The report was done by the GAO. They took the income from the ZIPCODE of the enlistees, NOT THE ENLISTEE'S FAMILY INCOME! Totally inaccurate and the GAO Admits it does not represent the income of the recruits. Here is the GAO REPORT: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05952.pdf

[stanwyck]

15. She's right. They are middle class

And the military is becoming increasingly attractive to the middle class. Because the middle class isn't faring so well these days.
My son is a Marine. My husband and I are both college graduates with advanced degrees who have been fortunate in our careers. I guess the Heritage Foundation folks would have us in the upper class. I consider us middle class - as were our parents.
But the real point is -- how hopeful are kids in the middle class now about their futures? Most are under-employed. My college graduate daughter is under-employed as are the majority of her "highly educated" friends. Many are working their college jobs -- only they're now out of college.
My son, as a 23-yr. old corporal in the Marines - single, no children, living on base when not deployed -- isn't doing badly in comparison with his college graduate buddies. He's been able to buy a new motorcycle, a truck ( a 2002 Toyota, bought used ), and a healthy savings account -- for someone his age. He's gotten several bonuses. So, when he's home, his friends only see the toys he's been able to buy and the cash he has when they go to the clubs. He has more than they do - materialistically. But then, he's been to Iraq twice and will go again in January.
Here's my daughter, twin to my Marine son, who is working 40+ hrs. a week and barely getting by -- living in a rented house with 3 roommates, no health insurance, and driving my old 1993 Volvo station wagon which is about to fall apart.
I don't care that the Bushies keep raving about the economy. I don't think it's all that peachy for recent college grads. And so, when they see buddies who are home on leave, with money, maybe the military becomes more attractive as an option.
OI course, they're only seeing one side. Life is hell for the men and women who are returning wounded and disabled. Physically, emotionally, and financially.
And for a man or woman in the military who has a family? The money isn't nearly enough and the absences and stress are devastating.
However, who serves in the military by income, race, and education (which The New York Times has covered extensively) would surprise most DUers. It's not who you think.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. When did it start "working"? If Iraq is a measure of it's efficiency...

they'd better start reworking their definitions.

[Nikia]

19. I think that the military does attract a lot of middle income people

Their family encourages them to be ambitious. They might not want to go to college or their family doesn't have enough money for college but has too much to get significant financial aid.

[CRK7376]

20. Middle Class and the Military

Let me ramble awhile....

I am the offspring of two college professors and was raised on or near campus my entire life. I love education and the military. As a high school kid, many years ago I was smart enough to know I would have flunked out of college during my first semester if I gone the way all my friend's did, straight to college out of high school. So I enlisted, a few years after the draft ended, and served 3 years active duty in Europe. No dummy here, great place to live and travel... all on Uncle Sugar's dime! So I did my 3 years and came home to college and graduated with a degree in Education....

I stayed in the Army Reserve/National Guard and earned some college money/GI Bill etc...After college I began teaching high school history. Thirteen years of teaching later I still had not completed my Master's, not enough money for an advanced degree, barely able to pay the mortgage, car payment and keep electricity and gas on...Plus we had three kids...So I went back in the Army. My salary doubled overnight and is now much better than double what I would have made if I were still teaching public high school. I've earned two Master's degrees and am working on my third one courtesy Uncle Sam, all three are free too...Downside, my family sees me deploy to Afghanistan, Korea and not home often enough for any of us...but we are middle income and financially secure now.

Raised in the middle class, feel like I'm in the middle class now, very fortunate, but it's always on my mind how close we were as a family to financial ruin when teaching...Just doesn't pay enough to raise a family with...So I serve Uncle Sam, vote a democratic ticket, pray the war ends soon, and live for the weekends when I can go home to my family....