Secondly, according to this report on income mobility, 1995-2006 (http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf)

-- most taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moved up to a higher income group within 10 years. (in other words, most of the poorest moved up toward the middle class)

-- 75% of those in the top 0.01% of taxpayers in 1996 were no longer in that category in 2005 (in other words, most of our richest slipped back closer to the pack)

-- median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. Actual incomes increased for two-thirds of all taxpayers over this period. (in other words, most Americans are doing better)

So basically, the idea that “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer” is simply not true. Nor is the idea that we’re not living as long.

Sorry James, but you've gone out and found data that - in some places - fits your personal viewpoint

The data are all from the same survey that reported the findings, with the exception of the "misery index" scores, which are from the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. (Census Bureau data, that is).

There's simply no question that middle class Americans are living much more prosperous lives than they were even when I was a kid. We live in bigger houses, drive more luxurious cars, have more toys, eat out at restaurants more often, have more clothes, etc., etc.

The difference is that we're now comparing ourself to even richer people so it seems like we're falling behind. In the early 1970s, there were like 6 billionaires on the planet; now, they're relatively commonplace.

Further, unskilled labor hasn't fared well in the Information Age. There aren't many assembly line jobs anymore and most don't pay what they did. And most manual labor jobs have been supplanted by machines. Heck, outside New Jersey, you can't even get a job pumping gas anymore.

So, you've got a lower class that's worse off, a middle class that's much better off but see the rich further off into the distant, and a top 1% that's off the charts. But, again, those groupings are dynamic.

Here's a hint: the sense of prosperity or lack thereof has nothing to do with media coverage or presidential demeanor. You could have been able to smell the bullsh*t in those chestnuts before they ever escaped your keyboard.

Perhaps you should read The Great Risk Shift by Jacob Hacker.

Our Paul is on the right track.

Enlightening is a paper by Kopczuk et all (Columbia University and National Bureau of Economic Research) which is in PDF form and can be captured by simple Google search utilizing part of the title “Uncovering the American Dream”

I am not an Economist, but as my Pappy used to say: “Data speaks for itself”. Income inequality is increasing, and the middle class is being squeezed. Those that fail to recognize and offer relief to “Middle Class Blues” will be bruised in the upcoming elections. We all know what colors are commonly found in a bruise…

A small nit: saying that getting married is a "good choice" sounds a but judgmental to my ears. I assume you just mean that statistically married people earn more or something?

Well, it is a judgment. Being married is almost always a smart economic choice, unless you're Paul McCartney. And I say that as someone who married late to a woman who married late, both for the first time, and both of whom were relatively successful beforehand.

You cannot fudge the fact that for many income available for discretionary spending has steadily decreased. Good by to the weekly trip to the movie house, good by to the splurge at the restaurant, and good by to that long drive to the “free” beach.

I'm sure there are "many" for whom that is true. It's also true that, on aggregate, people are going to the movies, eating at restaurants, and going on weekend trips more often than in the past. This is especially true of restaurant eating which, thirty years ago, was a luxury and is now something most people do without thinking. And we'd be going to the movies even more if it weren't for our large screen TVs and DVD players.

I am willing to bet that those who said they are worse off now than 5 years ago are probably comparing where they expected to be today as opposed to where they actually are compared to five years ago.

BTW the unemployment rate is calculated differently now than it was in 1980.

You do not have to be an economist to understand that income available for discretionary spending is a true measure of “wealth”.

Two indices point to the malaise that afflicts our society: The rise of middle class debt service, and the rise in health insurance costs. Both have increased at a faster rate then earned income. Both can be measured by the disasters they cause: a rise in individual bankruptcy proceedings, and a rise in the number of families without health insurance.

You are quite right in you’re your last sentence in this post: ”But ignorance and irrationality doesn’t change the underlying facts.”You cannot fudge the fact that for many income available for discretionary spending has steadily decreased. Good by to the weekly trip to the movie house, good by to the splurge at the restaurant, and good by to that long drive to the “free” beach… It is called the Middle Class Blues.

I think the difference in attitude reflects a number of factors: 1) George Bush is a simply awful spokesman for the economy (or much of anything else); Bill Clinton was a good one; 2) the general tone of the news these days is pretty downbeat (realistically so); 3) the gap between the to .1% and everybody else is pretty darned high; 4) the total amount of wealth controlled by that top .1% is pretty darned high, too.

Those last two don't reflect envy on my part (I honestly don't give a damn) just reality. I do think that the gap between the very rich and everybody else is damaging socially and politically.