From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Nov 29 2005 - 04:57:03 EST
Jerry, this reminds me of the photo in the Wall St Journal (15 Nov) of Dephi Corp. pickets... before a march in October at Dayton, Onr central placard read 'Labor is the Middle Class'... what point was being made is a little unclear... but the labour aristocracy , like the lower middle classes clearly feel the ground moving under their feet! The split in the working class has been quite clear since the craetion of the British 'New ( skilled workers) Unions' after the 1850's, and the politically reactionary consequences a persistent nightmare. Paul B. ----- Original Message ----- From: <glevy@PRATT.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] [Jurriaan] A class dimension in aggregate demand > > and if you take the 20% of households earning $70,000+ a year (about > > 60 million people), they account for 38.8% of new personal consumption > > expenditure, or about 1.8 trillion of final consumption demand. > > Consumer units with income of $70,000+, 2003 = 23.6 million > > Percentage of $70,000+ income units in total consumer units = 20% > > Total consumer expenditure 2003, consumer units with income of > > $70,000 and over = $1.8 trillion > > Percentage share of $70,000+ income units in total consumer > > expenditure = 38.8% > > Hi Jurriaan: > > This wouldn't tell you the _class_ dimension, though, since some > percentage of those households which receive $70,000/ yr. or over > are _working-class_. When one remembers that working-class households > typically have 2 income earners, this would not be so uncommon (e.g. if > a household had 2 workers who earned $35,000/ yr. then it would be > included in this statistic). > > When one looks at the composition of demand by class, it is no > longer so easy to say that "luxury good" demand is limited to > the capitalist class. Clearly some percentage of workers who > are relatively highly paid have a demand for (at least some) > "luxuries" But, it gets more mirky when one remembers that what is > considered to be a "luxury" vs. a "necessity" changes over time. > > In any event, thanks for raising some interesting issues for discussion. > > In solidarity, Jerry > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 30 2005 - 00:00:02 EST