Re: [OPE-L] [Jurriaan] A class dimension in aggregate demand

From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@EBMS-LTD.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Nov 29 2005 - 04:57:03 EST


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>
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