
TV’s Dwindling Middle Class - rosser
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/magazine/tvs-dwindling-middle-class.html
======
roymurdock
_“Cheers,” which ran for 11 seasons on NBC, starting in 1982, was the first
great hangout show: neutralizing the depiction of class and removing the
pressures of work. Life is hard enough, “Cheers” said; let’s just make TV.
Ever since, television started taking it easier on us. Bill Clinton was in the
White House, and the economy had improved. On “Seinfeld,” “Living Single,”
“Friends,” “Ellen,” “It’s Like, You Know,” “Sex and the City,” “Girlfriends”
and, much later, “Happy Endings” and “New Girl,” the commingling, childless
men and women might have had jobs, but almost none had consequential careers.
How many jobs did Elaine and George have on “Seinfeld”? And in how many
fields? And Kramer — how was he paying to live across the hall from Jerry?
Hangout shows placed friendship above family, obviating the typical economic
ecosystem. Belonging to a family of friends probably means you only have to
support yourself.

TV became — and still is — a medium struggling to understand “average,”
“ordinary,” “normal.”_

Why would you go into any of these shows expecting anything resembling
reality. They are all clearly entertainment in the form of light drama and
inconsequential, whitewashed sexual tension. To expect anything else is to set
yourself up for failure.

Deeper shows exist - The Wire, Breaking Bad, House of Cards - but headlining
TV shows are not created to address issues anymore. The shows reflect the main
demographics of TV watchers, because that's what keeps them watching, and
that's what generates ad revenue. So I'm not too concerned with the state of
TV - it's an echo chamber for older, more conservative folk.

~~~
bobbyi_settv
The claim of the article is that we never see regular people with ordinary
jobs except for "police precincts, crime-and-forensics teams and legal-
medical-Beltway dramas".

The counterexamples you came up with are shows where the characters are
police, politicians and drug dealers, and you had to reach back to a show that
has been off the air for 8 years to even find those. Doesn't that kind of
demonstrate the article's point?

~~~
CocaKoala
An obvious counterexample is the sitcom "How I Met Your Mother", which
featured an environmental lawyer, an architect (turned college professor in
later seasons), a teacher, and a news reporter.

~~~
dmclain
I don't think a show featuring a lawyer, college professor, media personality
and whatever the heck it is Barney does is a counterpoint at all. All those
jobs are upper class, college degree requiring positions.

Other than a few episodes where Marshal (the lawyer) contemplates a job he
doesn't love to pay off the massive consumer debt accrued by his wife (the
teacher), the money problems and job tradeoffs on the show are very much in
the classless hanging out genre the article describes.

Even the consumer debt is from spending on luxury goods, which is surprising
for a teacher supporting a law school student in New York, ostensibly the
arrangement in the first few seasons.

~~~
dragonwriter
> All those jobs are upper class, college degree requiring positions.

No, they are middle class roles (either independent business owners dependent
on their own labor rather than primarily renting other's labor to apply to
their capital -- the classic petit bourgeoisie -- or elite educated workers
with likely some personal capital but still dependent on wage labor for
support, but not as immediately at risk as the working class without reserves
are.)

The upper class in a capitalist society are the owners of capital who
primarily rent labor to apply to that capital, they are occasionally major
characters on TV shows, but I can't think of many shows with more than one as
a significant protagonist. Generally, most of the protagonists are middle
class, or notionally working class but somehow living a middle class
lifestyle.

------
pionar
I remember growing up as a lower-middle class midwestern kid, Roseanne was a
show I loved, because I identified with it so much. Dan and Roseanne were my
parents, and my friends were just like Darlene and Becky.

Another similar show from that era is "Grace Under Fire".

As a 35-yo upper-middle class guy still in the midwest, I look at what's on TV
(both broadcast and Netflix/Amazon/etc.) and see none of that representation
of middle class America. Besides "The Middle", which I still identify with,
there are no successful middle-class sitcoms on TV.

~~~
herbet_gayson
Huh? There wasn't anything remotely middle class about Dan and Roseanne in my
memory. They were proudly working class.

To me middle class means university educated, professional, two foreign
holidays a year.

~~~
TillE
This is a difference between British and American English. In the UK, "middle
class" basically means rich. In the US, it means that maybe you own a house.

~~~
nommm-nommm
In the US middle class has always meant middle - not at top in income/wealth
(mostly income) but not at the bottom.

How they obtain the money (education, job) or how they spend it (house,
holiday) is not important by definition - however there is some social
expectations of the American middle class.

Many Americans don't have the time off work for two holidays a year, even if
they have plenty of money, which is another difference, which changes the
American social expectations of the US "middle class."

A family with nurse and a teacher for example (two professionals) would bring
in somewhere around $100,000/yr and be upper class.

There's a lot of variations by geography (cost of living) and stuff too, but I
simplified it.

In reality the amount of financial security a family has is often a function
of how well they manage it (as long as you are making above a certain amount
where it becomes possible for financial security). If the above mentioned
family over spent on a big house, two cars, a motorcycle, and other luxuries
they consider normal, or even needed, then they can surely feel like they are
living without much financial security, which doesn't "feel" upper class.

Unfortunately, middle class is a totally useless term because almost everyone
describes themselves as middle class, I guess because they are somewhat out of
touch with their spending and don't feel rich (previously mentioned family) or
they are towards the bottom they don't want to feel poor. People who have a
household income of $200,000 describe themselves as middle class. One of my
coworkers, with a straight face, described me as middle class. I couldn't
believe it - with a household income more than 3x the median household income
in the US I can't with a straight face say I am middle class.

That's why politicians pander to "the middle class," because the majority of
Americans identify with the middle class - even poor ones who don't consider
themselves middle class but feel they will be there soon.

On the other side of the coin I have a friend who makes a middle class income,
spends lavishly on consumer goods, and is always complaining about how poor
she is.

Like I said, totally useless term.

~~~
herbet_gayson
You'd describe a nurse, a teacher, and yourself as upper class? You'd put them
in the same social strata as the Queen of the UK or the Prince of Monaco?
That's absolutely crazy.

To me upper class means the literally Queen, or at least something like her
cousin's son's uncle or something like that.

If you don't own a country estate or have any staff then you aren't upper
class.

~~~
arethuza
I think you are using the traditional UK definition of "upper class" while
_nommm-nommm_ is using the US definition - they are completely different
things.

~~~
nommm-nommm
Correct. I started with "in the US" and was replying to ". In the US, it means
that maybe you own a house."

------
Touche
I think television just reflects the career-obsessed nature with society
today. Characters are not just competent employees, they tend to be excellent
at their jobs (top of their field, seemingly) while spending very little time
doing their job.

I don't know if blue-collaredness is looked down upon, but it feels like
writers go out of their way to let it be known that the characters we are
supposed to like, are extraordinary.

~~~
pbh101
Not trying to be too snarky here, but blue-collaredness and excelling at one's
job are quite orthogonal in my head.

~~~
Sacho
That is true - blue collar is a type of job, while excellence is a measure of
job performance. Perhaps parent just meant to say that the characters mostly
work white collar jobs, and accidentally conflated the two.

An interesting counter-example would be Friends, where one of the characters
worked a blue-collar job, and none were explicitly "excellent".

~~~
icebraining
I don't see that implication in OP's post..?

~~~
Sacho
You are right, the implication is actually that "blue-collardness" cannot be
extraordinary, but that flies in the face of common sense, considering all the
stories about courageous and heroic policemen, firefighters, and so on.

~~~
alistairSH
Certainly true. However, note that the blue collar jobs you mention are
"career" blue collar jobs. They occupy a different place in society than "just
a job" blue collar roles. You don't often hear stories about heroic stock boys
or shoe salesmen.

------
saturdaysaint
There are lots of prominent counterexamples. The Office was a pretty direct
attempt at making a modern middle class show. Breaking Bad at least _started_
with one man's middle class problems.

I think the main artistic factor here is that the sitcom, an awfully
convenient medium for telling middle class stories, is dead. A 30 minute
comedy where every episode was basically an island could be an oddly touching
medium to talk about a teacher dying or a dad losing his job. But these tiny
canvases were mostly the result of the constraints of 20th century TV.

Without those constraints, consumers don't have that much interest in slices
of everyday life, just as most consumers don't read Raymond Carver stories.
Our imaginations go to the rich, powerful and supernatural. I'd argue that
other mediums - podcasts, reality TV, social media - fulfill the basic human
need behind the sitcom: to simply bask in the company of agreeable/relatable
sounding human voices.

~~~
dominotw
>consumers don't have that much interest in slices of everyday life

Last weekend I watched amazon original 'catastrophe' and 'lilyhammer' a
netflix original. Both of these revolved around ordinary people doing everyday
stuff.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I'm not sure if I would classify the protagonist of Lillyhammer an "ordinary
person" doing "everyday stuff".

(I do, however, very highly recommend the series. I've only seen Season 1, but
it was fantastic, and the character's slow immersion into the local language
and culture was very well done.)

------
binarymax
Unfortunately, no mention of "Malcolm in the Middle" or "The Simpsons" (which
admittedly I havent watched in about 10 years). Both of which continued the
class contrasts of yesteryears' sitcoms.

Overall though, I do agree with the article. It does seem like everyone has it
really easy on American TV.

~~~
atspruce
Perhaps a mention of _Malcolm in the Middle_ would be part of a more complete
history. But the author uses 2007 as the tipping-point between "yesteryear"
and the modern sitcom; a show like _Malcolm,_ which ended in 2006, would fall
in place quite nicely in the author's argument and not prove an exception to
the rule.

I haven't seen _The Simpsons_ in about 15 years, so I won't comment on _it_
—except to note that it debuted only a year after _Roseanne,_ and the two
overlapped for about eight years.

------
miiiiiike
I grew up upper-lower-middle class in a dying manufacturing town near Chicago
so the The Simpsons, Married with Children, Roseanne always felt like home.

I can't agree with the article tho. I still see that same grasping in current
shows like Better Call Saul, Shameless (which, aside from Season 2, is
fantastic), and, in a different way, The Big Bang Theory and Silicon Valley.

Most comedies are just joke delivery mediums with paper thin walls. But
nothing has changed, shows have always been a reflection of their
creators/runners and the networks fund people who've had hits.. Family Guy was
a hit on DVD/[adult swim]? Ok! Order two more joke delivery vehicles from Seth
MacFarlane!

James L. Brooks had a string of hits with a strong emotional core. So after he
helped get The Simpsons on the air it made sense that he essentially forced
the 20-something writers to build the show around an emotional/sentimental
core instead of letting it to devolve into a gag factory out of the gate.

~~~
pessimizer
Better Call Saul is about a family of lawyers, the Big Bang Theory is about
academics, and Silicon Valley is about tech millionaires. I'm not sure what
you're seeing there.

~~~
wccrawford
I've only watched the first ep of Silicon Valley and a few eps of Big Bang
Theory, but...

Better Call Saul is about a poor lawyer who works out of the back of a nail
salon. Not exactly rich. Yes, his brother is, but the show is about Saul.

Big Bang Theory is about guys that live in apartments, and they don't seem
very rich to me. Maybe they're headed there, but they aren't there yet. I'll
admit they don't lack for tech/nerd toys, though.

Silicon Valley starts with a guy in an "incubator" who is clearly struggling,
and then hits it big. It at least _starts_ about a guy without money.

~~~
Pxtl
Not only that, but one of the main characters in BBT, the token non-nerd,
works as a waitress and her lack of funds are a continuing plot-point of the
show.

~~~
nommm-nommm
The problem is her lack of funds seems really fake though. She doesn't really
seem to go through the type of real financial hardship I can identify with, it
just seems haphazardly thrown in once in a while for laughs.

~~~
Pxtl
> it just seems haphazardly thrown in once in a while for laughs.

This also applies to the science and the social issues in BBT. It's not
exactly a very heavy show.

------
humanrebar
The article basically ignored reality television for some reason. Many, many
shows include real-life middle-class people: Survivor, Naked and Afraid,
Chopped, Ice Road Truckers, American Idol, Extreme Home Makeover, Amazing
Race, Jersey Shore, Alaska: The Last Frontier, etc.

The article mentions Dirty Jobs and Undercover Boss, but it's not clear to me
the bountiful reality shows don't undermine the entire thesis of the article.

------
canuckintime
Shameless (US version on showtime) is the best depiction of working-poor
contrasted with middle class on TV today.

~~~
thedaemon
I'll have to agree with you there. Both versions of the show are really great
and seem like people I know.

------
brnstz
If you create a show with the set design of Roseanne or even the Cosby Show in
2016, you're missing out on opportunities for product placement:

[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2012/04/brett-
ratner-...](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2012/04/brett-ratner-
comments-ads-marketing-x-men.html)

The logic is, "Well, I need to have a car in this movie anyway. Why not get a
free car instead of paying for one, and in fact, the manufacturer will pay me
to place their brand new car?"

The good news is more art is created at a lower cost. Great.

But the bad news is you perpetuate the idea that everyone has a new car (or
new kitchen or new 3000 square foot house or whatever) all the time, no matter
what their financial situation would be like in reality. This is especially
insidious when there is easy consumer credit.

Here's a scene of a doctor buying a car from 1987:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKMlx5p6n8k#t=1m58s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKMlx5p6n8k#t=1m58s)

The premise, if you don't bother to watch, is he doesn't want the car salesman
to know his job, because then he won't get a good deal.

The quaint part is that 30 years ago, a doctor and lawyer raising a family in
New York City were considered almost unimaginably rich by TV standards. Now
they would be "middle class."

The sad part is it would be hard to justify a scene like this on a modern
prime time TV show. "So, we're going to have a car in this scene? Great! I'll
call up Ford. Wait, but what do you mean the car salesman would overprice the
car? Don't you know they're running 0% APR or $2000 cash back for President's
Day?"

Sure, there are shows that try hard to be more authentic. But for every
Breaking Bad, there are 10 spinoffs of lawyer / doctor / detective shows where
the characters live in a bubble of perpetual newness the article describes.

And even Breaking Bad did its share of product placements:
[http://www.bustle.com/articles/5963-how-breaking-bad-
product...](http://www.bustle.com/articles/5963-how-breaking-bad-product-
placement-helps-or-hurts-products-like-stevia)

------
moomin
The article rather misses the opportunity to tie things together by pointing
out that Laurie Metcalf was _in_ Roseanne.

------
wldcordeiro
Isn't this really a result of TV showing us "what we wish we were" vs "what we
are"? I swear part of why they pick to have these well off characters is to
give you a sense of "this is what I want for myself."

------
molsongolden
Not disagreeing but Parks and Rec seems like a great counterexample.

------
jasonkostempski
It's not dwindling, it just moved to cartoon format.

------
atspruce
The author blames the modern sitcom's remoteness from working and lower-middle
class concerns with their creators' immunity from the recent recession. In
place of everyday situations, we have shows set in "soundstages and writers’
rooms," the haunts of the out-of-touch in New York and LA. So you wind up with
a show with this sort of genesis:

Our creator was once a prominent writer and performer on a comedy sketch show,
which aired live every Saturday night from an NBC studio in New York. It ran
for 90 minutes. After their time on the show came to an end, our creator
decided to pitch a sitcom based on their experiences there. The lead character
is the head writer on a comedy show, similarly produced in New York. They must
balance their work in the writers' room and their personal life, though this
turns out to be difficult. A pilot is made, and our creator plays the lead.

Modern viewers may recognize this as _30 Rock,_ but it is in fact _The Dick
Van Dyke Show._ It is based not on _SNL_ but on a direct ancestor, _Your Show
of Shows._ Carl Reiner's performance in the pilot may have dissuaded
executives from casting him in the commissioned series (hence Dick Van Dyke),
while Tina Fey remained the lead in her own version. But otherwise the
parallel rings a sight near perfect.

The author stumbles over himself insisting, however, that while _The Dick Van
Dyke Show_ did not give vent to working and lower-middle class concerns, it
did at least feature characters who "had careers" and were definitely of a
class. As if the same were not true of shows like _30 Rock_ (which is at times
obsessed with class difference), or of _Parks and Recreation_ and _The
Office._ These do not depict realistic workspaces, but why place that demand
on a sitcom? And why not place the same demand on, yes, _The Honeymooners,_
_Taxi,_ _The Mary Tyler Moore Show,_ _I Love Lucy,_ _The Beverly Hillbillies,_
_Green Acres,_ _The Andy Griffith Show,_ and on and on. In all cases the
demands of the form—and in almost all cases the demands of overly long
tenures—stretched the premises and the rare attempts at realism very thin.

I think you can make an argument that the most popular comedies available
right now—whether on TV or at the movie theaters—are unflinchingly escapist.
(Though, as the article notes in its discussion of an episode each of _Horace
and Pete_ and _Girls,_ this has not gone unnoticed or unremarked by all of the
shows' writers. Still, these two are not the _most_ popular things around by
any stretch.) Similarly, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers were seen to traipse
across exclusive resorts, high-class stages, ballroom floors, and Venice, in
elaborate dresses and a "top hat, white tie, and tails"—all during the Great
Depression. Sometimes hard circumstances produce a public clamoring for
comment; sometimes the public just wants a reprieve.

------
moron4hire
Let's assume that sitcoms aren't a complete travesty of expressive form to
begin with. Just for the sake of argument, just for a minute.

You know, there is the option to just stop watching TV. If, after skipping all
the series that you don't find relevant to your life, you find there is
nothing left to watch, then just turn it off. Nothing compels you to watch TV.

You want to talk about class struggles, how about the modern depiction of
feudal systems as fundamentally good, if not for a few "bad apples"?
Disney/Pixar movies are particularly bad for this. I like to think the White
Walkers in Game of Thrones are an allegory for democracy and capitalism, that
as the aristocracy send more commoners to clash against the inevitable,
unstoppable wave, it just creates more corpses and more converts.

There is so much freely available content out there to spend your time on that
you don't have to be beholden to the major production firms. Stop watching
network television. They have perversely skewed incentives. It's like people
who pass a local restaurant they've never heard of to go to McDonald's. Why
not take a chance on a burger that will _probably_ be better, rather than go
eat a the burger you know, that you _know_ will be shitty?

