
Marc Andreessen denies existence of middle class - asanwal
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/marc-andreessen-and-the-middle-class.html
======
henrikschroder
Whenever I've discussed class with my friends, it's always the case that the
people who were born upper-middle class, and have stayed there, are completely
oblivious to notions of class. They don't see the class society, and they
often don't even know which class they belong to themselves.

Whereas the friends that are working class or lower-middle class, or have made
a class journey, they know perfectly well which class they belong to, and they
acknowledge the class society. Likewise, members of the upper class are also
aware of the class society and their place in it.

It's just the upper-middle that are clueless, because the values that are
characteristic for them, the optimism and the trust, is what causes them to be
blind to it. And since Marc Andreesen belongs to that class, he might suffer
from the same blindness. (I skimmed the original article, and it was very
light on context as to why he said that...)

(As a sidenote, I'm talking about social class from a European perspective,
which is different from the US perspective in that here, your values and
network are more important factors for your class than your income bracket.)

------
CurtHagenlocher
Although I think the headline "gotcha" statement is pretty ridiculous, his
point about the 50s is not. For a combination of reasons, it was possible at
that time to get a job straight out of high school at a place like Ford and
make a very comfortable living. The circumstances that enabled this were

1) High domestic consumer demand for goods as a result of the baby boom and
following the low-demand period of the Depression and the constrained-supply
period of the war.

2) Negligible competition from imports, in part because most of the likely
suspects were still a long way from recovering from the war.

3) A tight labor market resulting from the high level of growth. Growth --
particularly population growth -- as a driver of wages was noted way back in
the 18th century by Adam Smith.

None of these are true in the United States today.

~~~
netcan
Another perspective on this is that it's all relative. It's hard to compare
wages across different times, but a lot of things that were considered part of
a "very comfortable living" are still pretty easy to obtain: kitchen
appliances, cars, televisions, frozen vegetables, a family meal out.

The reason the 50s in the US have such an association is that they were a lot
better than the 30s & 40s, everyone's frame of reference. Also, cars enabled
suburbs, supermarkets and other efficiencies.

------
tokenizer
Well, everyone knows Marc Andreessen has extreme Randist views. I'd say it
borders on a Machiavellian worldview, especially considering he's apart of the
class which has the most influence, so it's not an evil view, but rather a
pragmatic view that would benefit him.

Unfortunately for him, the idea that the middle class doesn't exist is
incorrect. I know because according to some sources, almost half of the world
now fits in this class. Source:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class#Recent_growth_of_t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class#Recent_growth_of_the_global_middle_class)

When you also factor in that more and more young people are viewing excess
spending and wealth after meeting ones needs as excessive and look down upon
it, then you could also point to a future where we actually shift from this
purely capitalist view to a more social capital view point.

Regardless of what you think, it's all speculation.

~~~
rjknight
Not that Marc Andreessen is necessarily /right/, but the argument that the
middle class "definitely exists" is, like any statement in sociology, rather
difficult to prove.

In fact, "middle class" means different things in different places. In
Britain, "middle class" generally refers to doctors, lawyers, bankers, senior
government officials and many entrepreneurs. The higher rank "upper class" is
historically reserved for genuine aristocrats - if you're not a Lord,
Viscount, Baronet etc. then you're not upper class, no matter how wealthy you
are. Richard Branson is "middle class" by this definition. Essentially,
British middle-classness is about values rather than economic status; even a
poor person can be middle class if they listen to Radio 4. (I simplify, but
not by much).

Marxists (again, simplifying) generally describe the "middle class" as being a
fairly narrow band of people who benefit from capitalism by virtue of
occupying privileged positions - bankers, CEOs and so on - without actually
being capitalists (owners of capital) themselves. In Marxist analysis, this
middle class is effectively bribed to support capitalism by being rewarded
with power over their fellow workers, but this power is always exercised on
behalf of the capitalists. Weirdly, this idea of a narrow middle class of
functionaries acting in close concert with [venture] capitalists is pretty
close to the Andreessen world view as described in the OP!

If we accept the mainstream American definition of middle class as being about
income levels, then Andreessen can still be correct if we read him as saying
that the middle class does not /inevitably/ exist, or is not /inevitably/ as
large as it is now. Falling median income in the US could, if continued,
result in the eventual shrinkage of the middle class, or the redefinition of
'middle class' to include poorer people.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"even a poor person can be middle class if they listen to Radio 4."

If I understand the British system correctly, a poor person can even be upper
class if he happens to be a Viscount whose family has fallen on hard times. Is
that right?

~~~
_mhp_
Yes. A substantial fraction of the upper classes are quite poor, for many
reasons, not least the rising costs of maintaining a family home. Some even
turn to TV to help defray the costs, such as Francis Fulford in the series
'The F __*ing Fulfords' (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fucking_Fulfords>).
You can probably find clips on Youtube.

------
netcan
I think phrasing this in terms of "middle class" is off. It sounds like he's
got the seed of something, but it isn't fully thought out.

It's true that the world of the 50s-80s is done. It's true that there are
fewer jobs where employees above a minimum standard of competence are
interchangeable. Factory workers with decent aptitude that arrives on time &
doesn't steal does not vary much from another one. I think these kinds of jobs
is what he is defining as middle class.

But, the more common definition of middle class is bigger than ever. Most
engineers would generally be considered some flavour of middle class by most
people.

BTW, I recently heard an interesting argument that suggests it's too late to
compete based on cheaper less regulated labour markets at this point, even for
low wage countries. Unskilled labour is decreasing as a percentage of total
manufacturing costs and is unlikely to draw in manufacturers.

------
antihero
Lowering the minimum wage is often suggested by people who are not competing
for jobs on minimum wage in order to support themselves.

Do they really believe wages will go up if companies can pay people less?
Absurd.

~~~
FelixP
I believe that the argument supporting lowering or eliminating minimum wages
is that doing so will increase employment, not wages.

~~~
antihero
So there's lots of people who can barely get by if at all?

------
TYPE_FASTER
Wouldn't lowering the minimum wage require raising taxes to pay for social
services? The minimum wage is not a living wage in many parts of the US.

~~~
accountoftheday
So what if it does?

