
Where the Middle Class Is Shrinking - applecore
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/13/upshot/falling-middle-class.html
======
dragonwriter
The article makes the extremely common media error (which is also present in
the source research, or at least the press release from Pew announcing it --
the article uses "class" pretty exclusively, the Pew release uses "class" in
the headline and much of the body, but also uses "income tier" in some places)
of conflating _income_ (which is simply a measure of the amount of money
received per year) with _class_ (which is a descriptor of how one relates to
society and the economic system.)

What it actually is addressing is particular local areas where the share of
the local population in a particular definition of the national "middle" of
the income distribution is declining. (Well, actually, the article indicates
that, but somewhat misrepresents the source research [0], which indicates that
the locality-based analysis includes adjustments for local cost of living, so
the definitions stated in the NYT article aren't actually what the graphics
are based on.)

(Much of that so-called "middle class" income group would be _working_ class
by the conventional definitions used in looking at capitalist/mixed economies,
and the middle class would extend well into what that study calls the "upper
class" \-- the traditional lower/working, middle, and upper/capitalist classes
are not defined with the middle being around the median wealth or income, but
by the middle being neither completely dependent on wage labor and immediately
at risk from its loss like the lower/working class nor primarily relying on
renting others labor to apply to their own capital, like the upper/capitalist
class; the middle class has always been almost entirely in the upper half of
the income distribution.)

[0] [http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas-
shrinking...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas-shrinking-
middle-class-a-close-look-at-changes-within-metropolitan-areas/)

~~~
Retric
That is a useless definition in terms of policy. We don't care which legal
profession people have. We care about the value they produce and the pay they
receive.

Class has vastly different meanings in the US or India etc. As long as the
meaning was clear that should be enough for any reasonable person. Especially
when it's a very common definition. Whining about it is little better than
trolling.

PS: The original definition of middle class even included working class
people. Working class people are not serfs and they are not aristocracy so by
default they are middle class. As the US got rid of slavery, has no real
aristocracy, and calling everyone middle class is pointless, so the more
reasonable definition _is_ based on income. It's even been used in that
context for 100+ years.

~~~
dragonwriter
> That is a useless definition in terms of policy. We don't care which legal
> profession people have.

I disagree that its useless in terms of policy, and it has nothing to do with
which legal profession people have (no matter what work you do, if you make
most of your support from working for someone else, you are working class; if
you are supported by a mix of your own capital and your own labor, with
neither being overwhelmingly dominant, you are middle class, if you are mostly
renting labor to apply to your own capital, you are a capitalist.

> The original definition of middle class even included working class people.
> Working class people are not serfs and they are not aristocracy so by
> default they are middle class.

Yes, the meaningful relations to the economy under the _feudal_ economic
system are different than under the _capitalist_ economic system [0]. The
replacement of the feudal system of property (notably, the end of feudal land
tenure making land title a marketable commodity fungible with other forms of
capital, as well as conversion of feudal obligations over time from service-
based to payment-based obligations) eliminated the distinctions in
relationship to the economy represented by the feudal class structure,
replacing them with a different set of relevant relations, those of the
capitalist system.

[0] As an aside, an interesting example of the period of transition between
the two systems is found in Adam Smith's _Wealth of Nations_ , where Smith
talks about the relations of three classes to policy, and they map roughly to
the _feudal_ upper class -- which he favors as the class most reliable as both
knowing and being able to pursue their interest and having that interest
aligned with the common interest, the _capitalist_ upper (and arguably,
conflated with them, middle) class -- which he sees as dangerous because their
interests will conflict with the common interest -- and the capitalist
_working_ class (which he sees as unreliable despite sharing, and arguably
defining, the common interest because they are too uneducated to know their
own interest, or effectively pursue them if they did).

~~~
Retric
Calling a CFO at a Fortune 500 company 'working class' because they work for
someone else is going to raise eyebrows.

You can argue about educational capital, but learning to be a truck driver and
maintaining a clean record is capital in the same way as being an MD is
capital, but the scale is vastly different.

The wider problem with this standpoint in the modern US is a 'working class'
truck driver over their lifetime may make significantly more money from
capital via 401k and home ownership than directly working. All it takes is
someone living somewhat below their means and time to let compound interest
takes off. However, the benefit more from policy's that help at the start than
lower taxes late in life.

An 80 year old who owns their home and has 2.5 million in the bank is
qualitatively very different than a 22 year old with 2.5 million in the bank
and their own home. Most obviously future returns +/\- 3% mean little to the
80 year old and are vital to the 22 year old.

PS: Some people add in a managerial class who make money from other peoples
capital. But again scale is important, and pay is a huge indicator about the
kinds of leverage you have. Managers making 30k vs 30m are worlds apart.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Calling a CFO at a Fortune 500 company 'working class' because they work for
> someone else is going to raise eyebrows.

Most C-levels at Fortune 500 companies have substantial capital stores which
are an important part of their overall support (even if they are not being
drawn down regularly, but instead being grown for retirement or planned future
use, or as inheritance) and are, in terms of the traditional capitalist class
structure, either on the upper end of the middle class or outright
capitalists.

There might be some living paycheck-to-paycheck without substantial personal
capital reserves, but they would be exceptional.

~~~
Retric
> have substantial capital stores... some living paycheck-to-paycheck

This is due to income, not job function. AKA NFL coach vs. high school
football coach.

~~~
dragonwriter
> This is due to income, not job function

Its due to past circumstance, including past income, past life choices,
inheritance, and a number of other factors. Its not a function of either
present income or present job function, though its loosely correlated with
both (and, of course, having _any_ job function indicates that you are to some
extent dependent on renting out your labor; really, the classes _aren 't_
crisp categories, they are ranges on a continuum.)

------
npalli
I found the following graph from the same pew research pretty interesting.

[http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2016/05/ST_2016.05.12_m...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2016/05/ST_2016.05.12_middle-
class-geo-ch1-02.png)

Essentially, the middle class shrank from 55% of the population in 2000 to 51%
of the population in 2014.

However, the upper class absorbed 3% (3/4th) of the shrinking middle class
growing from 17% to 20% of the population, while the lower class absorbed only
1% (1/4th) of the shrinking middle class.

Having said that, you will not hear that 3/4th of the middle have disappeared
and become upper class, you will only hear 4% of middle class has disappeared
subtly implying everyone has become lower class.

~~~
astazangasta
Take this with a grain of salt. The definition of "middle income" is flexible.
For example, in the Pew analysis "middle income" is defined as between
$45,115-$135,346 in 2013-2014 dollars for the year 2000, but as between
$41,641-$124,924 for the year 2014.

Given this difference it's unsurprising the Pew analysis finds the upper class
grew, but since the definition shifts we should be suspicious of the meaning
of this statistic.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The definition of "middle income" is flexible.

The definition used is consistent: an household income of 2/3 to double to the
national median income.

The range shifts because the median income (even in inflation-adjusted terms
dollars) shifts over time.

Aside from the complaints I've made about conflation of class and income
elsewhere in this thread, the Pew definition is a reasonable and consistent
way of defining a middle income tier over time, in a way which makes sense to
talk about changes in size of that tier as an indicator of polarization of the
income distribution, and which is a bit more intuitively understandable than
some other distributional measures that relate to the same broad
distributional concepts (e.g., the Gini coefficient of income.)

~~~
astazangasta
Do you think this is intended to summarize the shift in median income
(generally downward since 1997)? If so, why not just discuss that? If not, the
effects of that shift are surely confounding whatever it is they ARE trying to
summarize (some nebulous quantity called "the middle class").

~~~
dragonwriter
> Do you think this is intended to summarize the shift in median income
> (generally downward since 1997)?

No, its intended to discuss the move of the income distribution to be less-
tightly clustered around the median with more at the extremes (the particular
release the NYT article is about talks about the by-metro-area effects of
this, but the broader trend is succinctly illustrated in this graphic [0] from
the December 2015 national-level report which preceded the metro-area-level
one the article is based on.)

[0] [http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-
middl...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-
is-losing-ground/st_2015-12-09_middle-class-03/)

------
mancerayder
That the income distribution is shrinking in the middle distribution of the
population of the U.S. is a critical data trend with a number of unpleasant
implications.

From an ideological perspective, it damages the traditional worship of hard
work and the idealization of middle class life. Idealistic visions (as
reflected from the movies, the shows, the social policy of the era around the
middle of the 20th century pretty much up until the end of it) showed the
suburban life, the housewife, the house, the two car garage. It's easy to be
politically complacent, knowing you're in the country that's number one, when
those things are what you can realistically strive for. Laissez-faire
capitalism was always sold as being more fair than the evil 'socialist' Europe
- and worse - that was further east. Because even when you were low, you could
feel comfortable about bettering your lot ("my grandfather came here with
nothing..."). Now the stats are pointing away from that reality.

Economically it's pretty iffy, given that 80+% of the American GDP is the
services sector, which has a large component of dependency on spending power.
Retail alone is what, 5-6% of GDP, and then you have entertainment, real
estate, and much else that depends on money being spent by people not on the
very top.

Real estate's an interesting one. Another piece of the Dream that made us the
greatest country, as we were told. That's another trend that the current
generation faces that was not faced in the 1950's: the ratio of median income
to median housing costs.

A lot of us here are in IT (or Law or other professions that I have noticed),
and in many ways we're very lucky, even if we did work hard to get to where we
are, since we're further up the curve and don't face the same exposure. In the
U.S. health care costs and educational costs have also gone up well above the
income increases, adding further to the discontentment.

Meanwhile, the political world has gone mad. We're now back to identity
politics, with demagogues on both sides of the spectrum. Any explanation about
the economic underlying conditions? Nope, instead we talk about immigrants, or
X racial privilege, or gender/racial identity in the boardrooms, or X foreign
power.

New thread suggestion: "Ask HN: Which remote island can I escape to and live
comfortably and cheaply?"

~~~
zanny
> "Ask HN: Which remote island can I escape to and live comfortably and
> cheaply?"

This is really the fundamental problem in the modern world. The
interconnectedness and shrinking of the globe in terms of distance means there
is absolutely no where to escape to. Anywhere you would consider going there
_will_ be _some_ government trying to dictate how you live your life and take
a portion of your livelihood, and anywhere that you _might_ avoid that you are
usually risking that in conjunction with a humvee full of armed militants
storming your home and murdering you.

Even a hundred years ago there were vast swathes of Australia, the central US,
and South America generally uninhabited yet arable land, and the distances of
the time made it infeasible for anyone to effectively police all of it. Today,
not so much.

About the only hope left is setting up floating colonies in the Venusian
atmosphere, but the problem is well before despondent settlers can migrate on
a colony ship there will be governments establishing absolute control and
monitoring of any habitable space someone could try to flee to.

It is like the "right to be forgotten" on Facebook - the right to be left
alone was, fleetingly, a valuable thing that relatively few could enjoy, but
in the same way the middle class shrinks the number of people capable of being
in that state is also in dramatic decline.

~~~
xxpor
>Anywhere you would consider going there will be some government trying to
dictate how you live your life and take a portion of your livelihood, and
anywhere that you might avoid that you are usually risking that in conjunction
with a humvee full of armed militants storming your home and murdering you.

It's almost like the two are related!

~~~
zeveb
I can't find the exact quote, but there's one floating about how until about
1910 the most government that average Englishman (outside of London) would
experience was the post office. 1890 rural England isn't particularly known
for being a lawless hellhole.

~~~
zanny
Places where nobody lives are usually not conducive to marauding bands of
malcontents. Those almost always require some support structure behind them,
because if you just pillage and burn you have no reliable source of food or
prosperity.

There is an explicit reason why the places people would "disappear to" like
South / Central America, central Asia, or Africa, are all predominantly
totalitarian states. You are just, in such places, hoping to fly under the
radar and be the one mouse not to be pounced on by the lion destroying
everything.

------
nugget
I used to think that science fiction's popular predictions of a dominant, out
of touch urban ruling class casually oppressing subsistence level, serf-like
rural populations was just a dystopian fantasy. But the older I get and the
more I think about the future and human nature the more I think that may be
the way we are headed.

~~~
thrownaway2424
The joke is that the rural people are oppressing themselves. "Urban elites"
have long advocated for policies that would benefit the rural poor but the
white rural poor are dead set against any policy that would also benefit black
people. [http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234](http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234)
and [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-
Amer...](http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-
America/dp/080507774X) for more on that.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
That book is so totally "OMG, what's _WRONG_ with those people???" Emphasis
"those people."

While that's one interpretation, there's _Long_ been conflict in the US on the
rural-urban axis - see Andrew Jackson's vision versus Alexander Hamilton's
vision

Race is only useful in this sort of thing as a predictor of rough economic
class, and even then it's less than useful. IOW, I don't think it's
_specifically_ race.

 _A_ better resource is "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival
Regional Cultures of North America" [http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-
History-Regional-Cult...](http://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-
Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029)

~~~
lliamander
> That book is so totally "OMG, what's WRONG with those people???" Emphasis
> "those people."

Indeed. Although I am not (currently) among the rural poor, I can't imagine
ever trusting someone who openly refers to me or mine as "those people".

~~~
true_religion
I'm curious. This is a question that's plagued me my entire adult life. Why
are many people against being called "those people" or "these people"? Is it a
connotation thing---as in previously someone trying to marginalize a
population would refer to them casually as "those people"?

Or is there some deeper insult that I am missing due to not having experience
of it?

~~~
ArkyBeagle
It fairly screams "Jungian Other" doesn't it?

------
blakesterz
Many of the places that LOST the most middle class also seem to have a big
RISE in UPPER class. At least it looks like that from the map. Am I reading
that wrong? Can we interpret that to mean at least some middle class went up?
I guess the word "Shrinking" here is assumed to mean "Gone Down" but at least
some of that Went Up, didn't it? I can't seem to figure out from looking at
this.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I guess the word "Shrinking" here is assumed to mean "Gone Down"

It means that the share of the population _in_ the "middle class" (as defined
in the work) has gone down, not that the direction that they have moved to the
lower classes (from the national report [0] that preceded the locality-based
one that the article is based on, the net movement has been nearly equal to
the lowest and highest tier, with a slight bias to the highest tier.)

[0] [http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-
middl...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-
is-losing-ground/)

------
6stringmerc
A noteworthy companion piece would be this FiveThirtyEight look into the
relationship between Unions, Wages, and the Middle Class:

[http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-
manu...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-dont-miss-
manufacturing-they-miss-unions/)

One of the more interesting points I took away is that the Midwest, though
facing issues, is one of the last holdouts of a large demographic that might
be called Middle Class, often in close correlation with Union presence.

~~~
tosseraccount
Polls show a tight race between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton in the Midwest ...
so we're likely to have focus on the middle income vote.

We typically don't see the income inequality that we see on the coasts.

~~~
6stringmerc
Thanks for adding the perspective - it wasn't something I was familiar with,
re: Midwest and that kind of demographic. I was familiar with good wages in a
lot of dominant industries (when jobs are available, etc). The region should
be interesting to watch, as you note, regarding how the bloc is courted (and
whether it works or not).

------
mc32
In some places the middle class is losing pop to the upper class, in others
it's losing pop to the lower class.

It's also a moving target. It's based on relative income rather than a set
point of achievements (ability to send offspring to college/uni). On the other
hand we can infer that it's not as easy as it once was to become middle class
through union/blue collar jobs, except in some government spheres.

Beset by offshoring and major political parties who only visit factories for
photo ops, the blue collar middle class is feeling the strain and are making
themselves felt by both parties who may ignore them at their political peril
-if they continue to carry the brunt of the negative changes necessary for
progress, their dissatisfaction will transform from indifference to a large
political movement both major parties will have to manage in the next few
election cycles.

~~~
GCA10
Or maybe a small political movement.

Much of our family traces back to the Midwest or southern New England factory
towns. It's been quite astonishing seeing the professional and geographic
migrations that happen as a new generation comes of age.

The starting point is just as described: Rust Belt parents with fraying big-
company jobs that were predicated on medium incomes, mid-level skills and high
expected levels of job security.

The next generation is ending up in Seattle or North Carolina. Some are going
to Colorado, California or Washington DC. They aren't staying in their
parents' communities. They're switching employers more, and they're ending up
in fluid fields like IT security, consulting, social services, graphic design,
etc. where you're expected to fine-tune your career every few years.

Yeah, the older generation is unhappy and ready to vote for politicians who
engage with them. But the next generation isn't asking government to make
societal change stop. They just want a fair shot at whatever new opportunities
come along (and some dreamy stuff about making college both cheaper, easier
and more useful - all at once.)

~~~
mc32
I don't think it's going to get easier for new grads for a while, if ever.
We're automating and offshoring jobs to remain "competitive" i.e. retain more
profits. Not all kids, white or black will be getting advanced degrees in a
large enough volume to counteract this trend.

While many people think of this as a blue collar white people issue, it's
actually a poorly educated people issue which affects blacks and whites of
poor backgrounds. Men and women.

We're not going to age out of the conundrum.

------
mikekij
I'm not quite understanding why the "Lower Class" trends seem to be so flat,
while the middle income trends are down. Where are the middle income families
going if not the lower income bracket?

~~~
ronnier
I believe what you are seeing is the white middle class dying off.

~~~
tosseraccount
[http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world-
popula...](http://www.prb.org/publications/datasheets/2012/world-population-
data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx)

White fertility is relatively stable; other demographics are declining faster.

------
sixtypoundhound
Ugh - while I agree with the conclusion, the statistical definitions here
don't have any connection with reality.

$125,000 is "upper class", you say, regardless of location?

<explodes into laughter>

Let's translate that into the real world, shall we?

$125,000 Household Income....

Who makes it:

\- IT manager or Senior Dev with stay at home spouse

\- Mid-level Dev ($90K) married to a K-12 teacher ($40K)

\- Two junior software developers (co-habituating)

Location matters, incidentally - if you're in CA / NY / Northeast Coast, this
is barely enough to buy a house (and I hope you like driving / riding the
train for a few hours).

A better analysis would be to draw the line somewhere in the the $200,000 -
$500,000 range (based on salary + bonus, no equity boost) and include passive
income. This is the point where you get a meaningful change in social options
from the income (eg. top tier housing, private schools, accredited investor
status, second home, ample emergency funds, etc.). Also incorporate some view
of regional costs - since the "Social Freedom" point is much higher in NY / CA
than in rural Alabama.

Sad to say, there are many areas of the country where living on $125,000 still
definitely sucks.

~~~
qsymmachus
> Sad to say, there are many areas of the country where living on $125,000
> still definitely sucks.

Only by truly decadent standards could an income of $125,000 be said to
"definitely suck". $125k is 2.4x median income and puts you in the 97th
percentile of all American workers.

~~~
sixtypoundhound
Attempting to answer the question a different way...

I presented three fictional "couples" and their career choices that would
easily get you to the $125,000 point in today's labor market. None of these
pairing would be considered "highly compensated" or upper class. Middle class
would be a more appropriate designation.

With regards to the "suck" factor - try running a household in SF, LA, or NYC
(with kids and spouse) on that amount. I don't think owning my own home and
having good schools is a particularly decadent expectation. Or having good
access to health care and support services. Nor should I be expected to
leverage myself to the eyeballs to buy a starter home.

Would think that the expectation of a professional earning that amount is that
they are providing their kids with an environment where their kids can
replicate their success.

~~~
qsymmachus
Obviously you are correct that $125k does not go in far in SF, LA, or NYC as
it does in Cleveland. But these cities are extreme outliers, and my main point
remains that you need a little more perspective about what "definitely sucks"
in America.

I make right around $125k and live in SF. I have the luxury of not having to
think much about how I spend my money, and yet I still have $2000-$3000 left
over every single month. For perspective, half of all Americans would not be
able to afford a single unexpected $400 expense[1]. That's what definitely
sucks, not the fact that I can't afford a house in Bernal Heights.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2015/06/03/tn...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2015/06/03/tnearly-half-of-americans-say-they-cant-afford-an-
unexpected-400-expense/)

------
nxzero
Anyone able to offer an explaination of why having a large middle class is
viewed as positive? For example, say large population was happy, educated,
healthy, etc. - why does it matter what the class distribution is?

~~~
cauterized
Democracies tend to function better with a large middle class that's well
educated and has economic clout than it does with a small, powerful moneyed
elite and a huge underclass that's struggling just to survive and has no time
or mental energy to spare paying attention to politics.

Additionally, the discretionary spending of middle class households helps fuel
the economy.

~~~
partisan
> Democracies tend to function better with a large middle class that's well
> educated and has economic clout than it does with a small, powerful moneyed
> elite and a huge underclass that's struggling just to survive and has no
> time or mental energy to spare paying attention to politics.

Sources?

~~~
cauterized
Books I read a decade ago in political science classes and couldn't remember
who did the studies or proposed the theories. [http://www.brill.com/middle-
class-and-democracy-socio-histor...](http://www.brill.com/middle-class-and-
democracy-socio-historical-perspective) looks like it might discuss the topic,
but I don't know what perspective it takes

~~~
dragonwriter
If nothing else, a tighter clustering of incomes implies a certain degree of
commonality of experience and interest compared to a less-tight distribution.

This means a lower probability, all other things being equal, that a majority-
supported position will be extremely unwelcome by a large minority, which is
probably a good thing for a democratic state.

------
adevine
The source report that the article is about has a lot more data and
explanations: [http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas-
shrinking...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas-shrinking-
middle-class-a-close-look-at-changes-within-metropolitan-areas/)

------
ericssmith
Elizabeth Warren makes similar observations in presentation at UC Berkeley in
2007

[http://www.uctv.tv/shows/The-Coming-Collapse-of-the-
Middle-C...](http://www.uctv.tv/shows/The-Coming-Collapse-of-the-Middle-Class-
Higher-Risks-Lower-Rewards-and-a-Shrinking-Safety-Net-with-Elizabeth-
Warren-12620)

~~~
johnohara
Not sure why you've been down voted. I found the talk you cited to be
interesting and insightful, somewhat narrow in perspective, but nevertheless
prescient, given the problems that occurred a year later.

She has become more controversial of course since then, and more well known
politically, which may account for your negative votes. I don't know.

But her observations about the use of revolving credit to counteract the
effects of stagnant wage growth (in real terms) is still relevant today. The
narrow emphasis on wages however, ignores the wealth creation made using other
means, for example, by small business and entrepreneurship.

------
jderick
Here is the best article I could find on the topic. If you have not read
Piketty's book it is a good summary:

[http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-
histor...](http://scalar.usc.edu/works/growing-apart-a-political-history-of-
american-inequality/index)

------
beachstartup
i'm not sure $125k/year for a family of 3 should really be considered 'upper
class'. is 2 working parents barely making 60k each really upper class?

i would like to see these numbers for 4x or 5x the median (roughly
$250k/year). to me that's really where the delta in income starts to become
apparent as manifested in lifestyle choices and accumulated wealth.

edit: okay, reading the actual research reveals that pew calls it 'upper
income', not 'upper class', which i generally agree more with. this is
probably a slight editorial twist by nytimes to emphasize the point.

~~~
stanmancan
Agreed. We live in Canada. Our household income for a family of 3 is just over
$125K and I certainly don't feel like we're "upper class". We can't even
afford to buy a house where we live.

~~~
vox_mollis
I live in a town in the US where the median household income is roughly $36k
and the median household size is 3.9. Most adults own their home here.

I know most HN people tend to see urban/suburban areas as the only habitable
zones, but come on - you are definitely living high on the hog, it's just hard
to see because you choose a location and lifestyle with very high expenses.

~~~
g00gler
That's true, but what do you do for a living? I think it'd be significantly
harder to find a job as a developer in the middle of nowhere, it's even hard
to find an interesting job in the suburbs IME.

~~~
vox_mollis
I'm a 60% developer / 40% small team lead. Do it all remotely with trips to
California every two months or so.

Plenty of positions are available for remote workers. From what I've seen,
it's not the employers, but rather the employees. For some reason, the
convenience and distractions of cities are lifestyle requirements, not
employment requirements. Which is fine, but I take issue with the widespread
delusion that lifestyle expenses are not a choice, especially for cognitive
workers like developers, designers, etc.

~~~
stanmancan
Well, I live about a 45 minute drive from Vancouver BC. It's still part of the
"Greater Vancouver" area, but it's not like we're living right downtown. The
area I live is pretty much all residential. We're not exactly living a fast
paced fancy high life. Yes, living here is a choice we make. I could move to
the middle of nowhere , buy a house, and have lower expenses. Heck, I could
move to a third world country and live like a king for a fraction of what I
pay now. But I don't think that's really relevant. My wife and I's families
are both close by, our 9 year old daughter has grown up here and has many
friends. For a single individual, or a small family without many connections
to where they live, it's easier to just up and move on. However, it isn't
always as easy as it sounds.

~~~
tostitos1979
Curious what part of BC you are in? My wife and I had dreams to move to
Vancouver one day but seems impossible given that we just had a baby, and
housing prices. We looked at Surry but seems a bit gritty and at the border of
affordability. We're sick of Toronto. The traffic, the cost of houses and the
weather all suck (TO has fantastic ethnic diversity and all our family lives
there). We have friends buying run-down semidetached houses for a million
dollars in Toronto ... we're saying no to that.

~~~
stanmancan
Real close to Surrey actually, a few blocks from the border. Anywhere in the
Lower Mainland is a really beautiful place to live, and lots to do outdoors if
you're into that. Surrey had a bad reputation but it's mostly deserved. As
usual, the vast majority of people are totally normal citizens, but there's
plenty of gang violence. Last I read there had been 36 gang shootings in 2016
alone (Here's a map: [http://bc.ctvnews.ca/2016-surrey-
shootings](http://bc.ctvnews.ca/2016-surrey-shootings)). It's not somewhere I
would ever want to live personally, but I know many people who have spent
their whole lives there without any incidence.

If you're trying to escape expensive house prices though, you're looking in
the wrong place. Housing prices have been on the rise for years now. I love
the weather here, but you have to be prepared for lots of rain and grey
winters. Traffic can be pretty terrible too depending on where you're going
and when. Because of the geography of the area, there's lots of bridges that
people like to get in accidents on during rush hour. If you can avoid having
to cross a bridge in rush hour, or drive in the downtown core, you'll be fine.

FWIW I grew up in Victoria, spent a year in TO, and have been in the lower
mainland for the last 5 years and it's been my favourite place to live by far.

~~~
escape_plan
My wife spent 10 years in Surrey before moving in with me. We are thinking of
moving to Canada, currently living in Bay Area, myself a developer for last 5+
years, earning decently but just tired of the Silicon-Valley rat race
(commute, real-estate ownership and long term family settlement) and the weird
systems here (immigration [being affected] + general political sentiment[long
term, not currently affected]), and not able to decide whether to go to
Vancouver or TO or any other option? Most likely, I will be working remotely
for the same company and making trips every month or two when I move. Do you
mind if you share any advice you might have? Thanks!

~~~
stanmancan
Both can be great cities and have different things to offer. I would try to
visit both and see which one you enjoy more. TO is like a racial mixing pot,
you get people from all over the world, so it has a pretty unique culture, but
it's a pretty big city. Not a lot of outdoors, I didn't find people to be the
friendliest. If you like living in a big city it might be worth it.

Vancouver is big, but more spread out. The downtown core isn't huge. It's in
the Fraser Valley so it's beautiful pretty much no matter were you are. You
have these bit mountains in the north and east. Not quite as multicultural,
it's predominantly white/Asian(/Indian). I live in Delta which is a 35 minute
drive from downtown with no traffic or closer to an hour wirh traffic. There
is lots to do, especially if you like the outdoors.

Weather is pretty drastically different. TO has hot hot summers and cold cold
winters. Expect a bit of snow but mostly it's just freaking cold. However,
it's typically still nice sunny blue skies in the winter. Vancouvers winters
are much more mild; we didn't get any snow last year where I live. It will get
close to 0, but we play outdoor soccer year round so it's certainly bearable.
Winters can feel long when it's just grey skies and rain though; part of
living in a valley. Summer's are beautiful, hot and humid. Luckily there's no
shortage is beaches and lakes to go cool down in.

Looking for anything in specific or does that help?

~~~
escape_plan
That's very good info, thanks a lot!!!. I am also thinking in terms of my
wife's career because she has an economics degree and which city would be
better for children to grow up in because we will be starting a family as
well. I really appreciate the advice you gave. So do you go watch whitecaps
games?

------
twoodfin
I don't think this presentation gives a useful picture of larger trends
without at least some projection of relative population. It puts Barnstable
County, MA (population 215,000) on the same representational footing as
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria (population 6,000,000).

------
rayvd
[https://www.aei.org/publication/monday-afternoon-
links-28/](https://www.aei.org/publication/monday-afternoon-links-28/)

More about upward mobility and immigration trends. No need for all the hand
wringing!

------
tonyedgecombe
Is this a result of the political shift to the right or is there more to it?

------
dragonwriter
HN Title (currently "The Middle Class is Shrinking") misrepresents the title
and focus of the article (source title is "Where the Middle Class is
Shrinking").

Posting this separately from response on the substance of the source article
(because hopefully it will be corrected and this will be come irrelevant.)

EDIT: Oddly, the current HN Title is closer to the focus of an _earlier_ Pew
release [0] that is a predecessor to the one the NYTimes article behind the
current title is based on [1].

[0] [http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-
middl...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-
is-losing-ground/)

[1] [http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas-
shrinking...](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/05/11/americas-shrinking-
middle-class-a-close-look-at-changes-within-metropolitan-areas/)

~~~
dang
Ok, we added 'where'.

