The Affluenza Series, Part 2: The Eroding Middle Class

"The Peasant's Revolt, also called Wat Tyler's Rebellion, was a major uprising across large parts of England in 1381. The revolt had various causes, including the economic and political tensions generated by the Black Death in the 1340's, the high taxes resulting from the conflict with France during the Hundred Years War, and instability within the local leadership of London." (wikipedia) During this age in English history there were many such uprisings which were fueled not only by taxation, inflation, and declining incomes of the poor, but also because of the increasing gap between the wealthy nobility and the much poorer peasants. These protests by the poor did increase their living conditions to some degree, however, the economic gap still remained. It is here within the contexts of the Medieval revolts that the desire for upward mobility through social class began to take root. It is also here, in 14th century England, that the story of the eroding middle class begins.

A Better Life

"The American dream has long been held as a fundamental tenet of American life. So most of us would be surprised to find out that the idea behind the dream isn't actually American." -Edward Cahill, Ph.D., associate professor of English, Fordham University

Colonization of America in the 18th century did much to break down class boundaries and open up wealth to everyone. Back in England, citizens were caught up in "the striving for wealth acquisition and status transformation" which remained the prevalent social focus for many of the English since the 14th century. Now there was a huge opportunity to shatter this economic system by crossing the ocean and inspiring the new settlers to build a new life from scratch. After decades of struggle and hard work, it became very apparent that anyone could indeed establish a better life, all you had to do was pursue it.

It wasn't until the 19th century that the concept of the "American Dream" began to fully manifest itself in the minds of many Americans and begin to manifest itself as a reality within their lives. Leading figures "such as Benjamin Franklin, [a] soap maker's son turned American luminary and one of the nation's founding fathers...wrote extensively on the topic of wealth acquisition in his autobiography." (Cahill) His secret to financial success - save your money.

Clashing Values

Ben Franklin was wholeheartedly committed to public service and his attitude toward wealth was directly related to virtue. He believed that upward mobility involved focusing on getting yourself stable, and then once you've accomplished that, then focus on helping other people. Acquiring wealth was not some self-serving greed or "see how much money and stuff you can obtain" type of philosophy as it is today. In Franklin's day it was a blessing to have wealth and the duty of the upper class to pay it forward to less fortunate members of society. Sounds a lot like something Jesus did when he walked this earth.

"Unfortunately our culture has become obsessed with affluence. We now believe that it's our God-given right to live affluent lives." (Cahill) And so the American Dream has become obscured into an ideal that is meant only for some people, not everyone. Our deep narcissism drives us to achieve affluence at any cost, even trampling over people to get to the top. This is a direct side effect of affluenza and would have Franklin turning in his grave to know that the less fortunate have been cast aside.

Around the turn of the 21st century, with the advancement of technology and its availability to the public, "the culture of wealth acquisition began to alter the structure of American society. On the one hand you had a lot more people becoming fabulously wealthy - the number of millionaires grew exponentially. At the same time, the wealth gap between the rich and the poor grew exponentially, too....The rich were getting larger in number as the poor were getting larger in number." (Cahill) The American Dream now has many different meanings based on an individual person or family- from harvesting millions while working in a hedge fund to simply owning your own home or even just having a job. The deterioration or the huge amassing of wealth is driving a wedge between the upper and lower classes. The chart below shows this growing disparity of incomes.

 Affluenza's Greed

So what exactly is causing the middle class to slowly disappear? We know that the boon of the housing market revealed just how many millions of Americans were not living within their means. This revelation is essentially the core symptom of affluenza - using any resource available, whether yours or someone else's, to obtain wealth and social status at any cost and not worrying about the consequences. And, for many, the final cost was home foreclosure - the stripping of the American Dream.

Credit cards are crushing Americans at an alarming rate, so much so that it is assumed and accepted that everyone will accumulate this type of debt. I think it is safe to say that most Americans have more debt than savings because we have become a society of instant gratification. This lifestyle, riddled with massive spending, runs completely contrary to Ben Franklin's philosophy of save, save, save and is a strong contributor to the eroding middle class.

Yearly incomes for the middle class have declined around $3,000 - $5,000 since the turn of the century. Now Americans in this class have less money to work with but the cost of living still increasing. This increase can be seen with food and fuel costs nearly tripling since the turn of the century. To put it succinctly, there are more and more factors continuously arising that are stripping away the ability of middle class Americans to achieve and maintain the American Dream.

Government Intervention

"Most of our elected officials, whether Democrat or Republican, have been bought and paid for through campaign donations from corporate lobbyists and other special interest groups. We've reached a stage where lobbyists no longer merely influence legislation but write the actual language of what becomes law." - Lou Dobbs, War on the Middle Class

Legislation proposed by our "representatives" continues to punch holes in our eroding class system. During the Bush administration there were tax laws passed which eliminated the Estate Tax and implemented some tax breaks that only the wealthy 1% of our country could take advantage of. This kind of legislation benefits our corporations and millionaires by allowing them to keep more of the millions they possess. Legislators also followed suit during this administration by voting pay raises for themselves while the average income of the lower and middle classes consistently fell.

Another type of legislation aimed at eroding the middle class is the Affordable Care Act. This legislation, under the guise of "universal healthcare for every American", has really only affected the lower class society and those seeking to achieve the middle class American Dream. No one in the government sector, the upper class, any corporate manager or leader - essentially anyone making more than $70,000 a year is not adversely affected by the ACA because they get to keep the insurance they already possess and maintain the hours they've always worked. It is only the poor and middle class are suffering from this backwards legislation.

The welfare system and immigrants have always been blamed for the downfall of the middle class. It has been asserted that a large percentage of their income goes toward sustaining the lives of people who, for whatever reason, cannot get their lives straightened out enough to maintain a job. Is this really a factor for the struggling middle class or could it just be propaganda pushed by our corporate and political leaders? All hell didn't break loose when millionaires were given huge tax breaks. However, when a family comes upon hard times in a tough economy and needs a little bit of help to make it through day to day life, they are viewed as worthless bums soaking up money that they didn't earn. The system established by FDR in 1935 to help the poorer people of this country is now viewed as an evil that should be eradicated. And, through the lowering of government standards, it is being slowly phased out. Thousands who were eligible for benefits as little as two years ago cannot receive them today. WWBFD? What would Ben Franklin do?

What could possibly have motivated the healthcare industry, including insurance companies, to contribute over $17 million to Obama's campaign through PACs and superPACs? Hmm...I wonder. Or, couldn't it be more obvious that there is illicit money to be made when lawyers and their firms contributed nearly $47 million to the President's campaign knowing that there is a predicted $56 billion in medical malpractice lawsuits? Who can prove otherwise that the ACA wasn't actually written by health insurance companies themselves and the corporations who support them?

The direction this country is moving in regards to wealth and social status is alarming. The philosophies of Ben Franklin are still practiced by philanthropists who, God bless their souls, are still around. But paying forward the things we all are blessed with is a value of the past and the art of philanthropy is withering on the vine. In the 21st century we only look out for ourselves and what is in our best interests. Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to see that this country could lose over 600 years of progress by returning to the nobility/peasant social classes that existed during Richard II's reign in England? Is it already too late to reverse the damage? Can the middle class be saved?

Sources Cited

Klimaski, Joanna. "English Scholar Uncovers Real Story Behind the American Dream." (Edward Cahill).       Inside Fordham. October 15, 2012. [Retrieved electronically on March 3, 2014]
 http://www.fordham.edu/campus_resources/enewsroom/inside_fordham/october_15_2012/in_focus_faculty_and/english_scholar_unco_89392.asp 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/22/news/economy/middle-class-pew/index.html

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=K01                                                                       

Obamacare: The Disastrous Concluding Thoughts of a Legacy

It is now nearing the end of February and the dust is beginning to settle after the storm named Obamacare has swept through my family. I have spent a lot of time perusing newspaper articles, reading blogs, and just simply trying to keep up with the rhetoric many of the politicians behind this legislation have been spewing out to the public. It seems that after a negative issue arises from this agenda, the Obama "think tanks" try to design an explanation to view it in a positive light. As a result, it appears that the success of The Affordable Care Act is solely based on individual subjective experiences. The problem is that we all do not have good things to say about Obamacare. In fact, there are some very terrible side effects of this legislation which are significantly impacting lives. It has opened up some doors that should have been left closed, and closed other doors that should have been left open.. Who really is benefiting from this sweeping change of law?

The concept of making health insurance affordable for everyone is certainly an issue which needs to be addressed. Can we use Obamacare as a draft template to hash out a fully functional system? Perhaps we can. But the problem is the extreme partisan divide that is pushing us into becoming a fallen society. Remember the statement made by Abraham Lincoln, "A house divided against itself cannot stand"? One of the largest side effects of Obamacare is the fact that there are actually hundreds of thousands of people who will not have insurance, a consequence of its own legislation. Here in Missouri, and my wife and I are part of this group, over 400,000 people are falling into what has been coined "the gray area". We do not qualify for government subsidies because of our income and Medicaid will not be expanded. As of today Governor Jay Nixon "has accepted the Medicaid Expansion provision of the Affordable Care Act, but yet is still battling republican legislature to finalize the Expansion." They are stating that they will not pass this legislation for "fiscal and philosophical reasons". (http://medicaidexpansion.com/medicaid-expansion-missouri/) From my point of view this whole ordeal has just been a pissing contest for the republicans to get their way. And Missourians are suffering as a result. In my case I guess we get some saving grace - "You are not required to pay a penalty for not having health insurance because of your income and because the state of MO declined to expand MO HealthNet to cover individuals in your situation." (quote from Health Insurance Marketplace application December 21, 2013)

One of the biggest concerns that I have seen developing from this legislation is the promotion of unethical business practices by corporations, small businesses, and individuals. Coming from personal experience, I have noticed that general managers and small business owners are purposely cutting labor hours wherever they can in an effort to make sure certain employees do not meet the yearly 1,560 hours required by the Affordable Care Act. Why pay for an employee's insurance benefits when a corporation or business owner can simply cut enough labor hours each week and let the government foot the bill? I would suspect that there are bonuses behind these types of moves for managers because not having to pay out for an employee's insurance will save revenues and thus trickle down as an incentive. Small business owners benefit in the same way. Could we say that this legislation is undermining all the hard work Clinton did for small businesses during his presidency? Would one not agree that using this kind of tactic is an unethical way of subverting a basic necessity, that being healthcare, from an American worker just to increase profit or to fatten a salary? Could the term "thrown under the bus" apply here?

It has been a hot point topic with many writers on the reasoning the Obama administration has been using to justify workers not needing to work full time hours. This issue has become so controversial because it is a ridiculously absurd utopia that has been linked to Marxism and socialism. Nancy Pelosi made a statement which I'm sure by now everyone has heard. "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance." (Krauthammer) The administration takes it even further by stating that people need to spend more time with their families and so working less hours is a Godsend. Never mind the huge debts hanging over your head. Or the cost of living growing at an exponential rate. Oh, and let's forget about those Americans who are working many hours so that a percentage of people can choose to work less in order to pursue some blissful lifestyle on the back of some else's labor. Perhaps your home life sucks. Or you're an average American who allows your wealth to define who you are in the context of society. Maybe you really do love your job and want to work full time. Or perhaps you simply do not want the government taking away your Constitutional right to govern your own life. This list could go on and on....

Suddenly, a lot of the negative attitudes and anger that people can have toward the welfare system is now going to be aimed at the Affordable Care Act. It is the beliefs, attitudes, and values of Americans that shape the framework of this country, not tyrannical legislation. These types of legislation are passed to exercise control over the population, much like many of the government control practices we see at work in countries like Russia. Our fundamental right (and in a twisted way, government mandate) to have a basic need of health insurance was stripped from my wife and I as it has been done to hundreds of thousands of citizens. Why should we be left helpless and vulnerable because of the stroke of a politician's pen?

Works Cited

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/02/04/cbo-says-obamacare-will-reduce-employment-by-2-5-million-but-not-for-the-reason-you-think/

Krauthammer, Charles. "Obamacare's War on Jobs". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. February 14, 2014.

The Effects of Obamacare: Confusion and Insecurity

Recently my company sent a representative to my place of employment and set up a meeting with us. In this meeting we were informed that, effective January 1st, if an employee did not meet a required work year of 1,560 hours, he or she would be reclassified as a part time employee. We would not only lose all insurances but also lose the ability to accrue sick and vacation time. Also, in an effort "to do the right thing", our company is going to give us a one time raise which is supposed to be the equivalent of the value of that sick/vacation time, given outside the normal 1-3% annual raise. I am not sure how that will work out or even if their commitment will be fulfilled honestly because a confusing equation is being applied to ascertain what "the value of this time means to me."

Now, I do work 40 hour weeks, but it is only when the school year is in session. I am considered a seasonal worker. Each year there are roughly 6 weeks when the business is shut down entirely. During the summer I do try to work as much as I can, when work is much slower, however this year my employer was unable to give me enough hours to earn a living. It seemed to me that management was trying to keep labor costs to an extreme minimum in an effort to boost bonuses. For the past five years I have always been able to work sufficient hours during this slow time, now suddenly hours were cut dramatically. As a consequence, I will not have accumulated enough hours to meet the minimum requirements to remain a full-time employee and will be on the chopping block to lose my family's insurance- not only health, but dental, vision, and disability as well. I wonder, is there some correlation between an obvious move by management and the new rules of The Affordable Care Act?

My family and I have been shocked by the effects of Obamacre. We have always had good insurance, comparable to the policies that hospitals themselves provide for their employers. We have taken comfort in knowing that even though paying the premiums are quite a monthly expense, it is very much worth it to have the peace of mind that my family always receives the best health care available.

On Friday, November 1, 2013 New York Times writers Katie Thomas and Reed Abelson headline with this issue reporting three situations where individuals are being "forced out of their existing health insurance plans." In the article they quote the President in 2010 referencing The Affordable Health Care Act with saying "If you like your insurance plan you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn't happened yet. It won't happen in the future." My family is an example, like thousands of others, who will lose our insurance and be thrown into a vortex of confusion and uncertainty. Then what? The security we now have with my entire family under one policy will be eroded. And the worst part is that we are not given any options. Since our family is on the lower wage scale, we will be forced to take whatever plan the government chooses. It is not our decision. This is very frustrating, to put it mildly.

So, it should be easy to see that we are livid about the changes brought to our lives because of Obamacare. I believe a very important freedom has been stripped from us because we did not choose to drop our insurance nor are we able to decide even what the new changes will be. I do understand that with every new policy enacted someone has to be negatively affected. But in this case, why can we not shop our options? My family is in a rat race to get as much treatment as we can before the end of the year because we have no idea who our new doctors, dentist, or pediatricians will be. The people we have grown to know and love over the past 20 plus years will more than likely no longer be a part of our lives. This is scary and very worrisome. It takes away our faith in our government and creates an air of uncertainty about the future.

I am absolutely certain, however, that the company I work for loves the changes brought about by The Affordable Care Act. Using figures which I apply to my own family as a base model, for every employee they do not have to provide insurance, this will save them $15,000 a year on average. Multiply that by the 15,000 employees who will be affected by these changes and annually my company will save $225 million. Although I am told that this money will be put back into permanent insurance policies, I fail to believe that there will not be a huge revenue surplus. I can envision upper management salivating over those figures because those huge savings will convert into huge bonuses. Although it would never be spoken out loud, I am apt to believe that the more employees a manger can kick off the insurance, the greater the bonus. I am calling The Affordable Care Act a "Corporate Gold Rush" for just this reason. To exacerbate the situation further, it is my understanding as well, the government did not make any written mandates that a company was required to eliminate sick and vacation time. This was a move by my company to piggy back more money saving policies to a mandated policy. Pretty much like "pork" is added to a Senate bill.

We do not know exactly how our lives will be changed by The Affordable Care Act over the next year. What we do know is that we feel very confused because there are too many unanswered questions and absolutely no game plan for us in January. The probability that there will be a gap in our insurance seems pretty eminent. God forbid anything should happen to us during this gap period because we will be uninsured. When we do get a policy or policies, will it be cheaper than our rates now or will it be too expensive? Will the coverage be the same? We do not know. For us, the security we have worked so hard to achieve will be taken from us with the stroke of a politician's pen.