I'm not sure what the takeaway here is, that people who make a decent income should be barred from marrying other people who make a decent income? I usually like Edsall's analyses, but he seems to be mixing correlation and causation a bit. One of the few things I agree with conservatives on is that the disintegration of families has had a hugely negative impact on society. I also don't think that people should be criticized for maintaining a two income nuclear family, as if it's an option only available to high earners.
It's an essay trying to say too much so it ends up explaining too little. He's rolling with the tried-and-true "vanishing middle class" trope and adding on a "democrats are republicans, republicans are democrats" trope. Which, really, explains why Bernie Sanders is losing the war of attrition - the "other fifth" likes Clinton's finance policies. That whole "pulling away" thing ties in with another New York Times argument that pisses off the rest of the country: Six figures is not enough. If anything, he's basically saying "elitism is real" which is kind of the NYT's masthead at this point.
I don't understand why this is even a bad thing. A larger proportion of families with children are living in high income areas? That sounds like great news! By itself, isn't this just a straight-up improvement with no downside? Isn't this exactly what we would hope for, that more people are "wealthy" than before? That's the opposite of increased concentration of wealth, when looking only at quintiles. The only worrying information in the article is that the percentage of families living in lower income areas has also increased. I think that information deserves much more attention. Focusing on the fact that a larger percentage of families make at least $110,000 just sounds like envy to me.
Right. The article is written as if there's a conspiracy among high earners to lock others out of a stable family structure. Average intact families with children make an average of >$100,000, putting them squarely in the fourth quintile, and certainly able to get medical care and education. For a two income household to make $100,000 only requires that both partners have an ok job. It's as if the thesis of this op-ed is that the government should enact policies that discourage people from getting married for the sake of "equality". I get that inequality is an important issue, but just pointing out that people have varying incomes does little to nothing to answer why inequality is detrimental or how it can be addressed, not to mention why it's been widening in recent decades.
In essence there is a class of very wealthy people who will continue making it so their kids can become wealthy as well while the rest of the world continues to lag behind. This class of people is separating from the lower classes, is dominating the political process. Highly wealthy groups with high amounts of power separated from having to see the rest of society results in highly negative outcomes in the long run, as they turn the government into something that serves them rather than the common person. This fact is resulting in the Democratic party shifting towards figures like Clinton and away from Sanders. It results in the republicans getting absolutely killed by Trump when the frustration of the working class poor arises in a party dominated by the working class poor.Geographic segregation dovetails with the growing economic spread between the top 20 percent and the bottom 80 percent: the top quintile is, in effect, disengaging from everyone with lower incomes.
The top quintile is equipped to exercise much more influence over politics and policy than its share of the electorate would suggest.
Equally or perhaps more important, the affluent dominate the small percentage of the electorate that makes campaign contributions.
But the separation is not just economic. Gaps are growing on a whole range of dimensions, including family structure, education, lifestyle, and geography.
Reeves cites data showing that 56 percent of heads of households in the top quintile have college or advanced degrees, compared to 34 percent in the third and fourth quintiles and 17 percent in the bottom two quintiles.
A Democrat whose wallet tells him he is a Republican is unlikely be an strong ally of less well-off Democrats in pressing for tax hikes on the rich, increased spending on the safety net or a much higher minimum wage.