In paragraph two of the article, “Can Middle Class America Be Saved?” the author, Don Peck, writes that America is made up of two demographics: “The rich and the rest [of the country].” The wealthy, having become increasingly more influential over time and better able to leverage this influence for personal gain and hedge themselves against economic bubbles, own such a vast majority of markets that their share dwarfs that of their counterparts that it is tough to develop an argument that the ‘the rest of the country’ matters with regards to their financial impact on the economy, post housing-crisis.
The rich, or synonymously, successful--though much smaller with regards to populous—demographic is comprised of the top percentages of earners with regards to total compensation per annum. The writer argues that this more fortunate group of people are in a more advantageous position to influence markets and thereby benefit their financial interests--this investment cycle creates a disparaging gap between socio-economic classes, i.e. the haves and the have-nots, and a subterfuge for the have-nots.
In the second sentence of the second paragraph the article states, “… and for the purposes of investment decisions, the second group didn’t matter; tracking its spending habits or worrying over its savings rate was a waste of time.” This statement further develops the premise that the rich’s control over the markets is so great that the Middle Class’ impact is negligible.
Mr. Peck delivers a compelling article which suggests by force of argument and overwhelming inclusion of supplementary expert opinions, as well as historical facts, that the plutonomy we may be experiencing will come at the expense of the Middle Class—leaving me to ask myself, “… can the middle class be saved?”