A diminishing middle class is most alarming

There was a piece of news in the early part of December 2007 whose initial impact on me was some kind of alarm. A legitimate story of headline potentials, or so I surmised, it was, for one reason or another, designed or wholly unintentional, lumped together with the “other news”. Consequently, it did not generate the welter of public sentiment I imagined it would. Anyway, the news was about the release of a survey indicating that the number of families comprising the middle class was thinning.

My perception of the full weight of the news was probably not very well placed. Or perhaps, it was my personal deficiency on the workings of economics that goaded me to view it with paranoia. So, I took the easy way of approaching things - wait and see. I waited for our fiscal authorities to explain the nitty-gritty of the story because I wanted to see whether its meaning was far different from my own limited idea. I also waited for responsible people from the private sector to amplify the news.

I am not sure whether the absence of any follow-up story should placate my initial alarm. No news is good news, right? Wrong! The fact that, to my knowledge, no one has come forward with a sincere effort to explain the ramifications of the report does not seem to mollify the apprehensions of few people like me. On the contrary, it fuels a deeper concern, aggravates fear. This failure of our authorities to tell us what is its meaning in relation to ordinary citizens invites suspicion. So, after waiting for a long while, I’ve decided to pick the story up from its buried space and hope that this off-tangent view shall prod knowledgeable men to come up with a more plausible exposition.

A broad middle class, not the existence of very few, ultra rich and dominant cliques, is a verifiable indicator of an economically healthy nation. This little I know. There is robust economy (and less want) where more people are able to get what they need. Differently said, when only fewer families do not have the capacity to make both ends meet, the whole economic outlook is generally good.

The news story I refer to even mentioned specific figures. Certain monthly incomes of families were defined as falling within the context of “middle class”. The monies ranged from sums much higher than minimum wages to six digits. Thus, the alarm in me was set. It provided graphic basis to identify the poor meaning those who belonged to the “lower class”, that group whom economists, out of respect, refuse to so call. Those families earning monthly take home pay arising merely from minimum prescribed salaries did not, per the news, belong to the middle class. As I looked around, they were far more numerous. To use a common term, there were, as there are, more poor families in our midst.

As the story developed, the alarm in me increased. Many of those who lived with such good means as to be characterized as middle class were, in 2007, losing their grip on their status. Either the purchasing power of their earnings dipped so that they could no longer get the same value of goods they could previously buy with the same amount or they simply received lower take home pay. According to the report, the consequence was that many from the previous ranks of “middle class” were getting poorer.

That news of the increasing number of poor families must be correct because if it were untrue, there would have already been a barrage of efforts to rectify it. This is a most alarming issue for the government of Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to address, because to remind her, an impoverished society is a powder keg of revolution. The president must realize that there is no stable a government where its citizens are bent by the emptiness of their stomachs.

*  *  *

Email: [email protected]