People are better off in absolute terms, yes. That is incontrovertible.
What matters to the human psyche is relative well-being compared to one's peers. And by those measures, the 'middle class' is demonstrably worse off than 50 years ago.
> What matters to the human psyche is relative well-being compared to one's peers
Like it or not, that's how we primates work, yes.
Of course, in aggregate that distribution never changes. If you or your group gets lower status, someone else gets higher. It's a true zero sum game. And half of us will always be below average.
No this is not correct. Half of us will always be below the mean, this much is true, but we can obviously do something about the spread of the distribution.
Depends on if you think people care about their place in the social ranking, which is what I thought of, or if it is their wealth compared to the average, which is maybe your theory.
There is probably some of both, now that I think of it.
I think that wealth compared to the average is more important because it's so hard to place oneself in the social ranking when much of it is driven by priorities. For example where I live it wouldn't be unusual for an electrician to drive a nicer car than a doctor. On the other hand they might spend less on vacations. But as long as most people are somewhat close to the mean I think they are not so concerned about precisely where in the ranking they are. At least compared to a world where some people live like serfs while the upper middle class can afford drivers, maids and cooks.
What matters to the human psyche is relative well-being compared to one's peers. And by those measures, the 'middle class' is demonstrably worse off than 50 years ago.