you're a minority they are standing up for you. what that means is that if we oppose their policies, by necessity the logic is we hate blacks, gays, jews and women and that is sort of the philosophy a dried-up. >> the editor at breitbart.com ben shapiro is today's in depth a guest and he will take your calls and comments for three hours live starting at noon eastern and looking ahead, so bright leader congressman john lewis will be october's guest. >> now on booktv, lord send a examines the past, current, and future state of the american middle class. the author reports that a strong middle-class emerged following world war ii in the 1950s and

begin to erode in the succeeding decade. this is a little over one hour. >> i'm going to jump right in. i took a chronological approach to the story as you see. i just went decade by decade. i picked up the story by edward to because i feel like that's when the middle-class as we know it really rose in numbers and power. and then go through the 60 comes to become 80s, 90s and that up o today and then i will wrap up. that's basically the approach i took to the book, it just tracks with the book. why i wrote the book, there's just a lot of chatter these days about middle-class, not surprising. someone talk about the middle-class a lot versus barack obama like most politicians. i counted 20 times he mentioned the middle-class in a speech a couple years ago. and more recently in 2012 and a state of being i think he put it very well.

he said at the end of world war ii when another generation of heroes return home from combat the gulf of strokes economy of middle-class world. the defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise allies. that's a bold statement when the president calls a particular topic or subject the defining issue of our time. it certainly matters but i think we would all agree. so i think a lot of us would agree with this idea that the plight of middle-class is really central to our national conversation. it's one of the biggest stories of our time and place. if you look at the numbers, if you look at the research, there are fewer of us than they used to be. we've lost our both economically, socially and politically and i think this has huge implications in terms of what kind of country we want to be. i think it really means something. basically my approach was to

trade the baxter. i picked up the story again right after world war ii. it was in the '20s and '30s between the wars win an authentic american middle class really emerged in significant numbers to and i pick it up right after that. it places what i think is a crisis in a larger context or perspective. it's not a new idea, of course but a lot of people are talking of the middle-class. basically there's general agreement that it was 1970s economics, and then the double whammy of 80s reaganomics that dismantled the middle-class. the story generally goes that tax policies favor th the rich, creative side of they haven't had that society, and so this very sort of plump of the united states economically and socially became skinnier as we even moved up or down. and i don't challenge that. i agree with that but basically what i do is push the story for

the back because i think it was in the mid '60s when the american middle class really started breaking up, for reasons that were not really economic battle. it's just part of a larger fragmentation of the united states that happened in the mid '60s as the counterculture came along. so i pushed the story back further. the irony with the subject, given how much chatter is about, is nobody knows what it is. no one has a firm definition of the middle-class. it's impossible to define middle-class definitively. the most common use is economic and particularly income. which i think is a terrible way to define the american middle class, as we're going to talk about. if you don't use economics, you go into subjective criteria, like college education, if you own a home or even a car, can you afford health care, do you have retirement nest a? or do you have enough money to go to disneyland? all of these criteria have to do with different times to define

the middle-class, which illustrates how hard it is to define this group. i define it as those who are in the middle third of net worth rather than income. which means a third of us are middle-class if he defied definitively a third who come in terms of worth, 33.3% of the population to net worth is the financial value of one's total assets less liabilities. so it's not income, which i think really swings greatly. you could have $1 million year one, and then you could lose your job and make no money for next year. are you know longer middle-class? i don't know. i think it's a terrible measure and it's the most commonly used. if you start looking at things like college education or own a car or owning a home, it's a slippery slope. because so judgmental and subject about whether someone qualifies or not. you start getting into issues like $60,000 allocation because

he is not educated at the college level, not middle-class whereas the $40,000 a year teacher who has a masters degree is middle-class? i don't know. i think that's not a good way to define the group. i think this idea that it's difficult to define the middle-class is reflective of a bigger thing. we just have problems with class in america. we don't like distinctions of class. with issues with race of course but that's at least very much in the open. class, which is tonight. we don't even talk about it. it's not a part of what we talk about. that's because social and economic are contradictory to our founding principles of democracy. they just go against the grain. in terms of thinking of rank of any sort. that's why both rich and poor are viewed as auspicious in some way because they violate the national creed that we are equal in some way. that if we are all middle-class, it basically means our democracy is working. that's the idea.

the problem is, it's just not true, that there's always been vast inequalities, great inequalities of wealth and social status ever since the founding, even before the founding of this country. the tax revolt in boston tea party was basically a revolt by upper-middle-class people who were protecting their financial interests. so it's just not true. the perception that we are a middle-class nation which is a term used a lot or that we are a classless society, is mythology. it just isn't true. upper mobility by the way. a lot of people believe you can rise through the ranks. you can but it's unusual if you look at the data. this is i think reflective of our hatred of other kinds of government. aristocracies monarchy, and socialist communist state. if we are all middle-class it means our democracy is working but it's this myth we share to sort of think of ourselves as better than other countries

politically. this is not new. there's always been strong feelings attached to the middle-class to giunta back to the late 18th century and people are talking about the middle ranks in a positive way. and so is this a day of average americans as symbolic of what makes the country great. being in the middle-class and a lot of countries is disparaging. if you go to many countries in europe or russia to call middle-class or, it sort of an insult. here everyone is proud to be called middle class. we are different in that were not structured around -- at least perceptually. it's also a reflective idea to protect us in terms of stability. there's a great fear through most of american history that there's going to be a revolution of some sort, that either a small but powerful ruling class, the upper class can is going to take over the government, or that the masses, the lower classes, are going to take over

the government. and so this idea of a giant middle-class helps protect us from revolution, which sounds crazy but it's happened over and over through history so i think that's another reason why would like to invest in the concept of the american middle class. edc a threat coming to the middle-class of any kind, whether higher taxes or whatever, it's basically attacking the united states as well because it's so central to the american idea. so if you go back and look at the literature as i did and read everything i could find on the middle-class, the group that is always at least over the last 75 years being squeezed, that was the term that you, see. there was a decline, they disappeared or they are disappearing. they are almost all is being portrayed as victims of some kind, of government policies, particularly taxes. they are bearing the brunt of the tax burden. that goes back basically to the '50s, not a new idea.

so whether that's true or not, we could debate that ended has been debated, politicians are basically forced into the position of defending and allowing themselves. it's even hard to conceive of a politician these days being against the middle-class. you of course just won't get elected, or reelected. if you look at the surface, that's because 90% of americans -- only people would say that are middle-class. >> looks like 90%. i am there, too. specs i'm going to begin with the 1950s, and right off from the start there's an interest in the middle-class being the group that's going to lead us to the prosperity that we want and deserve after the thrift of the depression and after the war. the middle-class is going to enjoy the bounty of those tough years. so we are envisioning unemployment being low, demand for consumer goods high, which

does happen. with this perfect recipe after the war for strong economy, political stability and that average folks can realize their american dream. doesn't happen right away. through the late '40s inflation is very high, which is difficult after a war. actually two, $1948 equals one, $1939. people are frustrated they're not doing as well as we think they're doing. they are employed. anybody can basically get a job at the time, but they have no money and pocket. you are making good money, you are employed but you just have no money because of higher inflation. it's a running theme throughout the story. by the early '50s though, we are on track for this middle-class to take off in great numbers, and fast numbers come in, all kinds of occupation. people, bureaucracies, salaries,

professionals in terms of like doctors and lawyers are coming into the middle-class. teachers, professors. most remarkable he, blue-collar workers with union jobs are coming in, which is a very new thing historically to think of blue-collar coming into the middle-class. just hadn't happened. so it blends as people from up above and from below coming. people up above are coming in because the tax rate, people don't remember, was as high as 82% in the 1950s. we are complaining about taxes down, but if you are at the highest income bracket your bank 82%. so that stems from sort of the new deal and fdr's war on the rich. so it is leading, called for greater compression. so this major redistribution of wealth as the two groups coalesce in the middle. the media notices this, that this is different and exciting and surprising.

businessweek in 1952 said the economy is making everyone middle-class. fortune initiatives the united states is becoming a one class market of prosperous middle income people. so it's very clear at this point that something really interesting, perhaps revolutionary, is happening, that you this new enormous class of people that were not wealthy, okay, not rich, not the upper income group, the elite are yet they can afford to buy a lot of things. and fortune that you called the american the class public most sensational economic story of modern times, which i don't think is too much of an exaggeration. that's the biggest weaknesses. what's driving the social trend, the baby boom, driving this new money middle-class, these are young families typically and a high consumption mode your very easy credit available to buy a home and appliances to go but home your the media perceives

them as generally homogeneous. they're all the same. they share the same case. this isn't true at all but that's the perception. and you see a lot of books in the '50s come out the critique of the middle-class, or this uniformity. you have william white the organization man. you have what is it? the affluent society, and another bestseller, white-collar come in early '50s. small creatures living quiet desperation but it's this lonely idea that there are desperate creatures. at the end of the decade, and another bestseller called negotiating obstacle courses. they follow pecking orders and they call them totem pole's. so the elite is very hard and the middle-class. just as there peaking in power. okay, that's where we and the '50s. so in 1960, the american middle-class i think it's peaking in both numbers and

power, as jfk gets elected. "the new york times" calls this the revolution of the challenges. a revolution that occurred but it wasn't at all kind of revolution that was envisioned by people like marks in the 19th century. you have both working class and upper class look at the middle-class. you did not want to look rich and you didn't want to look for. ..

because you have both the colors and white collars that are both middle-class at the same time, living next to each other, working next to each other. different terms come about tuning this group. some people call them light blue. some people call them blue-collar aristocrats. a lot of the night on their home, but make repair themselves rather than calling handymen. but they like their company if they are a factory worker, but strake appointed. the average, can't afford every day but somebody who owned a home before. they have to do it themselves and though protect the company at all cost. see different kind of middle-class. so just as it seeks in the early 60s around 18 sixtieths are speaking apart. what happens quakes you have the counterculture coming on.

a lot of subcultures are looking to reach for a date to de facto against the norms are values that the american middle class. it begins to fragment the scenes. the center cannot hold you begin to lose people. just watch the graduate if you want nice tutorial of a guy who wants middle-class values. that's very typical of what's going on in the mid-60s in the late 60s. so again, the center is basically adopted if you think about it more broadly, countercultural values. the postwar economics machine is finding out it jewish and folks become very dissatisfied with the government whether texas air kelley. so the establishment if you think about it is becoming more and more antiestablishment. we're talking mainstream folks. so we have the revolt of the

middle-class, which could be according to the late 60s. that voters called the forgot meaning of american politics. he or she basically tired of paying for the great society that lbj editions. he basically picked up the new deal and was going to eliminate poverty. he was focusing on the underclass to the fat class of the middle-class begin getting tired of paying for that. u.s. news & world report called the overtaxed, overburdened and it hurt. prior, racial unrest in vietnam where they were also unhappy with. we can do 60s much differently than if it needs. now they're not at all happy. the whole tables have been turned in just 10 years. bucket into the 70s. the story gets worse. this is not a happy story if you haven't realized it. now you have the economics get kicked in.

you have really high inflation and a stagnant economy. you have something called stagflation. you also have social and political upheaval, watergate do we not an energy crisis to do. fuel, oil, gas than it ever had been. around this time people do studies to expose the myth of the middle-class. the numbers suggest we are more of a working-class nation in the middle-class nation. it's more working class actually. one very reliable study had 57% working class defined by occupation incomes and middle-class. people start realizing the middle-class nation is a myth, that it's basically reinforced by tv shows her most everybody is in a class and advertising. so the emperor starts wearing no

clothes. around this time the mythology becomes exposed. whether they keep workers be realized is that college education becomes really an affordable for middle-class parents. tuition is going up very quickly the government changes the rules of that guaranteed student loan program, so many middle-class families who could get lots no longer can. davis later changes, but it began as early as that. nixon was notoriously against student loans. it goes way back. reagan is the product of all of this. reagan just capitalizes on this, but he's a little later. he's doing proposition 14 said he slain to see and 96 that claim on the right time the late 70s. there's obviously no g.i. bill. so this idea the days of upward

mobility could be alert begin circulating. my generation is going to do better than my parents and my children's generation is going to do better than me. essential to the american idea, the american experience. this becomes challenged. people believed it could be downward mobility. that becomes a fact of life for many. u.s. news & world report is 74 season era of self doubt and change is daunting and if you had to pick out one figure who embolisms the american middle class at this time, it's archie bunker. he's angry. he's an angry frustrated and at the american dream has come true. even george jefferson is doing great. so archie bunker is sort of the poster child for the american middle class in the mid-70s. it's the number one show of

course. another key marker that the middle-class is declining is buying and keeping a home becomes really hard. if you could did before 1970, you are in a lot of trouble now because costs go up and inflation is going out. you just can't keep up. even if you have the down payment, the mortgage will be too high. they complain about 4% now because they were 2% a year ago. they had a lot to complain about. marquetry through 9%, 10%. even if you could afford the down payment coming to be cash poor. you couldn't maintain it. that is a key marker the american middle class was in trouble. the good news if there is any is that this traditional last-place middle-class is weak enough to allow more people to come in to it if they want. lots of white ethnics coming in and african-americans coming in in significant numbers for the first time in the 1970s.

as is typical during that time sees change in political power in the administration and the new savior jimmy carter. the middle-class close jimmy carter basically because he's a handsome guy. he's a peanut farmer. a lot of the working-class think he's my kind of guy. he can fix stuff. you can fix the government. he's clearly not part of the northeastern liberal elite. he says exactly what the middle-class wants to hear. i'm going to cut underclass spending and trim bureaucracy. does he do it well? disorders. the late 70s is better, but still a tough time. inflation exceeding the average rising in town. a lot of middle-class is bumping against the lower class because neither lesser job for their

underemployed. in the 50s they were bumping up to the upper class. at the pump to the lower class and the lines are becoming increasingly clear if you lower middle class or if your priority, which is real trouble. at newsweekly call this middle-class poorer. because they really are poor yet somehow belong to the middle-class. so now we are to the 80s and ronald reagan. the divide between the upper and lower it is bigger than ever. there's an upper middle class now and a lower middle-class. it just isn't there. the media starts the have-nots for the middle-class. it's basically to chose. the media goes to town on this idea that there's these two groups. they take exotic and are doing very well, the upper middle class. they live in nice homes commit drink wine, good amid these take

vacations close to home. they keep whatever savings in a bank if they have any at all. the true, live in small homes and watch tv. the similar consumer case. now that there's two groups. within the idea of halves, as a subsection called young urban professionals. i was the happy. you admit it. they're actually very small group. only 5% of baby boomers qualify to be a jp at the time. the cultural influence is far greater. there's a lot of nice about them if you remember. the cultural types into the renovated townhome. featuring perrier, et cetera. they could affirm buyers and

most annoyingly, they wear suits and running shoes sometimes at the same time. so that's the yuppie phenomenon. the upper middle class meanwhile, more broadly is looking to the rich for inspiration, said the safety of conspicuous consumption along. marketers are more than pleased to cater to the upper middle class by marketing would have been products for the rich do this much bigger group of upper middle class. godiva chocolates, fragrances and clothing, or very, et cetera, et cetera. nice marketers go after those lower middle class. you have this bifurcation of the marketplace. marketers watch what's going on demographically and becomes a self-fulfilling cycle now because the marketers now feed into this idea of a divisive american middle class and becomes more established because marketers make it that much more

real. by the way, that's still happening today. marketers did are not at all interested in the center. the numbers are so much fewer in the middle. the two-tier society becomes for social critics. this just isn't nice. it really does very bad they. you receive the the workforce also becoming bipolar as we shift much more to service based in high-tech manufacturing and i think a telling sign of the time in the mid-80s is that mcdonald's employs more people than general motors. it used to be what was good for general motors is good for the country. now it's basically what's good for mcdonald's is good for this country. there's tons of debris. whether reaganomics, which is taxed in the middle-class very heavily in giving tax breaks for the upper class was good or bad.

basically conceded it say the boats are also in higher because of these trickle down economics. don't blame ronald reagan. but in the middle because they are either whining because they can afford stuff they want or just not living in the 50s anymore. now they have vcrs, cd players, on upper stuff available in the marketplace than it was in the 50s. you just want to spend my money. it's that the people have changed in response to what can be had with money. things considered luxuries in the 1950s if you have a second car, we're really not that unusual in the mid-teen 80s. a lot of changes in the marketplace. there's no doubt that just the cost of being middle-class is higher in the late 80s versus the postwar years. you just can't argue with those

numbers. basically to jobs in one household is required to support a lifestyle, where one job was in the 1950s. a lot of conservatives say there's just as many in the middle-class. but they don't see is two people are working with the work career for jobs. so that is what's different. it's unlikely for an average earner to nabil to buy a first home loss to making of money. tuition for private schools is beyond reach. so if you have a lot of smart kids applying to really good state universities like austin texas or michigan and that is pumping out kids who would normally go into the schools to second-tier schools. you have to trickle down the college as well as private school becomes too expensive. the worst-case scenario, everyone is gearing that i would get really sick because an uninsured or underinsured. even if you have an hmo, a 20% you have to take a bbq

financially. so we're up to the 1990s. there's very little cost to be optimistic. we have george bush won basically picks up the ball right and left it. we have a recession in the early 90s that a lot of us are paying off that there'll be accumulated in the 1980s because we spent so much money. and now we have a new thread, outsourcing and a big way that a lot of jobs are building overseas. the media focuses on what they called the downside is middle-class white worker. this worker is angry that protect minorities are getting preferential treatment. "newsweek" has a cover story in 1993 called white male paranoia there's an entire movie about this called falling down with michael douglas was a guy goes ballistic because he loses his job and is african-american and latino workers do not. so he goes crazy and starts shooting at people.

he says i'm not economically viable, which i think it's a great line from that movie. the gap we saw between the two segments of the middle-class is now huge. the upper is holding its own ac thank you very much. but the low was living paycheck to paycheck. so it's not surprising the presidential election in the early 90s becomes all about winning middle-class voters. other elections had done that, but this is exclusively who is going to get the middle-class vote, which can use to this day. george bush won the sites to look more at having pizza with factory workers. you by fax at jc penny as well, which is hilarious. bill clinton just has a better story. he promises to rebuild the prosperity of ordinary americans and it doesn't help that eastern

hope, arkansas. so he wins. things are rough going, but things pick up when the economy starts turning around. he's the beneficiary of an economy and a second term and a rising stock market. [inaudible] i'm sorry? the resurgence? basically the recession ended and we have the technology boom. the internet coming along 1995, just around the second-tier. and the stock market goes crazy with the bubble. it completed. it's not real, but if you have money in the stock market company do very well in the late 90s. the upper middle class does who does that money pulls further away from the lower middle class who doesn't have a lot of money in the stock market. the stock market is benefiting from this tech boom or startups are valued more than united airline. so if you have investment

commute doing great. if you don't, you're in trouble. now we erected a new century, the new millennium. folks like hedge fund days than others and finance who are making incredible amounts of money to pull away at the very top level. this trend we've received becomes exponentially gas is the word. folks at this time began thinking, you know whether, in an 18 was the exception. ever kept thinking how we get back to the postwar middle class and have to pick a section the middle. they think that was the anomaly. top with the exception. this is the reality and that's basically to believe today is the 50s were the exception, not the rule and not dictate a coming back. just look at the numbers. top 1% earned almost as much money in 2005. that's incredible.

you could conceivably make the argument that the united states has a tiny upper-class and a huge underclass. none of us are middle class if you go by that work, which is what the occupied movement is all about. no seeking an opportunity, tv producers start focusing shows around the middle-class. they believe this is good news, good stuff. you have reality shows offering all the perks of being middle-class because they'll get ratings because they want to see folks getting college tuition, getting a bigger house, even a surgical procedure or some shows are often offering. so television sees the safety of the middle-class is in trouble and how could we create tv shows around the? politicians also come to the

rescue. one politician in particular, charles schumer. he uses the middle-class basically it's his whole platform and has sold back to the rest of the democratic party. it's called the schumer method. obama embraces it as well. he writes a book called possibly american, he proposes, you know, let's do so. let's make college tuition to death to both because this is what's killing the middle-class. has any of this have been? no, of course not. it's basically the platform of the democratic party these days. the democratic party is basically moved away from the working class and poor. there's just bigger numbers in more money to be in the middle-class. [inaudible] >> there is no middle-class?

[inaudible] >> yes, yeah, basically. exactly. we all think we are middle-class. there's definitely an upper middle class and a lower middle class, but no central middle-class anywhere. the numbers just don't bear that out. folks that marks a command with the u.s. news & world report is a big advocate for the middle-class. due to have to do much and has built entire careers based on defending the middle-class. you could even say rush limbaugh perhaps has done that. all sorts of folks from other are trying to come -- are rallying to support the middle-class because something really bad is going on in the united states. offer different ways and suggestions on how they can be saved. they basically argue the great disparity in wealth is an

un-american idea, bad for america and the divide between these groups will continue to hurt those in the middle if there are any people of the middle left. obama just goes to town. he said clinton, right place at the right time and appeals to the lower middle class and the spurs turned when he gets elected. he creates a task force at the middle-class. he needs joe biden head of that because he's very middle-class. even obama begins shifting focus from the working-class and poor, the lower middle class he was appealing to while he was campaigning originally and in his first term to average earners after the great recession, the mortgage crisis. a lot of us were. didn't matter if you are lower middle class are up there. he got as well. he starts appealing toys wealthier people than he had in his first term. so where are we now?

the top 1% of households own more than a third of total private health. is staggering. 5% of americans account for a third of all consumer purchases. the idea of the bell curve of the postwar years just does not exist anymore regardless of your political inclinations. if you look at these numbers, i'm not sure how you can say there's a genuine middle-class. i'm going to wrap it up. i think the rise and fall of the american middle class was one if not the biggest story of the 20th century in this country. the crisis we're in right right now is not new or unique. the crisis has been there for 50 years. but if you look at it, there's some semblance of the middle-class boat. there are survivor led very big

lows. the counterculture went away a lot of people from the middle-class is about the late 60s and the recession and stagflation of the 70s. it survived the have and have not fixed policies and survives the wealth divide of 2000. so if there's still a middle-class end in terms of my definition, there is middle-class. a third of us are middle-class people by not words. that's how i would define it. most people don't look at it that way. that's how i define it. the numbers, the surveys despite all of this are clear most of us still believe people onto the middle-class, whether we are richer or poorer. again, that reflects our ability to connect knowledge matters of middle-class. it's a much safer idea to

believe that where society are divided into rich and poor. a lot of new books are coming out, including nine. james carville has a new book called this the middle-class, which is a bipartisan idea that the group really needs some support, where an endangered species in any detection. it's really not politically motivated. democrats and republicans are in support of doing something for the middle-class. you're also seeing third parties to on the middle-class in a tea party, occupied movement. there's american middle class party. and the one in connecticut and now facebook if you want to join. there's a really positive sign that a third party could possibly emerge and challenge the status quo that is directly supporting the interest of the middle-class that this is even a possibility is a good thing.

not completely hopeless the middle-class will go away completely. so that's what i've got. thank you very much. >> we are going to walk around the mic. >> a couple of points about classification. the concept of class although correlated with income was like dad -- [inaudible] again, on those correlated with money, it was really much more of a social and location. not the actual classification, and because of upper and lower

middle class, that is something which emerged in the 80s. i believe that certainly existed immediately after world war ii were probably before that. traditionally, the top two or perhaps the top 4% were wealthy and the bottom 15% to 20% with the economic side and the rest were somewhere in the middle-class spectrum, rene preval are middle class to upper middle class. produce a working class, it tends to confuse the steep a lower middle class. >> i agree. >> are in many studies by sociologists in the 1930s. middletown focused on the different strata. i think he had five groups with

three in the middle and then the polarity at the end. so whether you define a socially or economically, there's still the idea that there is a bell curve. somewhere in the middle was the peak and there was a strange groups on the end. [inaudible] >> share, absolutely. i make that point that in the late 18th century we were -- it's a myth, this idea that everyone has the same amount of money. there's always been inequalities of wealth from the beginning of the country before this country. so i am agreeing with you. that social rank or social classes that support is economic. the problem is when you get the data, you can't does he or she have a retirement nest egg or

have a second car quakes economies tend to use data, which is a terrible measure against the middle-class. [inaudible] and i wonder, an aloof cultural undergraduate -- [inaudible] and i also think our wonder, what is the power we can establish where they can see a device to view about whether you

can spread -- [inaudible] that's the first question. the second is what is the responsibility in what has been -- [inaudible] >> wow, those are big. first of all, going back to the first question. the redistribution of wealth. the only way you can do that would be through government engineering. how else is it redistributed? even if eisenhower isn't powered by taxing the rich pay heavily, you have again this great compression, this flat and of the curve. people were in support of that. because they believed in the

idea of the middle-class is being a central focus of the united states. so they wouldn't say penalized the riches they did in the 30s. they would say soak the rich. they did it through policies to try to bring the lower through social programs, to end poverty and flat from the top. in the 60s -- [inaudible] we have the counterculture. the entire consensus is zero now. it didn't work. there becomes a much more egocentric need-based culture that emerges in these folks don't want to have to pay for people that are not in their class. so there's a tax revolt in the wings. [inaudible] you have african middle-class

living in a great numbers the 60s. so that changes. the center does not hold. you have youth culture and women beyond the idea of the values, represented by eisenhower. they vote for identity in different places. just the concept of the american middle class patriarchy basically starts to break up in the late 60s. as is his power from within, not from without. people start looking at other places. take effect. they don't want to be part of the middle-class. that's the establishment because the middle-class is representative. then you have the undead looking for something different on this debate affect. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> because they are socialists. it's a different political model that our political model. it's a much more socialist -- most of the countries they are coming not all of them are used to paying high taxes. and i think there's more of a communitarian eat those that a lot of those countries. if you're belgian coming of belgian. united states is so multicultural and diverse it's really hard to maintain a specific national identity. i think there's more of a tax revolt. the world is a much more

need-based culture that a lot of those nations. so you are more likely to object to taxes going to other people. i think that's part of the problem. [inaudible] >> we've always been a need based culture. we've always been a very individualistic, strike out the american dream culture in those countries because they were new to me could start over in the winter sells. europeans didn't have that. they were much more group oriented than we are. you want to be part of the system in europe, not go against it. we always had that rebellious attitude. >> to put questions, sir. canada and china together have

40% of the worlds population. they have enough workers to work for $5 a day for the next hundred years. so how do we bring back or how do we create jobs to get full employment in america? second question, what advice would you give to the president? >> read my book. now, i'm glad you brought that up. by my book, better yet. glad you brought up other countries because where the excitement is in the other countries. brazil, russia, india, china. they have this huge explosion of the middle-class. we can sell our products to the middle-class. the only good game. the only defense i see is that the united states is an incredibly ingenious, creative -- i'm not at all

patriotic, but i believe that an ample would never come out of china or india. those countries are wonderful at knocking off other products, but they would never come up with an apple. we could name an hundred american come to me is that i think what mavericks have spared. so that's where our strength is. worker ways we can't compete. we have a higher standard of living. so i think our strength is coming up with the ideas and making them buy our products. in terms of what i would tell obama, laws can be changed. why not adopt schumer's idea of making college deductions -- college education to the kabul. there's all kinds of things we can do. i don't see any laws being changed to benefit the middle class. who gives a tax break or throws a bone every once in about, but but that's nothing. he has to stop rigging the

system basically. he has to put his rhetoric into action, into words. yeah, do you want to follow up? [inaudible] >> right, right. [inaudible] >> rate. personally i don't care that much. disseminate india deserve a job as much as my neighbors? sure, why not if you look at it that way. if you get down to it, if you look at it as a global economy, why should that person benefit? so i do support the american middle class in acting class can be changed to help us, i think it's terrible people in other countries are doing well.

>> that's a great thing that there are fewer poor people in china india. that's a wonderful thing. [inaudible] >> yeah, that's okay. [inaudible] >> the concept of the middle-class -- [inaudible] how do we make folks understand the concept that it doesn't mean freedom and democracy here because you're getting killed. corporations pay no taxes. they pay nothing. >> there's just too many loopholes. the counterargument is there

just aren't enough rich people to pay for the economy. that's why a flake that banks, the safecracker -- is the same thing with middle-class. that's what politicians took a good game but don't want to do anything once they're in office. they know where their bread is buttered. there just aren't enough rich people. fdr realized that. there just weren't enough people. the poor don't have enough money to tax. the money has to come from the masses, this middle-class. [inaudible] >> yeah, i don't think they are picking up tonight. good question. >> the first proposal on the national political level to enacted the ability of college

tuition goes back to the early years, 81, 82 of the reagan administration. it is criticized as being the elitist rather than lower middle class. cutting property taxes was seen as a right-wing libertarian movement in the 70s and 80s. >> i agree. i don't think the parties or as part his parties would take to make them. i don't know who came up first, but schumer circulates again with her new, original or republicans. this is a bipartisan cause. you could be on any site and say you know, the middle-class needs help. i'm not going to align with either party. >> one other providers that without getting into economic policy is that wearing them rbi to subsidize college tuition directly or indirectly, the more

it's going to increase. that's what happened over the last 30 years. it's not the evil college bureaucrats are scheming to do this. it's a natural with economic model. >> okay, i agree, yes. >> any other questions? >> all of our political leaders were military veterans in america furs. george w. bush and barack obama, the new generation, are they less pay shattuck as political leaders in congress had president and her prior political leaders were quite >> i don't think of this feature out at all. they come from a different generation than my six. so they see america and what it's about differently. the military background makes

one more picture. no, i don't think so. look at romney versus obama. they have completely different visions. that was one more patriotic than the other? that would be a qualifier. you can be incredibly patriotic and not come from a military background. i don't. [inaudible] >> yeah, obama comes from a different generation like experience, which is more global, so he doesn't visioned united states states ruled much differently than the classic america first model. absolutely. that's where you could disagree with him.

[inaudible] the problem is that we'll have to discuss this for the rest of the century that we are living on a different planet. even discussing i believe that children should be required. we have entrepreneurship as a viable part of the education. you do not graduate. unless you can show that you can start a business. it's a different world. when i was growing up, i was told you can't rely on a man --

or has been. you have to be self-sufficient. now the young people are told you can't rely on an employer. it's a different world. it's not her parents were out. it's not a grand parents wrote. that's the problem. >> i agree. the systems are very hard. it's like turning the cruise ship around, especially education. it just doesn't happen quickly enough. i totally agree. [inaudible] >> any other questions?

[inaudible] is [inaudible] [inaudible] >> sere question is? [inaudible]

okay, we're not going to help the rich because of that number. >> rate. the >> i'm just saying -- isn't the republican speech very partisan partisan -- isn't the republican speech a little bit left of middle-class supporters -- >> it's no secret the republicans have lost their way because they don't have a clear compelling pitch. that's why he got distorting the election. nobody knows what the republican party is about anymore. romney was taking a libertarian tax by saying the american dream, let everybody sort of benefit from it. it wasn't the classic reagan trickle-down economics. at the end of the day, politicians are self-serving. he saw the interest of

themselves and cohorts. you can create any argument to support the middle-class basically when you're supporting their own interests. it just didn't fly. it just didn't sound genuine. but i think it was the effort on his part. it just didn't resonate with people. >> are there any other questions? [inaudible] >> yeah. >> i feel that even at that time, the majority feel -- [inaudible] they are just working class burning could not be --

[inaudible] so you cannot save the middle-class. [inaudible] [inaudible] to me it's kind of a socialist country like europe. it's a different kind of problem. i [inaudible]

>> i guess my point about the 50s is there a lot of factors in place to build a good lifestyle for average earners. you could buy a house for $100. it was easy credits you can fill it with all kinds of appliances. the good of the chevy dealer, ford dealer and the car you bought would be a lot like someone who's a lot wealthier than you. it was a much flatter distribution of wealth. all the fact is they're basically gone now. it's much more segmented. there was this unique moment in time or if you're an average earner you could benefit all kinds of ways that you couldn't 10 years later and now she's much worse than ever. we are a much more divisive society, much more niche oriented. how is my point compared what happened in that decade. it was in the moment in time -- or come back and how things

change very rapidly after that because of all kinds of economic and social factors. good point. [inaudible] now you that this life, but it's a lot of work. [inaudible] >> i think you're right. a lot of young people agree with either don't want to own a car or home. they don't want to be tied to one place. car ownership is way down among twentysomethings as his homeownership. mostly because 20 cents is a living with their parents. i think you're right.

among young people in particular, those fires have shifted towards trying to live the american dream 1950s. they want no part of that appear too much baggage. especially in new york. this is a unique place as well. [inaudible] >> that's a really good point that the book book that i did discuss. it's so dependent on where you live. if you make $50,000 new york versus techie, it's an entirely different experience. incumbent's objective fact there is are just bad yet they just don't work as geography and all kinds of other demographic factors are so buried in this country. that's another problem trying to define the middle-class, where where you live. >> any other questions? that's it. thank you. [applause]

[inaudible conversations]

>> and now joining us on booktv is michael cader, founder of a group called "publishers lunch." mr. cader can start by telling us what that is. >> it's lots of things. it's an e-mail newsletter that tells everyone that's going on every day. we have a website that has databases and tools that other people people here at javits used to find out the information they need, find each other, get business done. >> host: by that name? what is your background? >> guest: the origin was really lunchtime is where people exchange information with each other. when the internet came along and we are trying to find a great

metaphor for information exchange, lunch is the thing that stuck out. fortunately the domain i lunch was taken already. i came up with "publishers lunch" and people do what they were getting in the business before they saw what was in the newsletter. at the end of the business professionally my whole life. i ran a small publishing company for about 15 years. i worked for workman publishing way back in the 80s when i was a baby. i'm happy to have found a way to get tenure to be a part of it even as times change and the media changes. >> mr. cader, the year 2012, early 13, how is that bad for the book industry? >> overall, surprisingly positive. 2012 for a couple of hits. congregants for younger readers of those crossover readers, which carried over into young adult literature. "50 shades of gray" brought all kinds of readers who don't read very much into bookstores.

digital books have become popular for a segment of people and is giving them access to books they might not have had previously. statistically speaking, the industry grew last year and by most accounts without these holding studies so far this year in comparison to what is a good year for people. it appears to be alive and well. >> we are here at the expo america, and i'm holding in my hand here a book that essentially does exist. buzz books 2013 put together by publishers lunch. what is this? >> it's a big fat sampler. it's prepublication excerpts of 40 very interesting, highly touted books coming out this fall and winter. his really meant to be something for readers everywhere that replicates what's going on here, which is people can't come here and pitches about her books, picking up free copies of new

books that aren't available to regular readers because the books are not yet. so we survey the publishers then collect excerpts from a lot of those folks we think are some of the most interesting and not everyone can get the convention experience into the books people might be talking about months from now when they come out on the market. >> where is it available right now for people watching us? >> it's available in e-book form on every major platform. but every e-book store you'd like to read, they've got a copy and you can download it for free from many of those platforms. >> i want to ask you about those books 2013. alan wiseman's countdown. >> i read that again this morning because i like it so much. he was a breach of the best-selling author, which speculate what what would happen if humans went away, how quickly would the plague of return to its natural state? this book is really sort of the world with us. so what happens in a world in

which we have so many people come eating for precious resources? halliburton to personally? the excerpt we have this setting is real looks at those issues to the lands of the israeli fairness and palestinian humans who like to have big families and they have different reasons for having big families competing for water. so his travels around the world. i think he went to 20 different countries and talk to different people and found out how issues played out in all kinds of different places. >> ellery plane has a fiction book coming out. >> yeah, this is the first of a series. needless to say, she brings to bear her life experience, but is free from being surveyed by the people she has to work for because it's on the fictional context. >> one other book i want to ask about is james swanson under the

young adult category. the president has been shot. >> people may remember him for the book manhunt, about the search for the killers of abraham lincoln right after his death. without them the same as the user at about jfk and simultaneously publish an adult version, both of them a young adult from scholastic. what we have is a sample of the young adult version. >> mr. cader, what are you excited about? >> i keep dipping in and finding things i like. the nice thing is the federal kinds of different stuff. we have authors people no amount. we have a new novel from wally lamb who is a huge sign up here. last year we were one of the first people to tell people about the yellow birds, which went on to be one of the best recognized books of the year. the best thing is it's got a lot

of everything. gather dough works, some of the long fiction meets discovered. there's a man named henry pushkin who is johnnie carson on time lawyer, confidant, fixer who is in the shadows for literally decades. the person called him his best friend, which gets challenged in expecting that he has stories and insights in to a man who everybody knew so well, but doesn't know it all. >> michael cader, his group is called "publishers lunch." the website is publishers marketplace. this is booktv on c-span 2. >> when you write a book, a lot can go wrong. that's the way i approach the world. i am somewhat in my writing and reporting and a lot can go wrong and 110,000 words. i am pretty shocked by it i guess if there's been criticism

from inside, it's been mostly in the vein of how dear he, meaning how dare an insider give away the secret handshake? how dare an insider talk about other insiders in a way that perhaps might not be in keeping with the codes we have been watching 10. ..