Thoughts on the Market

Why the Middle-Class Squeeze Is Getting Worse

September 11, 2026

Why the Middle-Class Squeeze Is Getting Worse

September 11, 2026

Heather Berger of the U.S. Economics Team hosts Wealth Management Senior Economist and Strategist Sarah Wolfe to discuss what it takes to define the middle class in America today. They break down how factors like rising essential costs and the development of AI are reshaping consumer balance sheets and financial security.

 

Sarah Wolfe is a member of Morgan Stanley's Wealth Management Division and is not a member of Morgan Stanley’s Research Department. Unless otherwise indicated, her views are her own and may differ from the views of the Morgan Stanley Research Department and from the views of others within Morgan Stanley.

Morgan Stanley Thoughts on the Market Podcast

Transcript

Heather Berger: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Heather Berger from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Economics Team.

 

Sarah Wolfe: And I'm Sarah Wolfe, Senior Economist and Strategist on Morgan Stanley's Thematic and Macro Investing team in the Global Investment Office.

 

Heather Berger: Today, the K-shaped economy, the middle class, and how AI could reshape both.

 

It's Friday, September 11th, at 10a.m. in New York.

 

The K-shaped economy has been a major theme this year. At its core, it describes an economy where households are experiencing very different circumstances. Those with more assets have benefited from rising wealth, while those with less wealth remain more dependent on income and more exposed to increases in essential costs. But that top versus bottom framing can miss an important part of the story, the middle class. Sarah, you recently wrote about what it takes to make it to the middle class in America. How would you define the middle class today, and how does that differ from the way that households define it themselves?

 

Sarah Wolfe: I think the important thing here is that economists and households define the middle class very differently from each other, and, and I'll get into why that's the case.

 

So if you're an economist, the middle class is roughly defined as two-thirds to twice the median household income, which today means if you're making around fifty-five thousand dollars a year to a hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars a year, depending on where you live in the country, that is roughly the middle class. And that's where about half of Americans sit today.

 

We've actually seen that number decline, so sixty-one percent of Americans in the 1970s were in that middle class definition by economist terms. Now it's about fifty percent, so we have seen it shrunk. But even though it's shrunk, fewer and fewer households feel like they're in the middle class, and they don't define it by necessarily income or a specific number, but they really define it by milestones, I would say.

 

So do you own a home? Have you been able to build a family, and can you pay for childcare? Have you saved enough for retirement? Do you have an emergency fund? Are you constantly stressed about your bills? That feeling is really what the middle class is about today, and I would say that less than fifty percent of Americans actually feel like they're in the middle class once you start to put that definition around it.

 

Heather Berger: So, what are the key factors that actually make a household feel financially secure?

 

Sarah Wolfe: I think there's four things that determine household security and stability. The first, of course, is income, stable income. Do you have a job, and do you think you're going to continue to have a job six months from now? We love the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey that asks consumers this.

 

Do you have affordable fixed costs, like housing, childcare, healthcare, and transportation? Do you own assets? This is critically important because if we look at where gains have come from from the last five years, it hasn't really been that much through the labor income channel. It's been through the asset channel, like home equity, retirement savings, are you invested in the stock market, et cetera.

 

And then the last one is this emergency fund and a manageable debt. What is your debt load? Is it fixed rate, or is it revolving? The more of these pillars that a household has, the more financially fulfilled and comfortable they are, and the more likely they are to feel like they've made it to the middle class, but the reality is, is that fewer and fewer households are meeting these four boxes that define the middle class by historical terms.

 

Heather Berger: And what has made that security harder to achieve? Which of those costs that you mentioned have moved the furthest out of reach?

 

Sarah Wolfe: I think these numbers are going to maybe surprise our listeners, but in some ways feel very real to them as well. So if we look at how much inflation has risen since the 1970s, shelter, the cost of housing, has risen 6.6 times more than the overall inflation basket. Childcare costs have risen by 14 times more than the overall inflation basket, and healthcare costs have risen 10 times more.

And if we dig more into childcare, we now like to call it the second mortgage. And we're not being sarcastic or anything. The reality is that to send two children to childcare in America, costs more than a mortgage in 45 states, and costs more than rent in 49 states.

 

So it's really, this reality has gotten a lot more expensive, and these baskets, these individual things like childcare, healthcare, shelter, that define the middle class, have risen more than the overall inflation basket, and certainly have risen more than income growth over this period as well.

 

Heather Berger: Right. So the overall inflation measure can kind of understate the increases in some of these essential costs. And when people talk about a K-shaped economy, the middle class itself isn't necessarily moving as one group. You mentioned homeownership a lot. How much do homeownership, age, and geography determine who is moving up and who is getting squeezed?

 

Sarah Wolfe: Homeownership is always incredibly important, right? Because it's this large asset that is more equally distributed across the income distribution, as opposed to if we think about equities, and you've done a lot of great work on this. That is the most highly concentrated asset across the income distribution, right? Where the top 20% is sitting on 70%, at least, of equities. So homeownership remains the best channel towards wealth accumulation. Obviously, though, timing of homeownership matters a lot. If we were all so lucky to have bought a home in 2019 and 2020, we got a low fixed-rate mortgage, and we would've benefited from the tremendous run-up in home prices over the last five years, right? Over 50% home price appreciation over this entire period. So that's been really important. Also, geography, where you bought a home, did that benefit from the COVID home price appreciation? And then the geography also matters because someone living in New York versus someone living in the Midwest is living with really different fixed costs, realities of fixed costs, and that's also gonna help define do they feel financially secure, and do they feel like they're in the middle class?

 

The other component I don't wanna leave out, though, equities is really important. And we did some work looking at the Fed's distributional financial accounts, and if you look seven years ago, Gen X was doing way better than Gen Y or the millennials were at that same age 15 years ago. But then, because the millennials were sitting on so much equity wealth because they've built up their 401s, they really couldn't get as successfully into homeownership, so they had more stored away in equities.

 

They have now surpassed Gen X at this age, two and a half times. It is a tremendous reversal in wealth and in who's doing well, and it's because of what's happened in the stock market. And it's not because they were better savers. It was just a lot of timing and luck. So I would say that our fate is not prewritten, as we also think about Gen Z entering the workforce and becoming wealth builders.

 

I want to dig in, though, to a really important part of the K-shaped economy, though, and that's AI. We can't talk about anything without talking about AI, for better or for worse. And that the common view is that white collar, high-income workers are the most exposed to displacement, and we're seeing that in some of the job numbers recently, right, where tech and financial services are shedding jobs. But your work, I think, is really unique, and it's the only thing I've seen on this that argues that that's only part of the story. So what are we missing about how AI is going to affect high-income households in the K-shaped economy?

 

Heather Berger: Yes. Yeah, I think it's hard to talk about the economic outlook, the consumer outlook these days without thinking about AI.

 

And as you mentioned, I think really the main focus so far has been potential white collar job loss, and this, of course, is an important channel. Labor income is really the main driver of consumer spending. But there are also several other transmission channels through which AI will affect consumer balance sheets.

 

And so ultimately, you were just talking about equity wealth, AI will also affect asset markets, which we've already started to see. It will affect consumer prices and policy decisions, and each of these will flow through to consumer spending and consumer credit performance. And so since different subgroups of consumers differ in the types of goods and services they buy and the composition of their balance sheets, the effects will not be uniform across the spectrum.

 

As we've seen with past innovation waves, AI has the ability to potentially widen income and wealth inequality, or it could help to close the gaps.

Sarah Wolfe: Can you dig a little bit more into some of these other channels outside of the labor market? So what is the wealth channel, and how does it filter through to high-income households? And then what also is the inflation channel that we should be looking at?

 

Heather Berger: Sure. So the wealth channel is really important for high income consumers because they have equity wealth that is very elevated relative to their labor income. So for that top twenty percent cohort, their equity wealth is around six times their annual labor income. Whereas for the lower income groups, they're about in line with each other.

 

And so even if the marginal propensity to consume out of income is higher than that out of wealth, for this high income group, asset markets are still a really important driver of spending. Now, for lower income groups and really across the spectrum, of course, inflation will be important as well and will really help determine purchasing power.

 

When we think about the price channel, we're really thinking in two phases. The first is that in the near term, AI could potentially create price pressures. So if we look at areas like electricity and software, we've already started to see that the demand from AI has led to increases in these prices. But over the longer term, we are expecting that eventually AI will lead to productivity gains, and therefore could lead to disinflation.

 

Sarah Wolfe: In which categories are we expected to see disinflation, and who does that benefit?

 

Heather Berger: So we're really first expecting to see it in the industries that have higher adoption rates. And so far those have been industries like financial services, tech. And so if we think about these services categories of spending, they really make up larger shares for the high income group, the older group. And so we do think they will benefit first from that disinflation channel.

 

Sarah Wolfe: I think if I sum up some of the key takeaways, it seems that the balance sheet is more important than income, and it's going to continue to be so.

 

If you look at the top 1% wealth percentile, they're holding 70 times more wealth than the median wealth group, and that used to be 33 times in 1963, right? So that gap between those in the middle versus those at the top has widened, and this dynamic with AI is only probably going to continue to widen that gap, making people feel less and less secure about their finances, making it feel harder to be in the middle class, and in particular, making it feel unattainable to reach the next class, right, because that gap is so large. And so we'll be watching as a lot of these dynamics play out.

 

Heather Berger: Right. So asset markets will be just as important as labor markets in figuring out how the K-shape economy will evolve.

 

Sarah, thanks for taking the time to talk.

 

Sarah Wolfe: Great speaking with you, Heather.

 

Heather Berger: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy "Thoughts on the Market," please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Hosted By
  • Heather Berger and Sarah Wolfe

Thoughts on the Market

Listen to our financial podcast, featuring perspectives from leaders within Morgan Stanley and their perspectives on the forces shaping markets today.

Up Next

Investors have plenty to digest this month, from economic data to central-bank decisions. Our Glob...

Transcript

Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley.

 

Today, several catalysts for more volatility later this month.

 

It's Friday, September 4th at 2pm in London.

 

Over more than a century of market history, Septembers have tended to see more volatility than the average month. You can't exactly set your watch by it, but the trend is definitely there. As investors come back from summer and capital market activity restarts in earnest, things historically tend to move.

 

This idea seems especially relevant this year. Despite the headlines, it was a pretty calm summer for markets. Since early June, U.S. stocks, yields, and credit were all modestly higher, and they got there with minimal movement. The realized volatility – that is how much these markets are moving on a daily basis – has been historically low.

 

September offers a number of catalysts that could test that.

 

First and foremost is the Fed. Inflation remains above the central bank's target, and markets are pricing a roughly 50-50 chance of a rate hike at the September 16th meeting. That's more uncertainty this close to a meeting than we've had in a while – and the impact goes far beyond a single decision. Live meetings from the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank also loom in September.

 

September is also a month that historically sees unusually heavy capital market activity. That makes sense. If you're a corporate and looking to raise money, it's often better to wait until investors are back from the summer before going out looking for those funds.

 

But this September could be unusually active, given a growing IPO pipeline and continued funding needs from AI-related construction. And so, it's fair to say that even adjusting for September's usually heavy pace, there's an unusually wide range of outcomes around where capital market activity could land this month.

 

Investors are also coming back from the summer with major uncertainty still hanging over global energy markets. Morgan Stanley's commodity team still sees global energy flows as severely restricted and recently raised their forecast for oil prices, seeing them reach about $100 a barrel in the fourth quarter of this year.

 

The price of what's in that barrel is becoming even more extreme, with the price of diesel fuel in Europe up 140 percent since January 1st. And so, as inventories continue to draw down and questions around the duration of this conflict persist, both factors could drive more market movements.

 

The good news is that while Septembers have historically been more volatile months, they're not necessarily a bellwether. And that could apply again. By month-end, we should have a much better idea of the Fed's path, the scale of capital market activity, and the state of energy supply.

 

But until then, the level of expected volatility across many markets, particularly interest rate and foreign exchange markets, remains unusually low. Given this backdrop, we think those levels of expected volatility can rise.

 

Thank you, as always, for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

Morgan Stanley Thoughts on the Market Podcast
Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats explains how tightening supply and shrinking buffer...

Transcript

Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley’s Global Commodities Strategist.

 

Today: why the oil market is tightening, and why we now see Brent reaching $100 per barrel later this year.

 

It’s Thursday, September 3rd, at 3pm in London.

 

It has been an extraordinary summer for oil. Brent — the global benchmark price for crude oil and the reference point for most of the world's oil trade — traded above $110 per barrel in mid-May, fell to $71 by early June, climbed back above $100 three weeks later, and then dropped again to $79. More recently, prices have moved higher again.

 

But the question now is whether that is another temporary swing. Or whether there is a sign that the underlying market has changed.

 

We think it has changed. Supply is tightening, inventories are falling, and some of the buffers that helped absorb earlier disruptions are fading.

 

The clearest evidence is in inventories. Crude oil sitting on the water fell from nearly 1.3 billion barrels in mid-July to 1.1 billion barrels recently. That was a decline of about 190 million barrels. During one four-week stretch, oil-on-water fell at the unusually high rate of 5.3 million barrels a day, the fastest four-week decline since this data series began about eight years ago.  

 

Usually, when there is such a large amount of crude oil that is brought on land, it drives up onshore oil inventories. However, not on this occasion. On a global basis, onshore crude oil inventories have fallen by another 38 million barrels over the same period. That means that those offshore barrels arriving were being used straight away rather than put into land-based storage.

 

The biggest supply issue is still the Middle East. Crude flows from the Strait of Hormuz briefly recovered to around 15 million barrels a day after the June Memorandum of Understanding. That was close to pre-conflict levels. More recently, they have been running around about 7 million. Now, Red Sea exports have also fallen sharply, from roughly 4 - 4.5 million barrels a day in March and April to around about 1.5 million barrels a day at the moment.  Therefore, total regional exports are still up from the lows in March and April, but they are sharply down from that late June peak.

 

Another source of support is fading: strategic petroleum reserves. These are government-held oil stocks that can be released during a disruption. Globally, those releases added around 2.5 million barrels a day to supply in March and April. But that has fallen sharply, and we do not anticipate material further releases from global SPRsafter September.

 

Then China is important, too. Its seaborne crude imports are normally around 10 to 11 million barrels a day, but briefly fell as low as 5 million barrels a day leaving more oil available elsewhere.  Now, China's buying activity still appears low, but at a minimum it has stabilized, and there are tentative signs of an increase. If Chinese imports have stopped falling and possibly go into reverse, they can no longer free up additional barrels for buyers elsewhere, making the global oil market tighter.

 

So why hasn’t crude become even more constrained?  It's because of refineries. Global refinery outages are running 5 - 6 million barrels a day above normal. Although supply of crude oil is constrained, this means that demand for crude is also reduced.

 

Now, the result of that is that the tightness in the system has instead shown up in refined products rather than in crude. And diesel is the clearest example of this, and the one most likely to be felt throughout the economy, since diesel prices feed straight through into trucking, freight, farming costs, and many other areas.

 

The front-month diesel benchmark in the U.S. was recently around $195 a barrel, versus Brent at $95. The difference between the value of a refined product and the crude used to make it is called a crack spread. For diesel, that crack spread reached around $100 per barrel, an all-time high. Over time, that gives refiners a very strong incentive to bring back capacity where they can. If they do, crude demand should rise, whilst inventories are already falling and Middle East supply so far remains constrained.

 

We now expect a full recovery in Middle East supply to take well into 2027. On that path, oil inventories should keep falling throughout the fourth quarter of this year as well as the first quarter of next year. We now forecast Brent to average $100 per barrel in the fourth quarter.

 

Now, for much of this year, the oil market had several shock absorbers, strategic reserves, abundant barrels at sea, and unusually weak Chinese imports all helped. Those cushions are thinner now. That leaves less room for another disruption, just as the road back to normal supply is getting longer.


Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

 

Morgan Stanley Thoughts on the Market Podcast

More Insights