Paul Krugman, NYTimes Select.There are a couple of additional revelations in the 2004 data. One is that growth didn’t just bypass the poor and the lower middle class, it bypassed the upper middle class too. Even people at the 95th percentile of the income distribution — that is, people richer than 19 out of 20 Americans — gained only modestly. The big increases went only to people who were already in the economic stratosphere.
The other revelation is that being highly educated was no guarantee of sharing in the benefits of economic growth. There’s a persistent myth, perpetuated by economists who should know better — like Edward Lazear, the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers — that rising inequality in the United States is mainly a matter of a rising gap between those with a lot of education and those without. But census data show that the real earnings of the typical college graduate actually fell in 2004.
In short, it’s a great economy if you’re a high-level corporate executive or someone who owns a lot of stock. For most other Americans, economic growth is a spectator sport.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Conservatively Speaking, these numbers suck!
Nevada Thunder » Blog Archive » Left Behind Economics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
Don't Hate Me Because I'm White by webcarve Make a Customized TShirt online at Zazzle.com See other Issues T-Shirts It has long p...
-
I've been having a grand obsess, perseverating like hell on something that at first blush seems utterly unrelated to art, blogging, or G...
-
Glenn Greenwald is suffering the effects of a very severe moral wedgie. Like many, and I include myself, he suffers from deep, impotent o...
-
You've seen the video, asking "is it so wrong to pray for rain?" Focus on the Family guy Stuart Shepard is asking people, in ...
-
The bit below was a response to this election post/thread on Echidne of the Snakes. Antijen speaks for a great many people; myself among th...
No comments:
Post a Comment