Growth of the Compassionately Conservative Economy

Working class people have been wondering for the last few years when the economic growth the Bush administration regularly trumpets will touch their lives. Many, no doubt, have wondered whether this economic growth will manage to entirely pass them by. Maybe they can stop wondering now. The growing economy is blessing the lives of some, but it ain’t them. It ain’t people with low wage jobs. It ain’t people with upper-middle-income jobs either. That – surprise, surprise – leaves just the fat cats getting fatter.

WaPo reports the results of a study which shows who the winners and the losers are in Bush’s economy. The party which angrily claims it cares about poor folks too somehow manages to distribute the fruits of prosperity in distinctly lopsided ways:

Wages are rising more than twice as fast for highly paid workers in the Washington area as they are for low-paid workers, an analysis of federal data by The Washington Post shows.

That means the spoils of the region’s economic expansion are going disproportionately to workers who are already well-paid, widening a gap between rich and poor in a place where it is already wider than in most of the country.

Businesspeople cite shifts in the world economy that give educated workers leverage to negotiate for higher wages but make low-paid workers replaceable — a disparity that is especially pronounced in a service economy like Washington’s.
[…]
…from 2003 to 2005, the average wage for people in the lowest pay bracket, with salaries around $20,000, rose only 5.4 percent in the Washington region — not enough to keep up with rising prices. For the jobs that pay around $60,000, salaries rose 12.4 percent, well ahead of the 6.8 percent inflation in that period.
[…]
Nationwide, the wage gap is widening more slowly: The average wage for upper-middle-income jobs rose 5.8 percent, and low-wage jobs saw pay increases of 3.4 percent, from 2003 to 2005.

This means that nationwide, even wages for upper-middle-income jobs did not keep pace with inflation. But Karl Rove apparently plans to bet that he can convince people this election season that they’re doing better even though their real wages have declined.

Comments

  1. cristian says:

    A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities confirms the disparity nationwide:

    “The CBO data show that between 2002 and 2003, average income, adjusted for inflation, declined for the lowest-income households and rose less than one percent for households in the middle of the income spectrum, while jumping an average of 8.2 percent — or $53,500 per household — for those in the top one percent of the spectrum. Census data and other indicators suggest this pattern is likely to have continued since 2003″.

    It also shows that the trumpeted “economic growth” has not been especially robust, except for corporate profits, by historical standards:

    “For five of the seven indicators, the growth rate over the current period is below the average growth rate for the comparable periods of other post-World War II economic recoveries [...] wage and salary growth has been slower in the current recovery than in any other comparable recovery period since the end of World War II. While the pace of job growth did pick up in 2005, even the more recent pace compares unfavorably with historical norms.”

    But again, JimC might argue that CBPP is just another liberal budget group…

  2. sarabeth says:

    The Wapo study covered 2003 to 2005. This CBPP one shows the same pattern for 2002-2003.

    Consistency is a virtue, right?

  3. cristian says:

    Consistency is a virtue, right?

    Well, somebody else might say it is also “the last refuge of the unimaginative”…

  4. sarabeth says:

    Sorry, this is totally off-topic, but I just have to ask.

    Did anyone else just watch MSNBC news (between 10:25 and 10:30 PDT) and go: “I don’t believe I saw what I just saw?”

    I have to disappear now, but I’ll be back later with a transcript, if possible, or some details from memory.

  5. cristian says:

    Just curious… What was that piece of news about?

  6. sarabeth says:

    Sorry about that. Yesterday turned into a slightly complicated day, and I never got back to this.

    Turns out that there are no transcripts for the straight news portion of their coverage.

    So I’ll do the best I can from memory .

    It wasn’t a piece of news. It was the performance turned in by anchor Contessa Brewer. Over a span of 2 or 3 minutes she did several things that had me wondering:
    a) Is she high as a kite?
    b) Or was she just fired and doesn’t care about working on TV again?
    c) Or is she just trying to get fired for some reason?

    First, there was a short news item (I totally forget what it was). At the end, she obviously stopped reading from the prompter, and ad libbed something. Not only was it thoroughly stupid what she was said, but in the middle she made a face and put on a who-the-hell-cares-anyway tone, and just lost interest in what she was saying, and petered off into nothing.

    The next item was a story about two women who had been served drinks in a bar with the glases dipped in cleaning powder by mistake instead of sugar. The mixup happened when the bartender discovered he had run out of sugar, asked another employee (who doesn’t speak much English) for some, and was handed a dish with cleaning powder instead.

    Describing how the mix-up happened, she first broke into a real nasty-sounding giggle when relating how Y handed X the cleaning powder. Somewhere in the middle, there was a retarded statement about how on earth cleaning powder could look like sugar. Towards the end, she mentioned that there was some kind of investigation to see if Y should be arrested or charged or something. Again she went into an obvious ad-lib, which came across as mean-spirited, nasty and racist. She said something like: “What are they going to do to him? He doesn’t even speak English” and 2 or 3 other sentences in the same contemptuous vein.

    And then she ended with another unfocussed, who-the-hell-cares diatribe, which she actually ended with “Whatever!”

    I have never seen anything so unprofessional on TV news in my life.

    Contessa Brewer was, of course, still at her job today.

  7. cristian says:

    Unbelievable, indeed…

    By the way, if transcripts were available, where would they be posted?

  8. cristian says:

    And back to the topic…

    In an Op-Ed article in the today’s NYT (“Left Behind Economics”), Paul Krugman suggests that people may express doubts about these facts, either because

    it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it

    or because of an “element of genuine incredulity”:

    Many observers, even if they acknowledge the growing concentration of income in the hands of the few, find it hard to believe that this concentration could be proceeding so rapidly as to deny most Americans any gains from economic growth.

    He cites updated data for 2004, from the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saezdata, and he draws a similar conclusion:

    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.

  9. sarabeth says:

    By the way, if transcripts were available, where would they be posted?

    This is the page where MSNBC posts transcripts for all its name brand news shows.

  10. sarabeth says:

    In an Op-Ed article in the today’s NYT (”Left Behind Economics”), Paul Krugman suggests that people may express doubts about these facts, either because

    it’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it

    The fact remains that we have an election round the corner, and unless Karl Rove has embarked on a big mis-direction subterfuge, he plans to sell “economic well-being” to the voters.

    Whether or not voters understand the disparities of our recent economic growth in the abstract, they sure as hell know whether they themselves are doing better or worse than 2 years ago, or 6 years ago. And the fact is that more than half the population is not doing any better (surely, upper-middle-income jobs and low-wage jobs adds up to more than half the population?).

    If I were a person in that group who had voted for Bush in 2004 and 2000, I might find a way to make excuses for my Dear Leader, and to accept my economic stagnation or hardship if they told me everyone is doing badly (because of those bastards Osama and Saddam).

    But if they’re going to stand there and tell me we are enjoying “an economic resurgence that’s now in its 18th straight quarter of growth”, then I am going to be pissed as hell. I may not know who’s getting the benefits, but I know it sure as hell isn’t me. And I know that sure as hell isn’t right.

    That’s why I expect the ride-the-economy strategy to backfire bigtime. (But I’ve had to eat my words before.)

  11. sarabeth says:

    sorry, the link in the previous comment was wrong. just fixed it.

  12. cristian says:

    Thank you.