I am running out to the AMEX, but I wanted to make sure you read a piece in today’s NYT by David Leonhardt: For Many, a Boom That Wasn’t. The entire article is worth reading.
The chart is pretty hard to argue with:
While I agree that many of the contributing factors leading to this wage stagnation were in place for a long time, I think the librul NYTimes gave President George W. Bush too much of a pass:
"The causes of the wage slowdown have been building for a long time.
They have relatively little to do with President Bush or any other
individual politician (though it is true that the Bush administration
has shown scant interest in addressing the problem)."
As you will note in the links below, these are issues we addressed many years ago. This administration chose a stimulus that was, for better or worse, stock market and CapEx focused. While I am not debating the merits of that choice, the selection of those targets — versus targeting labor and wages — was a very conscious, ideological choice.
Thus, the policy results are, not totally, but to a not insignificant degree, the responsibility of the administration that selected them . . .
Stock Market vs the Economy (September 2003) http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2003/09/stock_market_vs.html
Tax Cuts: Stock Market vs the Economy II (October 2003) http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2003/10/tax_cuts_stock_.html
Accelerated Depreciation of Capital Spending (September 2004) http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/09/accelerated_dep.html
For Many, a Boom That Wasn’t
NYT, April 9, 2008
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.