In Response

Brink Lindsey's response to me and Jonah Goldberg and Julian Sanchez is now up at Cato Unbound. I'll quote his concluding questions:

Let me close with questions for my interlocutors. What constraints do you see on possibilities for a leftward push for collectivism or a rightward push for traditionalism? Is anything like European-style social democracy (which even now, on its home turf, has retreated considerably from its earlier ambitions) in the cards? Is a full conservative victory in the post-’60s culture wars really conceivable? If the fondest dreams of progressives and social conservatives are likely to go unfulfilled, why? Might not the arguments I’ve made here have something to do with it?

Further thoughts from me pending.

Comments

aha! and i thought that Julian Sanchez and Will Wilkinson were two different people...

Posted by Chris | July 18, 2007 10:08 AM

Or the fact that THERE ARE LOADS OF PEOPLE ON THE LEFT AND ON THE RIGHT might constrain both the left and the right, without the need for any effects from libertarians.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 18, 2007 10:17 AM

I think this sentence is worth flagging (my emphasis):

As to economics, it is my contention that the deregulation of product, labor, and financial markets – and some consequent increase in the dispersion of incomes and wealth – was a necessary condition for the macroeconomic stability and robust productivity growth experienced over the past quarter-century.

Over the past quarter century, median household income in the U.S. has remained essentially flat, while it's grown steadily for all the percentiles above. How does that translate into "dispersion" rather than "concentration"?

Posted by RSA | July 18, 2007 10:48 AM

It's a common rejoinder but one worth repeating. Lindsey's fairly-watered down brand of libertarianism is indeed, as he claims, ascendent--among CEOs, journalists and Democratic presidential front-runners. But the socially liberal/economically "libertarian" formula is hardly all that popular with much of the middle-class, to say nothing of the poor. It's the governing consensus, but probably not the popular one.

Posted by Mark | July 18, 2007 12:34 PM

RSA,

Over the past quarter century, median household income in the U.S. has remained essentially flat,

From the Census Bureau historical income tables, constant dollars:

Median household income, 1980: $39,739
Median household income, 2005: $46,326

That's an increase of about 14%. And for a number of reasons, this figure almost certainly substantially understates the true growth in median household income.

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2007 12:39 PM

That's an increase of about 14%.

That's an annualized increase of about 0.6%. I guess flatness is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by RSA | July 18, 2007 12:46 PM

RSA,

That's an annualized increase of about 0.6%.

Nice try at changing your story, but you didn't say it was flat over a period of one year. You said it was flat over a period of a quarter century. That claim is patently false. And as I said, even the 14% figure almost certainly substantially understates the true increase in median household income.

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2007 12:56 PM

RSA, I think there's a semantic problem: what Lindsey means by "dispersion" is exactly what you mean by "concentration." Both of you are saying that income inequality has increased.

Lindsey is using "dispersion" to mean that the difference between the income of somebody in the 20th percentile and somebody in the 90th has increased. Their incomes are farther apart: e.g., they've dispersed.

In short, you and Lindsey agree about what the data show. I hope that helps.

Posted by Noel Maurer | July 18, 2007 12:57 PM

Nice try at changing your story, but you didn't say it was flat over a period of one year. You said it was flat over a period of a quarter century. That claim is patently false.

My "story" had to do with dispersion versus concentration, as Noel helpfully clarifies. (Thanks for that.) If you think "essentially flat" is a misleading characterization of the median line on the graph that I linked to (in the context of the increase in other segments), we simply disagree on how to describe what we're looking at.

Posted by RSA | July 18, 2007 1:16 PM

RSA,

My "story" had to do with dispersion versus concentration,

Your story included a false claim about changes in median household income.

If you think "essentially flat" is a misleading characterization of the median line on the graph that I linked to

I think "essentially flat" is a patently false characterization of a 14% increase. And as I said, the true increase is almost certainly substantially greater.

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2007 1:22 PM

Fine--in case anyone is still reading, substitute "has increased at a rate of 0.6% per year according to census data" for "has remained essentially flat" in what I wrote above.

Posted by RSA | July 18, 2007 1:33 PM

Fine--in case anyone is still reading, substitute "has increased at a rate of 0.6% per year according to census data" for "has remained essentially flat" in what I wrote above.

Then my response is that even a small annualized increase compounds to a much larger total increase over time. In the case of median household income, that increase is about 14% over the past 25 years as stated in official money income statistics. The true increase is almost certainly substantially greater than even that 14% figure.

Posted by Mixner | July 18, 2007 1:45 PM