Matthew Yglesias (August 01, 2008) - Better Off (Politics)

Barack Obama paraphrases Ronald Reagan's famous question: "Are you better off than you were four or eight years ago?"

He's playing the race card again!
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | August 1, 2008 3:37 PM

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. June 19-23, 2008.

"Would you say the country is better off because of George W. Bush's economic policies than when he became president almost eight years ago, or worse off, or is the country about the same as it was then?"

Better: 9
Worse: 75
Same: 12
Unsure: 4

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm

Stop overthinking this stuff.

Posted by blah | August 1, 2008 3:39 PM

Stop overthinking this stuff.

Seconded.

Posted by Darius | August 1, 2008 3:42 PM

Uh, eight years ago I could leave the country with my laptop and be reasonably sure that Customs wouldn't steal it for whatever the fuck reason when I came back in.

Eight years ago I wasn't worried about Peak Oil or global warming because I was sure that the adults in Congress and the White House, who surely had better access to information than me, were going to realize that they were going to be dominent issues to grapple with and that they would intelligently deal with both. Now Im scared shitless about both because it might be too late to deal with them.

Eight years ago I wasn't worried about the integrity of our elections or our civil service.

There is a lot to be concerned about now that I really didn't think would be an issue eight years ago because I thought adults were in charge.

Boy, was I a dumb fuck.

Posted by calipygian | August 1, 2008 3:44 PM

On the other hand, I'm not sure that I'd give George W. Bush a ton of credit for that.

Really? Don't you think Bush should get a lot of credit for the explosion of the left-wing blogosphere (which is the basis for your career)? I do. After all, if Bush were a good liberal, what would you people be talking about all day?

Posted by Al | August 1, 2008 3:46 PM

The mental answer when the question is posed as the Senator did will be whether they FEEL better today than they did eight years ago. I'm in the economically advantaged San Francisco Bay area, and even here the answer I hear is a resounding "NO!"

Posted by Roger Tompkins | August 1, 2008 3:50 PM

Out of touch much? Look at real wages, which haven't gone up at all over the last eight years and in many cases actually went down. Hell, even for plutocrats, the Dow is no better than the early days of the Bush administration. Yes, I make more money than in 2000. But am I better off? Maybe, but it sure doesn't feel that way.

Posted by NHCt | August 1, 2008 3:52 PM

Re: Eight years ago I wasn't worried about Peak Oil or global warming because I was sure that the adults in Congress and the White House, who surely had better access to information than me, were going to realize that they were going to be dominent issues to grapple with and that they would intelligently deal with both.

Um, Calipygian, global warming was first predicted (correctly, as it turned out) in 1896. http://www.maui.net/~jstark/nasa.html
If you are an educated person then you should have been worried about it _well_ in advance of George W. Bush's presidency. The time to start dealing with global warming was a hundred years ago, and it's too bloody late now. Likewise peak oil could have been foreseen many decades ago, and in fact was predicted mathematically in 1956. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._King_Hubbert

To say this is the fault of George W. Bush is ridiculous. It is the fault of the modern, Western liberal-capitalist order, of which George Bush is simply the latest frontman. The causes of our present malaise lead back to the beginnings of capitalism in the Italian Renaissance, and later to the deplorable Enlightenment ideas that Man is the measure of all things, and that man can and should reshape the natural world to his liking. Inasmuch as Obama is yet another creature of the liberal-capitalist modern order, he will do little to solve the problems.

Posted by Hector | August 1, 2008 4:01 PM

The question has so many different interpretations that it's almost meaningless.Do you earn more money? Does your money buy you more? Is your job more or less secure? Of course what the question is really asking is; "Do you like the current administration?" which is the basis of Obama's campaign.
n.b. after 8 years of seemingly unthinking Government, a little bit of overthinking from anywhere is welcome.

Posted by Russell | August 1, 2008 4:01 PM

And at the same time the biggest victims of Bush's policies are the ones who are dead and thus don't have the chance to complain about it

I don't think the families of the dead will have too much trouble complaining.

Posted by R. Totale | August 1, 2008 4:04 PM

Darius, I totally agree with you.

See that’s the problem with the psuedo-intellectual simpletons (PISs) crowd who are supposedly on our side. Obama asks what I consider a simple but really the overarching question of the campaign and the one that needs to be repeated every time a Democrat opens their mouth and what happens?

The PISs member who writes this blog takes 198 words to explain how he is better off now than when he was a 19 year old (who cares), then he goes into a rant about dead soldiers, then something about children, please God make him stop and just STFU!!!

.
Matt,

Here is a primer for you and the rest of the PISs crowd; when the "are you better off" question is asked, put a finger to the side of your head, tilt your head back like you're contemplating your answer and then respond with a resounding NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

That’s it, nothing else. SHH, SHH, SHH, SHHHHHHH

SHHHHHHHH

Posted by Loviatar | August 1, 2008 4:04 PM

might I just say that there seems to be a contradiction between saying that "most people" would be better off but the "average" person would not be?

Posted by alex | August 1, 2008 4:07 PM

You underestimate the greed and sense of entitlement of your fellow citizens. Most people who have higher income don't think they are better off. There was a poll in which about 30% of US adults thought Clinton had increased their income taxes. Totally wrong and falling for Republican lies. Then there was one in which about 30% said that W Bush had increased their income taxes. Totally wrong and not assisted by Democratic lies.

Also Matt, you don't have kids. A child or two makes you suddenly much poorer in all sorts of ways (but so much richer in the only way that couns that you better make a few pretty soon so that they blog before I die). Non elderly childless adults are overwhelmingly Democrats. Obama has you all in the bag. He is trying to reach struggling parents who get their information from the Disney channel (ever tried to get a child to watch c-span ?).

Posted by Robert Waldmann | August 1, 2008 4:08 PM

Matt, my wages have gone up considerably over the last 8 years, but so has the cost of food, gas, heating oil, electric bills, college tuition (for my kid), rent (for the aforementioned kid) property taxes, health insurance, prescriptions, and on and on. petesdad is making less as a stockbroker than he was 8 years ago. My sister lost her job at a mortgage brokerage, and at 60 the best replacement job she could get is part-time clerk at a drug store. So yeah, you and my other kid (who recently graduated and is working at a "real" job) are doing better than 8 years ago, but many of us REALLY are not.

Posted by petesmom | August 1, 2008 4:08 PM

Now personally, I'd say I'm much better off than I was as an awkward nineteen year-old college sophomore.

You're eight years closer to death. How could you characterize that as being better off?

Posted by Jim W | August 1, 2008 4:13 PM

GOP strategist: Obama is trying to start a race war.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | August 1, 2008 4:17 PM

GOP strategist: Obama is trying to start a race war.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | August 1, 2008 4:18 PM

Speaking personally, yes - much better off. Everyone I know is as well. That's admittedly anecdotal, but I don't see widespread down in the mouth-ness much in this neck of suburbia.

And oh by the way, remind me again which party is going to regulate every aspect of my life?.

Posted by James Robertson | August 1, 2008 4:19 PM

Matt you went off track with you analysis...
8 years ago what is the price of gas as compared with today?
8 years ago what is price of food stuff as compared with today?
8 years ago what is unemployement rate as compared with today?
8 years ago as compared with today the United States have a surplus to the defeicit we have today.
So when Obama said what he said he meant it as the way things are today compared with 8 years ago.... Even on a personal level Matt you are not better off...lets say you are making what you are currently making in the economic growth of 8 years ago...your dollar income worth more compare to what you earn today... So Obama is right with his analysis overall though he could have framed it more broadly...to escape being misread as you just did

Posted by Stan | August 1, 2008 4:20 PM

On the other hand, I'm not sure that I'd give George W. Bush a ton of credit for that.

Really? Don't you think Bush should get a lot of credit for the explosion of the left-wing blogosphere (which is the basis for your career)? I do. After all, if Bush were a good liberal, what would you people be talking about all day?

You make a good point, Al, but if the left-wing blogosphere hadn't taken off, Matt would probably have gone to law school and would now be make the big bucks as a corporate attorney. W. is personally responsible for Matt living in a tenement with a bunch of roommates in a dangerous neighborhood in DC rather than renting his own fancy apartment on Park Avenue in Manhattan.

Posted by peep | August 1, 2008 4:21 PM

"Out of touch much? Look at real wages, which haven't gone up at all over the last eight years and in many cases actually went down. Hell, even for plutocrats, the Dow is no better than the early days of the Bush administration. Yes, I make more money than in 2000. But am I better off? Maybe, but it sure doesn't feel that way."

The point that Matt's making isn't that the country as a whole is better off today than it was 8 years ago, but that many individuals are. People tend to make more money as they get older, so most people make more money today than they did eight years ago even if the economy as a whole is worse.

Posted by Josh M | August 1, 2008 4:31 PM

I'm not sure of the status of the research, but I just read a paper today that made the argument that, judging from the 72-76 elections, personal pocketbook issues had at best a very modest effect on voting, an effect that was much smaller than the effect of national economic issues. How the national economy was faring and how individuals judged each parties ability to manage the economy predicated much more strongly how much they identified with either party as well as their Congressional and Presidential voting. In other words, Obama should be focusing on the national decline as well as the historic benefit of having a Democrat in the White House - he should just plaster that infamous graph up on an ad.

Posted by Josh R. | August 1, 2008 4:43 PM

I'm not sure of the status of the research, but I just read a paper today that made the argument that, judging from the 72-76 elections, personal pocketbook issues had at best a very modest effect on voting, an effect that was much smaller than the effect of national economic issues. How the national economy was faring and how individuals judged each parties ability to manage the economy predicated much more strongly how much they identified with either party as well as their Congressional and Presidential voting. In other words, Obama should be focusing on the national decline as well as the historic benefit of having a Democrat in the White House - he should just plaster that infamous graph up on an ad.

Posted by Josh R. | August 1, 2008 4:46 PM

Hey James, you dimwitted tool, which party has been spying on Americans? Which party has been murdering brown people for fun and profit? Which party diverted resources from anti-terrorism in the 90s into a witchhunt? Which party has been spending money like there is no tomorrow? Which party has illegally used political considerations in the hiring and firing in the Department of Justice?

Compared to all of that, you think there is reason to worry about fines for unsorted trash? No wonder everyone on the board considers you a total fucking moron.

Posted by Not As Stupid As James Robertson | August 1, 2008 4:55 PM

Prices for basic necessities such as food, energy, and (often practically basic) education have increased like crazy. Wages have remained stagnant. Sure, there are people better off than when they were 19 ... but there are a heckuva a lot of people worse off at, say, 46 than they were at 38. Or 38 than they were at 30.

Also, don't discount the increased anxiety many people of all incomes feel as they see themselves living increasingly from pay-check to pay-check. A lot of people may be "better off" in terms of standard of living, but that standard of living has become more and more precarious. A lot of folks (correctly) think it could all come crashing down at any moment. "Better off" ain't just income minus expenses.

Posted by matthew frederick | August 1, 2008 5:08 PM

I'm a lot older than Matt and I can truthfully say that every time the republicans have taken the WH in my adult life, it has cost me lots of money due to what happens to the economy. Cause and effect? I cannot say for sure but I can say if I were voting on economics alone I would never vote for a repub for president.

I'm not a one issue voter though so not only will I never vote for a repub for president, I won't vote for any repub ever for any office.

Posted by eve | August 1, 2008 5:11 PM

Prices for basic necessities such as food, energy, and (often practically basic) education have increased like crazy. Wages have remained stagnant. Sure, there are people better off than when they were 19 ... but there are a heckuva a lot of people worse off at, say, 46 than they were at 38. Or 38 than they were at 30.

Also, don't discount the increased anxiety many people of all incomes feel as they see themselves living increasingly from pay-check to pay-check. A lot of people may be "better off" in terms of standard of living, but that standard of living has become more and more precarious. A lot of folks (correctly) think it could all come crashing down at any moment. "Better off" ain't just income minus expenses.

Posted by matthew frederick | August 1, 2008 5:12 PM

Matt,

Usually your age does not show in your comments... but I think the 8 year comparison works pretty darn well with anyone even in their mid 30s. Yes, I have a much better salary than 8 years ago (when I was working on my PhD), but I have not felt this way about the future and America since the 1992 election. In this sense, I feel much much worse off.

Posted by The Retrospectivist | August 1, 2008 5:13 PM

Plus another thing wrong with Obama is that now he's playing the Svelte card! From the bottom of the deck, too!

Ask yourself this: are you more svelte than you were 8 years ago? I'm sure not. And it's Obama's fault!

Posted by DrBB | August 1, 2008 5:20 PM

Matt you went off track with you analysis...
8 years ago what is unemployement rate as compared with today?

Actually, that's a perfect example of Matt's point. If you ask people, "Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?," very few people will answer, "I'm worse off, because I was happily employed 8 years ago, and now I'm unemployed." That doesn't mean the unemployment rate isn't a problem, just that you don't get at the problem by asking that question.

Posted by jaltcoh.blogspot.com | August 1, 2008 5:22 PM

He needs to get this message out more often and truly paint McCain as an agent of the past eight years. Then voters would finally get the stakes of this election.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | August 1, 2008 5:27 PM

"Paraphrases"? I believe "quotes" is the word.

More substantively, I suspect you're universalizing the professional class's experience. Certainly, manual worker or lower-rung white collar works get promotions and pay raises, but many have a drastically different horizon of career growth expectation than the 20-something Ivy grad.

Posted by Chris C | August 1, 2008 5:28 PM

Matt,

You're young. I'm 43. I make about thirty five thousand dollars more per year than I did eight years ago. Should I be better off? Yeah. Am I? No. I'm treading water. Does it have to do with larger bills? Yeah, but most of them are related to increased cost of living, not to increased expenditures or credit card debt. I do have a car bill that I didn't have then, and I do spend more on clothing than I did then, and instead of going to the library for every book, I do occasionally buy my own, but otherwise, what I spend my money on is pretty much the same. Food and the cost of utilities and gas make up most of the difference. Oh, and I forgot about a lot of medical bills I incurred this year for my son that are being disputed by my pathetic HMO.

I would definitely say the economy (and healthcare costs) is tied to my financial situation.

Posted by mary | August 1, 2008 5:30 PM

The right question to ask is:
"Is America better off than it was 4 or 8 years ago?"
Individuals have way too many independent variables affecting their lives for a question like "are you better off..." to have substantive meaning. While I am saddened by the corruption and mismanagment of our government, life is pretty good on a presonal level, partially because of the way I've walked through life.
But it's very easy to see that our country has been done a grave disservice by the republican party, and by George Bush (and Tom Delay) in particular.
The focus should be: The Repbulicans have been in charge for the last 8 years. They have a reverse midas touch, where everything they handle turns to...bad stuff. The republicans have dug us our hole, and we can't let them keep digging.

Posted by agorabum | August 1, 2008 5:35 PM

And another thing, Matt: You're a Harvard graduate, a published author, and work for a national magazine. I'm betting tHe kind of money you're raking in and the average joe is raking in are probably vastly different. I'm a single parent of three, two of whom are in college. I bring in (with child support) $70,00 per year. What do you make to support your little old self?

Posted by mary | August 1, 2008 5:37 PM

After Mary's comment, I wanted to clarify: I'm not under the illusion that opinion writers are necessarily well-off. Well, they may be, I don't know, but what I was getting at is that many professions (journalism, the academy, cultural institutions, even some parts of finance) have a prolonged apprentice or audition phase before higher pay kicks in. Thus for some eight year stretch, there will be a dramatic improvement in life circumstances. Less professional career/job tracks, meanwhile, tend to have much flatter growth, maybe even starting off with higher wages/salaries.

Posted by Chris C | August 1, 2008 6:05 PM

matt, i love ya bro....but you thought that answer out way too f-ing much. you're not thinking about the possible media mem in barack's message.

Posted by geoff | August 1, 2008 6:07 PM

It's really a gestalt question rather than a simple query about relative income levels. During the Clinton administration, I'd have to say I felt fairly hopeful about the future, both mine personally as well as about the country generally.

Now I wonder which of the upcoming catastrophes (climate change, peak oil, the slow conversion of the U.S. into a theocratic autocracy, the collapse of the U.S. economy as all its assets end up being owned by the chinese or by ultra-rich international oligarchs, or its collapse due to resource depletion and hyperinflation) will force me to spend my old age in penury.

While the administration of GWB did not initiate all of these things, it certainly did its best to accelerate them. What it didn't do is address any of them in a positive way, and in fact has in every case made the worst possible choices one could make, at least if you were trying to keep the country and the world from sliding into misery.

Posted by jimBOB | August 1, 2008 6:20 PM

Matt, I disagree that "most people" are better off. The overall numbers aren't good, and have been especially weak of late, unless you have a graduate degree:
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/WindowsLiveWriter/image_26.png

Anecdotally, even though I'm in my prime earning years, my "raises" since 2000 have been more than eaten up right off the bat by three things that probably affect a lot of other people too:

--Higher health-care costs as my employer shifts an ever-larger share of the burden to us working stiffs. This shifting has to exceed whatever rise in health costs is figured into real wages.

--Having to save more out of pocket for retirement as my employer contributes less. (I'm fortunate to be able to do so, but this isn't exactly a luxury.) I'd guess this isn't factored into real wages.

--Higher energy costs (gas, electricity, natural gas). This is factored into real wages, obviously, but the impact is big when you have a commute and a house.

And on top of all that there's also the higher costs of food, clothing and most everything else besides electronics gadgets.

Maybe I should be grateful after all for the tuppence I got from the Bush tax cuts.

Posted by Ann Arbor | August 1, 2008 6:42 PM

Matt: "Now personally, I'd say I'm much better off than I was as an awkward nineteen year-old college sophomore."

You don't seem to be.

I personally am much better off than eight years ago when I was still in the joint. And my income has gone up this year while a recession is on. It seems in my life that when everybody else is screwed, I do well - and vice versa.

But it should be obvious that things in general for the US are worse than they were eight years ago. Anybody who can't see that Bush has been a disaster for the US is just brain dead. Whether he's been a disaster personally for any specific person is not relevant.

Are we supposed to believe that because Summer Glau is making more money today on a hit TV show than she was eight years ago - before she was even an actress - that the economy is better?

I'm sure she's also making a hell of a lot more than Matt, despite being around the same age.

Of course, she's better looking than Matt...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 1, 2008 7:41 PM

Weird question, if you think about it too hard...but then again, it does what it needs to do. That is to say, the lower your income, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. So if you answer the question no, you aren't better off, you may lean Democrat, whether or not you are influenced solely by self-interest.

If you answer yes, you are better off, but your politics are not influenced solely or even primarily by your personal situation, you are also likely to be a Democrat. (Barack Obama is undoubtedly better off than he was 8 years ago. Our household income has more than doubled in the past 8 years, but because we also had two children during that time period, that money hasn't become "disposable"--most of it is plowed back right back into child-rearing expenses)

So, those people who are better off now and motivated solely or primarily by economic self-interest probably lean Republican right now anyway--but then they probably didn't have enough empathy to be Democrats in the first place.

Posted by JMS | August 1, 2008 9:41 PM

"an awkward nineteen year-old college sophomore."

Dude, all of us aren't as fucking young as you are.

Eight years ago, I was working for the same corporation that I am now, only I made actually more money back then, and my taxes weren't being funneled to killing innocent people in foreign countries.

My constitution was still recognizable, I wasn't being basically raped every time I went through US customs, and people around the planet didn't want my country to crumble.

Jesus... over thinking, and self-centered once again.

Posted by Ohmmade | August 1, 2008 9:49 PM

Matt, generally that would be the case, but not today and I'd say Bush is responsible considering g everything is connected.

Perhaps you missed the NYTimes piece on the highest number of full-time jobs cut to part-time jobs. The number of people forced to work part-time swelled to 5.3 million. They are taking home less pay and lost their health insurance benefits, too.

Unemployment is up from 5.5% to 5.7%.

Home foreclosures are not dwindling, they are steadily rising. Bush de-regulated the banking industry and mortgage companies which led to the mess we're in. Before enacting the new legislation Bush was warned, but the warnings went unheeded. He could have stopped this before it spiraled out of hand, but he did nothing then either.

Meanwhile Bush & McCain are proposing giveaways to the oil companies that do absolutely nothing to relieve the pain consumers are feeling.

A father in Pennsylvania said he had to choose between heating fuel and diapers and he has a full-time job! People looking for work cannot afford to buy gas to look for work. Others are selling their family heirlooms. Some used their furniture for firewood. Another said he quit going to church because gas cost too much. People's lives have changed drastically and most none for the better.

Since the beginning of 2007 the demand for oil went up 3% , but profits rose 200%. Bush could have encouraged R&D for alternative energy sources, but instead chose to start a war in Iraq that has cost the country over $800 billion dollars. Bush is demanding Congress lift the ban on off-shore drilling. However the oil companies will not produce it for ten years and they already have tens of millions of acres they've never explored. We cannot ignore the economic and environmental consequences for coastal cities.

Between speculators and supply and demand the former probably has more to do with the costs increasing. Every time Bush threatens Iran the price of oil goes up. If we left Iraq I wonder if the gas prices would go down then, too?

Families and individuals in dyer-straights coupled with signs of businesses in trouble means the dynamics have changed. The economic insecurity could have been avoided had Bush followed pragmatic, sensible policy advice. This did not need to happen.

Posted by serena1313 | August 1, 2008 10:15 PM

Seriously you all are over thinking HIS point.

Over the course of a lifetime in real dollars (not just nominal), most people tend to earn more as they age. Admittedly this is not true for everyone. But true for most, if you stay employed a decent number of people are probably better off financially than when George was inaugurated.

I'm much better off (financially) than I was a year ago. To some degree I can attribute it to Bush. But I picked an industry that republicans love for a reason.

But I will vote against my economic self-interest, because I'm a values voter.

Posted by Kiran | August 1, 2008 10:31 PM

when folks on this thread say "people", they mean "college graduates".

Posted by sleepy | August 2, 2008 12:18 AM

Speaking personally, yes - much better off.

Wow, me to. I work in PR. I happen to work for Qadafi, The Heritage Foundation, The government of Dubai, Pfizer, a few dozen little right wing legal "charities", greenpeace, and a host of other clients.

Guess who is paying the bills and who is tightening their belts these days? There is your free market, James. Hope you really liked how that whole shitstorm turned out.

Posted by Ed Marshall | August 2, 2008 2:17 AM

Matt, what a misfire with this post.

Good luck in your new spot, I'll still read you, but you're better than this.

Posted by Tim | August 2, 2008 2:31 AM

The point is that it worked for Reagan, and IIRC it worked at a time when real wages had actually grown over the previous years. Folks felt worse off, and more importantly, less secure. That's at least equally true now, esp with real wages having been stagnant basically ever since Ronnie first asked the question.

Posted by michael | August 2, 2008 5:41 AM

I really don't think your on track here. The fact is most people don't FEEL better off than they did 4-8 years ago and in fact they aren't! How can you ignore this reality? If you were optimistic and your future seem positive pre Bushbag era and now you are depressed and angry, you certainly wouldn't feel better off today than you did then now would you? I'm retired and one of your examples. I was looking forward to my retirement now eight years later I find myself worried about whats going to happen to my finances and the few short years I have left. So answer that question for me again.

Posted by EddieB | August 2, 2008 9:24 AM

If you are going to get all econ-geeky about political rhetoric like this, it may make sense to monetize and then discount all expected future economic benefits to present value (using your current best guess as to those benefits and proper discount rates) and then sum them up. You then could maybe account for the years that have passed in your life by adding in the benefits actually received in those years (adjusting them upwards with the appropriate actual inflation rates).

Once you starting keeping track of that number over time, you could assess how your total economy-related prospects have been improving or degrading in any given recent period. Basically, you would just look at whether your estimate of the NPV of all past and future economic benefits in your life has increased or decreased over that time.

But of course that is silly. People intuitively sense when things are not going as well for them as they expected four or eight years ago, and that is the nature of this question.

Posted by DTM | August 2, 2008 12:26 PM

YES AND NO.

As individuals move from youth to adulthood and maturity their incomes do rise as this data shows:

AGE.............INCOME AS
BRACKET....% OF AVERAGE

15-24........41.04%
25-34.......103.23%
35-44.......131.31%
45-54.......138.11%
55-65.......117.67%
0ver 65......71.43%

But if you take a sample of incomes in 2001 and 2008 your sample in each period will consist of
around 16.7% in each age bracket and in 2008 it will also consist of around 16.7% in each bracket.

If average real income does not rise from 2001 to 2008 even though many individuals will have moved from one age bracket to the next the point that the average does not rise implies that for those who did experience an improvement there had to be others who experienced an offsetting decline.

As your income increased as you aged from 19 to 27 it means that someone else experienced an offsetting drop. The sample you think of is intelligent, educated college graduates. Most of them saw improvements just as you did. But there are other groups in the sample --for example Midwestern industrial workers who lost $25/hour factory jobs and settled for $10/hour jobs stocking shelves at Wal-Mart-- that saw their real incomes fall.

Your using the line of reasoning you did is like the New York liberal who asked, how could Bush win the election, I don't know anyone who voted for him?

On average, or typically individuals income does rise as they age. But the average conceals wide divergences within the sample.

I blogged on this at Angry Bear a year or so ago.
Because of the baby boomers moving through the demographic bulge from 1980 to 2000 there should have been a significant increase in real average hourly earnings from 1980 to 1990 from this alone that was actually larger than the change in real average hourly earnings that actually happened. So in reality the aging of the population from 1980 to 1990 concealed the point that real average hourly wages were not growing. If you adjusted real average hourly earnings from 1980 to 2000 by the average age of the population the stagnation of real earnings would have been worse then the reported data shows.

Posted by spencer | August 2, 2008 2:33 PM

boy, you're young.

Posted by datadave | August 6, 2008 6:31 AM

A good deal of the dissatisfaction with Carter was because of the nationalistic humiliation of the Iran hostage situation. This was cleared up in the last hours of the Carter administration and Reagan took the credit.

Posted by skeptonomist | August 6, 2008 10:15 AM

Good luck in your new spot

Posted by PiriketSeverler | August 10, 2008 10:17 AM

http://deai-ch.jp/?c=home

Posted by 出会いサイト | August 13, 2008 9:35 PM

http://deai-ch.jp/?c=home

Posted by 出会いサイト | August 13, 2008 9:40 PM

インプラント総合ポータルサイトインプラントドクターズ IMPLANT DOCTORS歯科医院,歯医者,審美歯科

Posted by インプラント | August 13, 2008 10:49 PM

Better Off

Comments (57)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories