Revisiting a tweet I botched a couple of days ago...Looks to me like Acemoglu, Autor, et al. argue that trade with China can explain at most something like 20% of the drop in manufacturing employment from 1999 to 2011. google.com/url?sa=t&sourc… /1
Not to minimize the impact on these workers. The point is that 80% of the drop would've happened anyway. Great industrial dreamers and national conservatives of the world, you are not going to get manufacturing jobs back. /2
In part, because busy 2-earner families demand cheap services. In part because they demand cheap goods, and technology makes goods ever cheaper. /3
Also, median hourly pay for men and women, annual earnings, and household incomes are at all-time highs. Poverty is at an all-time low. Unemployment is at 50-year low. So we have that going for us.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I think the current poverty line is useful because any line is arbitrary and we may as well use one that has some official legitimacy. But really, just pick a line in such a way that we can look at trends, evaluate ourselves against it going forward, /1
evaluate ourselves against other countries, determine who constitutes "the poor," determine the groups among which poverty is highest, etc.
If you want to grant it legitimacy by asking people what it takes to get by, that's fine too. /2
Surveys have done this in the past, and it's a much lower number than Green thinks, generally. See this 2016 result from AEI which found the median POOR American put the poverty line for a family of 4 at $30,000 (while the overall median put it at $30-40K) aei.org/wp-content/upl…
How does one get to be a chief strategist and portfolio manager with 40K followers and not understand Engel’s law?
This guy wants us to believe that the Real Poverty Line should be $130-150K, because the original poverty line was based on the inverse of the food share of the budget, and today that requires a multiple of 16 instead of 3.
As an aside, he’s wrong on the history of how the poverty line was set, as Burkhauser et al. discuss
The poverty line is an arbitrary line, but wherever you draw it, if you measure everything (including prices) correctly, poverty has gone down a lotnber.org/papers/w26532
My latest for @CivitasOutlook is out: “The American Dream Is Not a Coin Flip, and Wages Have Not Stagnated”
How many people are really better off than their parents? How many think they are? You’ll be surprised.
Declensionists sometimes point to objective measures to argue that we’re going down the tubes. Often, though, they get the details wrong.
Other times they argue that upbeat empirical claims must have problems because they don’t accord with Americans’ “lyin’ eyes”.
But what if the best objective measures align with subjective measures? And what if both told the same fairly upbeat story? That would be bad for declensionists.
What happened to hourly pay over the past 50+ years? That’s the topic of my latest paper.
One answer (from @AmerCompass) is this— it rose by 1% over the 50 years from 1972 to 2022.
That’s not right—though it’s only off by a factor of about 30, so…
Another answer, from @EconomicPolicy, also giving the misimpression that pay has lagged productivity:
And here’s a similar chart from @hamiltonproj (also wrongly suggesting pay growth has not kept pace with productivity growth):
OK, here are the charts I couldn't update in time for our event. 1. Median household income: Down from 2021, sure, but also down from 2019. Still a 30% real increase from 1979 if you use chained CPI linked to PCE. (33% post-tax).
BTW, those figures exclude employer health coverage and are pulled down over time by the rising share of retirees. Not American Carnage.
2. Median household income, female head, no spouse present: Down from 2021 but up from 2019. A 60% rise since 1979 whether looking at the pre-tax income or post-tax income including SNAP, school lunches, energy assistance.