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
It’s hard to take “summaries of the debate” like this seriously when they don’t note that PSZ have, for years, simply ignored AS’s counter-replies to their criticism. Also when they characterize the underreported income debate in such a PSZ-friendly way. (more)
First, when well-off (but below top 1%) people underreport income, sometimes their reported income is quite low. Duh. So if you simply give the top earners based on REPORTED income a proportional share of unreported income, you’re giving them too much.
Second, some actual top 1% people are below the top 1% of REPORTED income. Sometimes WAY below, like when they report negative business income (business losses). The PSZ approach gives them very little income and gives the top 1% of reported income too much.
Has the middle class shrunk? Yes. Has it been “hollowed out”? No.
New report from me and Steve Rose: “The Middle Class Is Shrinking Because of a Booming Upper-Middle Class”
Lots of people (even researchers) claim that the middle class has been “hollowed out.” The suggestion is that compared with the past, more families are richer than middle class and more are poorer than middle class. This is half right.aei.org/research-produ…
What’s happened is that the entire income distribution has moved up. (The 5th percentile is dominated by measurement error—also, these figures ignore noncash transfers, employer health insurance, and taxes, which would make things look better for the bottom half)
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):