While this book forum has evoked real disagreements over some crucial issues, I want to make clear two things: one, what am I defining as the growth that progressives should aspire for, and two, what, in light of Mr. Sirota's recent post,  were the actual facts in the Clinton era.

For those read my book they will see in the first paragraph that my definition of growth is whether we "are growing together" and  our test for whether our policies are successful is not growth per se, but  growth that lifts all boats and leads to shared prosperity. (Even for those passing by a book store - skim the intro pp.1-3). The statement that we should not be happy with GDP that benefited, as Kevin Drum states, only the Donald Trumps and not the middle class or hard-pressed families trying to work their way up is one I fully support.  

This is highly timely and relevant issue. Too many journalists and pundits find it mysterious that Americans are not happy with the President's economic performance when the economy is so strong - a definition they base on GDP, and not on how typical workers are doing. The fact is the inflation adjusted wages for non-management workers have declined in real terms since the end of the recession in November 2001. Why is it a mystery that workers who have not had a real rise in wages in four years - and fear greater falls in their income if dislocated - aren't feeling real swell?

This is a place we should all pull together. Whether or not we can change the definition of growth to median family income, we should make shared prosperity our test for economic success. We need to both be louder champions for policies that spur economic growth and wealth creation, but we should also be adamant that our test for constitutes successful economy policy is not GDP per se, but whether such growth lifts all boats.

Our debate here is not over whether we support looking at abstract macroeconomic indicators rather than the well-being of ordinary Americans: our debate is over the right recipe to make sure we are not only growing, but growing together.  I believe that we will do more for ordinary Americans if we are hard-headed and realistic about the inevitability of global competition and markets and try to use progressive policies to shape these forces to raise living standards for working families both here and in other nations.  I also think that if we are thoughtful in how we design our policies we can show that there are a range of crucial areas where growth and progressive values are essential to each other.

Those of us who have supported open markets must be willing to consider evidence of the downsides of global competition on wages and inequality - and be pragmatic in our policy responses. Yet, those who believe that increased global competition is almost by definition a negative for typical workers must at least be willing to analyze - and not distort what happened in the 1990s. Sirota distorts this picture by citing a Tampa Tribune article that includes statistics from the Center on Budget and Policy priorities which documented growth wage inequality from "the late 1970s" to the "mid-1990s"--not during the eight Clinton years. For those interested in the facts, here they are.

INCOMES GREW ACROSS THE BOARD

*    Every quintile of the income distribution, from the highest 20 percent to the lowest 20 percent, saw incomes increase from 1993-2000.

*    The bottom fifth saw the largest increase in real income growth of 24 percent--more than the 20 growth in the top quintile. This presented a sharp reversal from 1979-1993, when the top 20 percent gained 28 percent while those at the bottom saw their incomes actually decline by 13 percent.

*    Real median family income grew $7,396.

*    African-American families saw especially high income growth with real median family incomes increasing $8,966, a striking 33 percent increase.

Cite: US. Census Bureau, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States," 2004.

POVERTY FELL SIGNIFICANTLY

*    Overall poverty fell from 15.1% in 1993 to 11.3%  in 2000, the lowest since 1974.

*    African Americans and Hispanics poverty rates fell to record lows.  From 33.1%  to 22.5% for African Americans and from 30.6%  to 21.5%  for Hispanics.

*    The child poverty rate fell to its lowest point since 1978--from 22.7% in 1993 to 16.2 % in 2000.

Cite: US. Census Bureau, "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States," 2004

EMPLOYMENT GROWTH EXPLODED

*    From 1993 to 2000 the economy created 22.7 million new jobs. Monthly employment growth averaged 237,000 a month.

*    Unemployment plummeted from 7.3% in January 1993 to 3.9 percent in December 2000--including a record 42 month run under 5 percent.

*    African American unemployment dropped to a record low--from 14.1%  in January 1993 to 7.4 % in December 2000.  Hispanic unemployment also nearly halved, from 11.3%  in January 1993 to a record low 5.1% by October 2000.

Cite: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Those on the far right who want to strain and struggle to distort this period as a way of undercutting support for policies that combined progressive fiscal discipline with broad expansions of programs like the EITC and a doubling of Head Start, can perhaps take an afternoon off and go to the a movie matinee today knowing that there is apparently such a spirited effort within progressive ranks to promulgate such unfounded claims.  

What we should all agree with is that the falls in poverty, the drops in unemployment and the fact that the lowest-quintile saw significant gains was positive movement - though not nearly far enough. The fact that African American child poverty fell from a staggering 46% to 33% is progress, but make no mistake about it, 33% is still a national disgrace.

There is so much we could do from providing quality 0-5 pre-school for poor children to inspiring young children from disadvantaged backgrounds to seek and then complete a college education; so much we could do from encouraging our nation not to give up on those young minority males who have gone astray or by helping those with disabilities who lack the technological tools they need to get into the workforce; so much we could do to from expanding the EITC rewarding work model to expanding child care assistance and providing universal 401Ks to give every American a meaningful incentive to save. These are some of the ideas I encourage pro-growth progressives to champion and I wish we could spend a bit more time trying to work on promoting these type of pro-growth progressive policies - as opposed to simply having to set the record straight.