Once More for the Road
At the risk of overstaying my welcome in The Book Club, I have to respond quickly to Daniel's latest. Yes, Daniel, I agree that--as I said in my first post--young idealists have to give up more now than they did in the past. I'll also add that they have to give up more than young idealists in other countries. What we disagree on is a host of your other claims and on whether it's that big a problem that young idealists have to give up more now than in the past or than they would in other countries.
This is where the difference between empiricism and journalism really is important, protestations aside. For example, health care is not less attainable than in the past, broadly speaking. Viewed in historical perspective, the likelihood of being without insurance has been more or less flat the past 25 years, increasing a bit, but far lower today than even the mid-1970s (google "National Health Interview Study" and "series 10" and you can find a bunch of reports with the relevant numbers).
And despite your claim that my head must be in the sand, it is not at all obvious that people are more squeezed than they were a generation ago. The middle class has shrunk more because people have gotten richer than because they have gotten poorer. Household incomes in the middle are up since the early 1970s--after accounting for inflation--though they've not grown as much as in earlier decades. The economic story for women has been almost uniformly positive since the 1970s or 1980s (claims that the increase in female labor force participation are involuntary never actually cite systematic evidence on that score, and female labor force participation is up around the world). The story for men has been less positive, but the typical male worker (the one in the middle) is no worse off in terms of wages and salary than in the past, and better off in terms of total compensation. The economy has disappointed the past 6 or 7 years, but it comes on the heels of one of the best economic periods in decades. There's no telling which period the future will resemble.
In fact, Daniel, your book shines a light on two of the very few economic trends that are going in the wrong direction -- growing debt burden among the young, and inequality. But when you throw everything against the canvas, and a lot of it doesn't stick, it undermines your claims about the paint that does stick.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not a Pollyanna. General trends aside, we should be doing a lot more to help the poor, those with few opportunities, those with catastrophic costs, and those who are sick. Trends among the least-educated Americans really are worrisome. But I care about these problems for reasons having little to do with the plight of college graduates who intentionally choose careers that will force compromises.
I'm not asking for a 10-point plan -- indeed, if the evidence informing the plan is wrong, the plan may even be counterproductive. That's why one should care about whether the economics are right, even if it makes for a less exciting read or an awkward Book Club.
Scott,
First, I wasn't trying to be mean with that "head in the sand" comment. I'm glad you're taking the time to engage with the book. But I feel like you have some ideas in the recent Third Way report on the middle-class so entrenched in your mind, that you're not being open to my ideas.
I'm not saying that middle-class professions are paid less than they used to be, but that the explosion of wealth at the top makes those salaries buy less leading to "squeeze" and a shift in career choice among some very talented and committed people, which has broad repurcussions for our politics and culture. And it's not so much that fewer people are going to college or have healthcare (though those numbers are rising modestly too) it's that the costs of these things is really shaping people's decisions in ways that are not necessarily in the best interests of either them or society. It is why we have such low levels of self-employment even though we're an incredibly entrepreneurship-minded people and why public service has become a stint rather than a career even though we're more service-oriented than we've been in decades.
We need to really take on the new inequality at both ends if we're to have any hope of letting America be America again.
-Daniel
October 18, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Almost everything you've said in this piece is wrong. Point by point:
(1) "For example, health care is not less attainable than in the past, broadly speaking." False. Looked at the escalating *price* of insurance, or the trend to limit choice of doctors, or "approved formularies", or "pre-approval"? All brand new in the past 20 years. You ignored them. *Crappy* or *illusory* health care is still as attainable as before; *decent* health care is far less attainable. (Yes, the definition of "decent" has gone up; but it *should* go up as science advances.)
(2) "The middle class has shrunk more because people have gotten richer than because they have gotten poorer. Household incomes in the middle are up since the early 1970s" That's a bizarre time to use as a baseline, because the 1970s were a progressive period (the last one), and because relative income equality usually gains during inflationary periods like the 1970s.
Try using 1980 or 1982 as a baseline. Or 2000. Then come back and see if you can still claim significant improvements in median income. (Conditions are, as you say, better for women in the workforce, of course; the continuing gains of feminism do counterweigh against the general economic trends.)
(3) "The economy has disappointed the past 6 or 7 years, but it comes on the heels of one of the best economic periods in decades." Relevance? This was also true in the early 1930s, coming on the heels of the 1920s -- and disturbingly, the "good" period had most of the same features of the 1920s (massive expansion of credit and consumer debt, lax regulation of credit, etc.).
(Well, Daniel answers more politely than I in the above comment, but points out some of the same things you seem to be missing.)
October 18, 2007 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, your piece is still ticking me off -- hope you don't mind reading one more criticism, because this is a big one.
"whether it's that big a problem that young idealists have to give up more now than in the past or than they would in other countries."
Yes, it is. Think about it economically. The *price of idealism* has been raised, as has the *price of being an artist*, the *price of volunteer work*, the *price of civil service*, the *price of political service*, etc.
When the price goes up, people buy less of it. So we get *less volunteerism*, *less idealism*, *less art*, *fewer politicians dedicated to what they believe in*, etc. This destroys our culture.
In contrast, when the price goes down, we get more. More civil society, more culture.
This is a huge issue. The middle-class support system which makes it possible for idealists to live at least some of their idealism is what made it possible for people to end slavery, promote women's rights, etc, etc.
October 19, 2007 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
neroden,
You should check your vitriol, because I do this for a living, and you're wrong.
On (1), out-of-pocket costs for consumers have increased, but at a much slower pace than public and employer spending on health care. Private employers paid 77% of their employees' premiums 20 years ago and pay 73% today. At any rate costs are incontrovertibly lower when people are insured and access incontrovertibly greater, so the reduction in the uninsured from about 25% of the population in the mid-'60s to about 20% in the mid-70s, to about 15% today trumps any restrictions insurance plans impose today.
on (2), your objection to using the 1970s for a baseline for my income growth claim makes no sense -- the '70s were a lousy decade economically (google "stagflation"). Most people use the early 1970s as a baseline because it's when things started to go to hell (i.e., it was a high-water mark). But, OK, if you want to use some other year as a benchmark, see this chart by the liberal, union-funded Economic Policy Institute -- http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/01/SWA06_Fig1D.jpg. Since 2000, no, things haven't been great, but of course I conceded that in my post and argued why that's not the best comparison point.
On (3), another incontrovertible fact is that both booms and busts have become shallower in recent decades (google "Karen Dynan"). Can I prove that another Great Depression isn't around the corner? No--the future is unknowable. But why assume it is? The fact remains, you and I have no way of knowing whether the 2001-2007 period will be viewed as atypical or typical of the next 25 years.
October 19, 2007 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Viewed in historical perspective, the likelihood of being without insurance has been more or less flat the past 25 years, increasing a bit, but far lower today than even the mid-1970s (google "National Health Interview Study" and "series 10" and you can find a bunch of reports with the relevant numbers).
I guess it depends on what you mean by "more or less flat." I found numbers here, from 1986-88, that show the % of uninsured was 13-14 percent. 30 million or so people, instead of 47 million or so today.
So, sure, statistically, it's "flat." But it's still another 10-15 million people since the late 1980's without healthcare. That's troubling.
Besides -- who cares if it's 13 or 15, or 20 or 25 percent uninsured?
Other countries -- it's ZERO.
The real problem here isn't in the minutiae of statistics -- it's that we pay much more for health care than every other country, and yet we're not nearly as healthy as others. And everyone in every other Western nation is covered.
We're the outliers here, still clinging to our outdated, capitalistic system. Splitting hairs about whether 20% or 15% of the population not having health care is an improvement.
October 19, 2007 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink