Economic Recovery and Increased Inequality

Pew Research documents how the wealthiest have benefited the most from the economic recovery from 2009 to 2011.

Update (May 5):  Les Leopold explains why this is no accident.

Update (May 12):  The United States is becoming more like the Third World.

Update (June 1):  The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reports that the average household has only recovered half of lost wealth in real terms.

Update (June 3):  Erika Eichelberger has more about the Federal Reserve report.

Update (June 14):  I believe the New York Times is giving more detail on that same report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.  Total household wealth has recovered since the beginning of the recession.  But average (mean) wealth is still down by 11 percent since the peak in 2007.  On the chart, that appears to be about half recovered from what was lost.  Note also that that average is $613,635 while the median household wealth is around one-sixth of that.

Update (August 25):  A Census report shows that while real household median income declined for the second year in 2011, the top quintile saw a gain.

Update (September 17):  The latest edition of the Census report above shows that real household median income in 2012 was not statistically different from 2011.  Nominal income declined for the fifth year.

Update (September 19):  Census reports on income and poverty data for individual states and cities.

Update (December 30):  A view of how share of total income has changed over 45 years.

Update (April 23, 2014):  The top 1 percent gained the most since 1979.

Update (December 24, 2014):  Another view of how income growth has changed during economic recoveries.  The dramatic change helps explain why many people feel like the country is still in a recession.

And Paul Waldman points out that Republicans aren't too keen on discussing the lack of income growth for most workers.

400 ppm

Hourly averages for carbon dioxide concentration at the Mauna Loa observatory reached 400 parts per million for the first time earlier this month.

Update (April 30):  The 400 ppm milestone is the highest concentration in about 3 million years.

Update (May 10):  The daily average has now reached 400 ppm for the first time.  George Monbiot calls it a reflection of a profound failure of politics.  The world was a much different place 3 million years ago.

Update (March 18, 2014):  This year carbon dioxide concentration has already touched 400 ppm with a peak in May expected to bring the first monthly average above 400 ppm.

Update (May 15, 2014):  April was in fact the first month to average 400 ppm.

Update (June 29, 2014):  A study by Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago emphasizes the priority of reducing carbon dioxide emissions over other greenhouse gases.

Update (July 1, 2014):  June now makes three months averaging over 400 ppm.

Update (May 6, 2015):  This past March is the first month to average 400 ppm worldwide.  It seems that April 2014 was for the Northern hemisphere.

Update (May 11, 2016):  Soon, the planet will never go below 400 ppm ever again.

Update (September 27, 2016):  September is usually the annual minimum for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and this month has not dropped below 400 ppm. We will never go below that threshold ever again.

Debt vs. Growth

I first saw this a couple days ago, but forgot about it.  And I still need to look at more closely.  It seems that a highly cited paper from 2010 has been used to justify government austerity--that large debt stifles growth.  But a new paper disputes some the methodology and uncovered an Excel coding error that reverses the conclusion of the original paper.  Funny how the numbers can turn on you like that.

Update (April 22):  Follow up articles:  Using bad data, economics isn't an exact science, and Thomas Herndon is the graduate student who caught the Excel error.

Update (April 26):  Links to the original authors' responses and Krugman's take.  Also Colbert.

Update (April 30):  Austerity is a failure.

Political Dysfunction

Jonathan Bernstein responds to an essay by Rick Hasen which considers whether constitutional change is needed to fix a broken political system.  Hasen concludes that the current problems are temporary.  But Bernstein makes the case that polarization isn't the source of the dysfunction, but rather it is the Republican Party itself that has become dysfunctional.

Update (April 13):  Rick Perlstein writes about the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Update (April 24):  Evidence that Republicans are no longer interested in public policy.

Update (April 13, 2014):  Mark Sumner at DailyKos reacts to a Ross Douthat column complaining about the "elitism" of academics:

No matter how you might wish it, academia is not going to accept climate change denials on the same level as climate scientists who point out the danger. They're not going to accept creationism as equivalent to evolution. They're not going to buy into fantasies that paint every Muslim as a violent terrorist. They're not going to accept that homosexuals are inherently evil or inherently deserving of fewer rights than heterosexuals. That's not because academia has a secret code of liberalism. It's because academia has a very open and public adherence to evidence. to facts, to reality. So long as conservative means "in denial of the basic facts about the world" you can bet it will find little purchase at serious universities.

Diversity does not mean that falsehoods are given the same weight as facts.  And if in your mind "elite" means "stubbornly clings to facts," I can live with that.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  And yet when people speak out against injustice as documented by an historical record, someone like Bill O'Reilly will belittle them as part of a "grievance industry".

Update (April 15, 2014):  Anecdotes become facts and intolerance of bigots becomes "liberal fascism".

Update (April 19, 2014):  When scientific consensus threatens your worldview, having more information generally leads to rationalizing what you already believe.  You have two choices: either accept the consensus (and change a part of how you identify yourself) or declare the consensus a conspiracy to create a hoax. Contradictory evidence is now just part of the conspiracy.  It explains more than science can because coherence and consistency aren't required.

Update (May 2, 2014):  Are conservatives "crazy"?

Update (May 17, 2014):  Amanda Marcotte analyzes five right wing delusions.  And Paul Krugman (refering to climate change) adds that "truly crazy positions are becoming the norm".

Update (June 20, 2014):  Amanda Marcotte claims rationality has become a partisan issue.

Low Paying Jobs are Most Common

Middle class jobs are disappearing and more low paying jobs are being created.  All but nursing are below the national average of $45,790.

Employment & wages for largest U.S. occupations

Occupation	U.S. employment	2012 annual mean wage
Retail salesperson	4,340,000	$25,310
Cashier	3,314,010	$20,370
Food prep worker	2,943,810	$18,720
Office clerk	2,808,100	$29,270
Registered nurse	2,633,980	$67,930
Waiter	2,332,020	$20,710
Customer service representative	2,299,750	$33,110
Laborer	2,143,940	$26,410
Janitor/cleaner	2,097,380	$24,850
Secretary/administrative assistant	2,085,680	$33,560

Update (July 19):  McDonald's caught some flak for putting out a sample budget for their employees. Also, Walmart employees share their stories.

Update (July 21):  More about those low, low wages at McDonald's and Walmart.

Update (July 24):  This might be more realistic advice for employees.

Update (July 28):  Steven Greenhouse reports on efforts to raise wages.

Update (August 3):  Jobs are being created, but a disproportionate number are part-time or/and low paying.

Update (August 8):  Sean McElwee points out that many moral choices involve tradeoffs for the kinds of society we want to live in.

[E]ven if were some businesses to fail, unemployment rose and prices increased, a higher minimum wage could still be an acceptable policy.  We must ask ourselves whether we want to live in a society when the poorest working people cannot afford to purchase basic necessities. Or, put differently, should a business that cannot afford to pay its workers enough to survive be allowed to exist, grow, and prosper?

Update (September 1):  Shawn Gude writes about how the living wage bill in Washington, DC highlights the conflict between capitalism and democracy.

Update (September 12):  The mayor of Washington, DC vetoed the living wage bill.

Update (September 17):  The Washington, DC city council failed to override the veto.

Update (November 19):  A proposal for paying Walmart employees a living wage.

Update (December 30, 2014):  The U.S. leads the world for the largest share of low-paying jobs.

Permanent Inequality

Income inequality has been rising in the United States.  A paper submitted to the Brookings Panel on Economic Activity analyzes tax returns from 1987 to 2009 to show that changes in inequality are increasingly permanent rather than transitory.  This means it is harder for someone to bounce back from a bad year for income.

In his book Applied Economics, Thomas Sowell cited statistics from 1991 in support of income mobility.  An important part of the American creed is the notion of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps.  The new paper suggests this may no longer be as easy as it might have been. Editor and University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers is quoted:

The rich are getting richer and staying richer.  The poor are getting poorer and staying poorer.

Iraq

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq by the United States.  The hysteria following the September 11th attacks provided the cover for a war that had been planned since the very start of George W. Bush's administration.

In a sane world, Bush at the very least would have been defeated for re-election or else impeached and convicted in Congress.  But none have been held accountable for this crime.

Update (March 23):  Well deserved snark from the sharpest blogger around.  And Glenn Greenwald reacts to former Bush speechwriter David Frum's admission that oil was a major factor behind starting the war.

Update (March 28):  Dahr Jamail reports on how Iraqis view their future.  Larry Everest lists some grim statics from the war.

Update (January 3, 2014):  The year 2013 was the deadliest for Iraq since the peak violence of 2008. Over 9000 civilians and security forces were killed last year.

Update (June 10, 2014):  Deaths continue to rise and insurgents seized control of Mosul.

Update (June 13, 2014):  I'm not going to link to someone's suggestion that it was a mistake to withdraw from Iraq.  No, the mistake was invading in the first place.  From Jay Bookman:

The ignorance, callous indifference and arrogance of [the war] strategy continues to boggle the mind. And now, 11 years later, with chaos descending, there is almost nothing that we can do to stop or contain it.

Update (June 18, 2014):  Patrick Smith analyzes the failure of U.S. policy and concludes that the only solution is a negotiated political settlement among all parties.

The reality may again seem grim, but we ought to know by now there is grim and grimmer.

Update (July 11, 2016):  The Chilcot report is critical of British involvement in the Iraq War, but makes no conclusion on legality.

Heather Digby Parton reminds us that George W. Bush lied constantly about justification for the war.

There were many large and small lies for months on end. My personal favorite is a small one but it’s the one that best illustrates the “you can believe me or you can believe your lyin’ eyes” tactic. In July of 2003, President Bush said this:

“[W]e gave [Saddam Hussein] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power….”

This is completely wrong. Hussein did let U.N. weapons inspectors in, and they failed to find any weapons. The administration withdrew them so they could begin the invasion.

Calvin Exoo says the report doesn't nearly go far enough and contrasts what was said with what was known at the time. One example:

What they said: Saddam Hussein is "aggressively seeking nuclear weapons" (Cheney). Iraq attempted to acquire aluminum tubes that were "only really suited for nuclear weapons development" (Condoleeza Rice). The US has "irrefutable evidence" that the tubes were destined for centrifuges (Cheney). "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" (Rice).

What they knew: Department of Energy scientists had concluded that these tubes were the wrong size for centrifuges, but were the proper size for conventional, non-WMD rockets. Post-war CIA inspectors concluded that, indeed, the tubes had been used for this purpose and were, in inspectors' words, "innocuous."

And Juan Cole is clear that this wasn't just about lies or that the outcome was a disaster. This was an illegal war.

[I]t is the [United Nations] Security Council that decides if an international trouble spot should be responded to by war. The Chilcot Report shows that George W. Bush had no intention of even seeking a UNSC authorization, and Tony Blair was among those (along with then Secretary of State Colin Powell) who convinced Bush that just falling on Iraq with no pretense of an international process would look bad.

Some would argue that sometimes in the real world the UNSC gets hung up because of the veto of the 5 permanent members, and you have to go around it. But in this case, Bush couldn’t even get NATO to want to go around it. There was no consensus. Bush met with Blair and the Portuguese and Spanish presidents before launching his war, because apparently those were the only European countries he could find to support him.

So that’s it. You don’t need anything else. The Iraq War was an act of pure aggression, no different in moral or legal standing from Hitler’s invasion of Poland. That is what Bush and Blair made themselves. Small Hitlers, betraying all the hopes of the generation of 1945, which dreamed of forestalling further such atrocities.

The Bush-Blair war of aggression in turn authorized many others, and other countries have sometimes openly cited the Iraq War as justification for their own belligerence, or as proof that the West lacks legitimacy when it criticizes the aggression of others. To the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, the millions wounded or displaced, must be added the toll from the “wars of choice” W. unleashed on the world.

Update (March 15, 2018):  Mel Goodman warns about the lessons of Iraq.

It is particularly important to do so at this time because [von Clownstick] has talked about a military option against North Korea or Iran (or Venezuela for that matter). Since there is no cause to justify such wars, it is quite likely that politicized intelligence would once again be used to provide a justification for audiences at home and abroad.

Update (March 18, 2018):  Medea Benjamin and Nicolas Davies estimate the Iraqi death toll over the past 15 years as 2.4 million people.