[Mb-civic] What Democrats Miss in Bushonomics - Sebastian Mallaby -
Washington Post Op-Ed
William Swiggard
swiggard at comcast.net
Mon Jan 9 03:58:19 PST 2006
What Democrats Miss in Bushonomics
By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, January 9, 2006; A19
The Bush-Cheney combo doesn't do humble, but on Iraq it's at least
pretending to reach out to its critics. Meanwhile on the economy, the
duo has gone into chest-thumping overdrive, seizing the latest news on
the housing-fueled expansion to say what brilliant boys they are.
"It's getting pretty hard for the critics to make the case that somehow
these tax cuts weren't good for the economy," the vice president said
Friday. Well, how about the fact that no less a critic than Greg Mankiw,
the administration's very own chief economist until recently, attacked
don't-tax-but-do-spend economics in a Wall Street Journal column three
days earlier?
Of course, attacking Bushonomics is too easy, like shooting a lame duck.
So I want to focus instead on Democrats' response to the Bush
chest-thumping. For, much as on the Iraq war, Democrats are muddled.
They are letting the administration off the hook.
Faced with strong growth, full employment and a productivity miracle,
Democrats insist that something is profoundly wrong. Responding to
President Bush's economic speech on Friday, the Senate's top Democrat
complained that "the benefits of economic growth still have not reached
many hardworking middle-class families."
Sorry, but that's only half right. It's true that wages have done badly.
But in five of the past six years, average compensation -- that is,
wages plus benefits -- has risen faster than inflation, according to the
Labor Department's Employment Cost Index. The exception was last year,
and that was mainly because high oil prices caused an unexpected
inflationary spurt.
When Democrats talk about a middle-class squeeze, they mean more than
wages; they mean the quality of jobs. As my colleague Harold Meyerson
put it last week
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010301275.html>
, corporations used to "impart a structure to people's work lives." But
now workers must contend with "a brave new world of short-term employment."
This complaint sounds plausible, but the evidence for it is slight. In a
1998 paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, Ann Huff
Stevens picked through two sets of data going back to the 1970s. She
concluded that job insecurity had risen temporarily around 1990 but that
old patterns of tenure had probably returned. In a new bureau paper last
month, Stevens compared men who neared retirement in 1969 with men doing
so in 2002. In both groups, just over half had been with a single
employer for at least 20 years -- hardly evidence that things are
getting worse.
Perhaps workers face more pressure, even if they're not being fired?
Corporations may be ever more productive, according to this theory, but
this comes at the expense of workers who are forced to sacrifice
work-life balance.
Again, this theory is plausible -- and wrong. In a paper to be released
today, a trio at the London School of Economics -- Nick Bloom, Tobias
Kretschmer and John Van Reenen -- sort through a hard drive's worth of
data on 732 manufacturing firms in the United States and Europe,
assessing their policies on work hours, vacation, assistance for child
care and so on. Then they test whether the most fiercely productive
companies in their sample treat workers badly. They find no such
correlation.
In sum, sweeping complaints about the "new economy" are a bad bet for
Democrats. The numbers on wages and compensation present a mixed
picture; there's little real evidence that jobs are less stable or
workplaces harsher. And it's not just that the gloomy claims are
debatable. Often the prescriptions they lead to are wrong.
For example, the suspicion that superefficient firms tend to treat their
workers harshly leads some Democrats to support trade protectionism, on
the theory that dampening competition will create space for gentler
management. Less competition might help a few declining industries, but
it wouldn't change treatment of employees in the bulk of the economy:
Companies have to balance the goal of retaining talent with the
imperative of cost control, and erecting a protective wall around them
won't change the optimal trade-off. The main consequence of
protectionism is to remove a spur to productivity gains, harming the
economy in the long run.
Rather than worry about a middle-class squeeze, Democrats should home in
on two clearer problems. First, the Bush tax cuts have put the federal
government on an unsustainable footing. Running a large budget deficit
-- arguably, any budget deficit -- is recklessly imprudent when a
roaring economy should be delivering a surplus and when baby boomers are
on the eve of retirement.
Second, although the squeeze on the middle class may be exaggerated, the
squeeze on the unskilled is not. While finding that job stability has
barely declined in the economy as a whole, Stevens reports that there
has been such a decline for older and less educated workers. While
finding no correlation between productivity and tough treatment of
workers, the London School of Economics trio reports a correlation
between how well workers get treated and how skilled they are.
Democrats should focus their complaints on these two problems,
particularly since the obvious solution is politically convenient. To
begin grappling with the budget deficit, the nation must repeal most of
the Bush tax cuts; to grapple with inequality, it should begin by making
the tax system more progressive -- which would again mean rolling back
some of the Bush cuts. In his Post column, Meyerson mused about the need
to "alter the terms of capitalism." But what's really needed is to alter
who's in the White House: a much easier challenge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/08/AR2006010801166.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060109/3b25ebcb/attachment.htm
More information about the Mb-civic
mailing list