kaus files dot com logo

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

Infighting on the Left: Was the '90s Boom a Bust?

Never trust content from Robert Reich ...


Posted Monday, April 23, 2001


"The dirtiest little secret about the Roaring '90s is that average working families gained almost no income." -- Robert Reich, Los Angeles Times, April 19, 2001

"During the 1990's, we discovered the virtuous cycle created when unemployment drops sharply. ... It turns out that rising incomes for people in the middle and at the bottom of the economy have all sorts of positive social spinoffs." -- E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, April 20, 2001
Which "progressive" Democratic op-edsman is right? Can it really be that the '90s were a bust for average Americans? No. In any dispute about facts, it's always sound policy to bet against Robert Reich, and this is no exception.

        Reich cites Internal Revenue Service statistics (presented here) to the effect that between 1986 and 1997, "the average income of the bottom 90% of Americans rose just 1.6% to $23,815" after income taxes, and after adjusting for inflation. The trouble, of course, is that the "Roaring '90s" boom went on well past 1997--indeed, it may still be going on. The boom's dirty little secret, if there is one, isn't that workers at the bottom of the income scale didn't benefit from years of low unemployment. It's that it took them a long time to start benefiting. The boom began early in the decade, but the bargaining power created by a tight labor market apparently didn't begin to translate into sharply higher incomes until around 1996 or 1997, as this Census table suggests. By excluding1998, 1999, and 2000, Reich excludes the main "roaring" years. According to the Census figures, for example, families in the bottom 80 percent gained 5 or 6 percent, after inflation, in just the two years of 1998 and 1999.

        Reich says 1997 was "the latest year for which detailed Internal Revenue Service data are available," but that's no excuse. Other data was available, and Reich (who served four years as President Clinton's Secretary of Labor) surely knew what his early cutoff was hiding. Indeed, this is an atypically sleazy use of statistics for him. Usually, his errors are mistaken examples of a genuine trend he's spotted. Reich once argued, for example, that American-owned companies don't necessarily create American jobs, claiming that Motorola designed its cellular phones in Malaysia while Honda actually exported 50,000 cars from the United States to Asia. It turned out Motorola designed its phones in Illinois and Honda exported fewer than 15,000 cars--but that was a relatively small matter. The general point was still valid: American companies were shifting work overseas. If Reich's facts weren't true, they would be soon enough--Motorola will probably design cell phones in Malaysia one of these days! In this sense, Reich was right even when he was wrong.

        But here, Reich's deception means he gets the larger trend wrong too--as Dionne notes, low unemployment eventually paid off for average workers. That means Reich is also wrong when he argues the boom must end because "typical American consumers"--having never benefited from it--can't have any more money to spend.

        If the boom keeps going, of course, even Reich may be forced to acknowledge that something happened after 1997. Like 1998.

        Update: Reich recycles his "dirtiest little secret" line in the Washington Post this morning. But this time he says that 1998, not 1997, is "the latest year for which detailed IRS data are available." Hmmm. Did the 1998 numbers suddenly become available in the four days between Reich's two op-ed pieces? (No, they've been available here since February.) And if Reich now has the 1998 income numbers for average families, why doesn't he give them in his latest piece? Because the 1998 number, as expected, shows a big jump in the income of the bottom 90 percent--a 3.9 percent increase (in real, inflation-adjusted dollars) in a single year, bringing the total gain since 1989 to 5.2 percent. Add in the expected increases from 1999 and 2000, and the very IRS statistics Reich cites will vitiate his claim of "almost no income" gain.

        New E-mail service: Sign up, using the ListBot gizmo below, and you will be notified by e-mail whenever there's a new item on kausfiles.com. [Note: this service is free. You'll be asked a couple of demographic questions; if you find them annoying just leave them unanswered.]

Join the kausfiles.com mailing list!
Enter your email address below,
then click the 'Join List' button:
Powered by ListBot

Is Robert Wright a Marxist?

posted 03.20.00

        Recently archived:

        They Don't Pay kausfiles Enough to Read This Series! Series-SkipperTM earns its paycheck.

        The Curse of the Opel, cont. The plot to kill Saturn is working.

        The Tao of D.C. The secret wisdom of Washington's influence-peddlers revealed!

        Run, Joe, Run! The journalist who should run for mayor in New York.

        Will Sex Save Bill Clinton? Now it's his enemies who don't want him caught cheating. ...

        Yet Another Rich Theory Plus: Ann Powers' pretentious Britney-crit! ...

        Shaw Must Go On! Series-SkipperTM grunches the LAT's Pulitzer-winning pontificator. ...

        The Post's Deadly "Deadlock" Introducing the kausfiles' Series-SkipperTM service. ...

        Why It's OK to be Shocked by Mr. Clinton's Recent Misbehavior He was always shameless. This is new. ...

        The Miami Herald Blows Its Pulitzer Why count only the "undervotes"?

        The Haiku Are Back! The controversy-plagued "hit poem" contest returns.

        Are Pregnant Chad Liberal? Compassion for ballot bump-makers.

        Cheney: Cheerleader for OPEC Let those Yankees in key Midwest battleground states freeze in the dark!

        Rehnquist's Scandalous Shmatte Did he deduct that $30,000 robe?

        Special Re-Flogging Edition More on WaPo's hypocritical critic.

        Looking for Mr. Good Death Mickey's Assignment Desk #8.

        Crosswired Politics Why the parties are trading places on some issues.

        Kuttner's Poor Statistics Have child poverty rates 'scarcely moved'?

        Drew's Cluelessness Please don't let her anywhere near the First Amendment.

        Now She's Done It Maybe that nice centrist Mrs. Clinton really is against welfare reform.

        Boomers Against Death The shift against the death penalty isn't necessarily a shift to the left.

        Clean Sheets The case for selling the Lincoln Bedroom.

        Faster Politics Why 'momentum' ain't what it used to be.

        Jeffrey Toobin, Chicken! Fifth of a series.

        Jeffrey Toobin, Hypocrite, Part III! How dare Isikoff write a book, says Toobin in his book.

        Jeffrey Toobin, Hypocrite 'Tawdry voyeurism,' anyone?

        DeParle Gets Half the Story The NYT doesn't tell us what we need to know about Milwaukee's poor.

        Bill Clinton Wants You on Welfare! Is this the dole administration after all?

        The Pornographer Who Didn't Bark Why wouldn't Flynt bust Newt?

        Yes, There Are Easy Answers! The NYT and WaPo find a quick fix for affirmative action.

        Who Stole Nissan's Cojones? Jerry Hirshberg'a got a lot of ... chutzpah!

        The Ending of the Black Underclass, Part XVIII African-American welfare receipt falls to new low.

        Is Daniel Patrick Moynihan the Devil? A review of the evidence to date.

        Maybe Bush Didn't Snort Coke -- Maybe He Dropped Acid! One solution to the Bush drug mystery.

        George Bush, Drug Pioneer? Bush's pharmacological time-line seems a little ... out of the mainstream.

        Will Tina Fire Lucinda? Talk and truth.

Copyright 2001 Mickey Kaus.

In Association with Amazon.com