Surprises From 25 Years Covering the Economy
The surprise comes from a respectable reporter of the WSJ - David Wessel - in his farewell column:
I arrived in the Washington bureau of The Wall Street Journal shortly after the stock-market crash of 1987.. Looking back over that quarter century, four surprises stand out:
That the American middle class hasn't done better
In a 1998 book, my colleague Bob Davis and I argued the U.S. was on the cusp of an era of broadly shared prosperity that would boost the middle class. We were wrong. We correctly saw the potential of information technology, but we expected the gap between winners and losers to narrow. It didn't. Output of goods and services per person has grown by about 45% since 1987. That's substantial, but the percentage increase is only half the 90% increase of the preceding 26 years (1961-1987).
For folks in the middle, the past quarter century doesn't look so good. The cash income of the median family, the one at the statistical middle, barely kept up with inflation. Add in health insurance and other noncash benefits, and it has risen significantly more. But here's an arresting fact: Adjusted for inflation, the typical man who worked full-time made less in 2012 ($49,398) than his analog did in 1987 ($50,166). Because more women were educated and landed better-paying jobs, they did better: Median earnings rose 16%.
Where did the money go? Disproportionally to the better off, the best educated, the two-professional couples, the winners on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley. Technology and globalization favored the best-educated. The rise of finance paid some handsomely. Earnings of those at the top of almost every field rose faster than at the middle.
Different measures show differences in degree, but the trend is clear: The latest Census data show the share of pretax income going to the top 5% of families rose from 15.7% in 1962 to 17.2% in 1987 to 21.3% in 2012. Higher tax rates on the well-off and benefits aimed at the bottom damp the trend, but that wealth redistribution hasn't offset inequality-widening market forces.
That China has done so well
snip
That 9/11 didn't have a longer-lasting harmful economic impact
snip
That the U.S. was so vulnerable to a financial shock
snip
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304361604579292371446291660
(if you cannot open the link, copy and paste the title onto google)
= new reply since forum marked as read
is a pretty crappy economist.
IMHO, of course.
