Capital Commerce

America's Phony Lost Decade

By James Pethokoukis

Posted: October 27, 2008

Is America headed for a "lost decade" of meager growth like Japan suffered during its banking and real estate meltdown in the 1990s? That's the big debate right now on Wall Street. Yet, in Washington, the common wisdom holds that America is already waist deep into a lost decade, one marked by stagnating wages, growing income inequality, and deteriorating economic fundamentals. That has been the liberal narrative of the Bush years, and now some conservatives have begun to buy into the critique. "Even before the Wall Street crisis, the American economy had underperformed from the point of view of the average worker," former Bush speechwriter and pundit David Frum wroterecently.

At best, this narrative is historical fiction. Take the bit about wage stagnation. Indeed, the real average hourly wage for workers, as calculated by the Labor Department, is just 1.2 percent more than it was at the end of 2000. Yet many economists, including those at the Federal Reserve, think the government is overestimating inflation by nearly a full percentage point. If true, then workers have actually seen wages rise by about 10 percent since 2000. And you don't even have to tweak the inflation data if you combine wages, salaries, and benefits, as does economic analyst Ed Yardeni. Doing that, he finds that workers are 11 percent to the better since January 2001.

Consumption equality. Of course, averages may mask growing income inequality, where middle incomes are flat, lower incomes falling, and higher incomes surging. And assuredly there are loads of data showing that people with high-skill, high-education careers (like engineers and attorneys) and careers that benefit from globalization (NBA players, CEOs) have been raking it in.

But how rich you are depends on both how much you make and how much the goods you buy cost, note economists John Romalis and Christian Broda of the University of Chicago. And they recently found that official income inequality statistics fail to take into account that lower-income Americans tend to consume more inexpensive, Asian-produced goods. The China price doesn't rise as fast as the Prada price. In short, Wal-Mart bargain hunters have a lower inflation rate than the reality-show celebrities pillaging the stores on Rodeo Drive. Those differing inflation rates negate "almost all the rise in [wage] inequality," says Romalis.

Now, none of this upbeat number crunching about the '00s means the next president won't inherit a lousy short-term economic situation. But the long-term fundamentals continue to be solid. The World Economic Forum recently ranked the U.S. economy as the world's most competitive, thanks to our innovation, flexible labor markets, and higher education. (Our biggest weaknesses included tax rates—numero uno—and an inefficient government bureaucracy.) Those high-return assets, along with what economist Tim Kane calls our "entrepreneurial culture," give America what the Japanese call sokojikara, or "deep strength." And that reserve power—along with some timely financial action by the bailout firm of Paulson & Bernanke—is why America won't have a lost decade.

What's the point?

I don't understand your point when you say that the fact that richer people buy more expensive goods negates growing inequality. And not everyone is earning wages, salaries, and benefits, and certainly those that we'd be concerned about are not. You've also not taken into account whether there's an increase in the cost of living, which is definitely the case if for no other reason than increased gas and food prices.

You put out on the table a lot of arguments, but I don't see any coherent point that you're trying to make with them. I don't think the economy is as bad as critics say, but that doesn't mean you can paper over it's weaknesses.

robocaller of CA @ Oct 29, 2008 23:28:04 PM

No Triumphalism

I would not trumpet America's wonderful free market economy. For one thing, whenever there is a problem such as the housing bust or expensive health care, market skeptics (aka socialists!) say it was caused by the unjust free market and call for government intervention to fix the problem. In other words, this argument plays right into their hands. The second problem is the actual reality that we have too much government intervention and that is causing a drag on our prosperity.

Liberty Lover of NY @ Oct 28, 2008 12:51:04 PM

WHAT IS YOUR MEANING OF "SHORT-TERM" ECONOMIC SITUATION. THAT IS A VERY GENERIC PHRASE WHICH DOES NOT ADD ANY INSIGHT. HOW ABOUT A "LOST" FIVE YEARS?

of IL @ Oct 28, 2008 11:12:03 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

Capital Commerce

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!