|
Actually he didn't complain about his lack of access to data, but he probably should have given the column he wrote today. Brooks purports to lecture the Occupy Wall Street crew about how they are focused on the wrong inequality.
He tells them that that there are two inequalities in the U.S. On the one hand we have the CEOs, the Goldman Sachs crew, the lobbyists and the other members of the one percent who have done incredibly well in the last three decades. Brooks calls this the "blue inequality" since the really rich crew tends to live in places like New York City and Washington, DC that tend to vote Democratic.
Brooks tells us that this is less of a big deal than the red inequality, which he defines as the gap between college educated workers and those without a college degree. He tells us that this is the more important form of inequality. He tells us that this is a much bigger issue, since it affects so many more people.
This is where Brooks lack of access to data is so important. The wage gap between college grads and non-college grads is really a 90s story and even more an 80s story. In the last decade, workers with only a college degree (i.e. no professional or advanced degree) did not share in the benefits of economic growth. The ratio of the wages of those with just college degrees to those without college degrees has not risen much since the early 90s.
Wages of non-college educated workers did suffer badly in the 80s due to policies such as the over-valuation of the dollar that made many U.S. manufactured goods uncompetitive internationally, the deliberate increase in unemployment during the Volcker years which threw millions of non-college educated workers out of work, and anti-union measures (e.g. the firing of the PATCO strikers and an anti-union National Labor Relations Board). However since the 90s, the wages of workers with high school degrees have not departed much from the wages of workers with just college degrees, the vast majority of the economy's gains have gone to the top 1 percent. It is too bad that David Brooks apparently does not have access to this data.
(Only one link allowed per comment)
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
In today's piece, Brooks floats a trial balloon argument.
He asserts that the effects of Republican generated inequality are profoundly different in Red states than in Blue states. When we speak of federal tax breaks for the rich that generate deficits, the state of residence is irrelevant to both the 1% and the 99%. The federal tax laws apply in every state.
Brooks argues that Red state voters and Blue state voters are affected differently by inequality. Blue state voters face primarily economic consequences while Red state voters face primarily social consequences. The thrust of his argument is that while Blue state voters may benefit from addressing the economic issues, Red state voters will realize benefits only by addressing social issues.
As Dean points out, Brooks stresses the inequality between college graduates and high school graduates in Red states is more worrisome than the Blue state inequality. The purpose of this suggestion is two-fold. First, Brooks wants college graduates in Red states to identify with the 1%. Second Brooks wants those college graduates to feel threatened by Democratic initiatives to reduce inequality.
Of course, he offers no data to support his arguments. To offer data is a Democratic approach to argument and not a conservative, Republican approach.
This trial balloon seeks to define a basis for perpetuating the Republican tactic of rewarding the 1% with tax and economic benefits, while distracting and dividing the 99% with wedge social issues. The Republicans cannot hope to capture the White House such a division.