Posted on 09/22/2004 11:19:11 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
I know many New York Times reporters and have always found them to be very good at their jobs, interested only in getting the story and getting it right. One that I don't know is Timothy Egan, who confirms most conservatives' perception of the Times as little more than a conduit for Democratic Party press releases.
On Aug. 28, Egan published an article in the Times titled, "Economic Squeeze Plaguing Middle-Class Families." I know that reporters don't write the headlines, but in this case it accurately describes the content of the article. Unfortunately, the content is deeply flawed. Indeed, it is doubtful that John Kerry's campaign staff would have written it much differently if it had been handed the assignment.
The central point of the article is that recently released Census Bureau data show the middle class is disappearing. The key data are presented in a chart accompanying the article, titled, "A Shrinking Middle Class." This chart shows that the percentage of those households with incomes between $25,000 and $75,000 have fallen from 51.9 percent in 1980 to 44.9 percent in 2003.
The clear implication is that the middle class has suffered under Republican policies -- why else start in 1980, the year Ronald Reagan was elected? If the chart had started in 1992, the year Bill Clinton was elected, it would have shown the exact same trend. In 1992, those earning between $25,000 and $75,000 constituted 47.9 percent of all households. By 2000, this fell to 46.1 percent. I don't remember the Times calling attention to this fact.
The reason is quite simple: This is actually good news, not bad news, as the Times report strongly implies.
First, it is important to know that the data in the Times story are adjusted for inflation. This is mentioned in a footnote to the chart, but nowhere else in the article. It might be useful to know that those with an income of $11,825 in 1980 now make $25,000, or that an income of $75,000 last year is the same as an income of $35,475 in 1980.
In other words, the data take account of increased prices on everything from gasoline to college tuition. Yet the article implies that increased costs for these things has taken place without a concomitant increase in household income. The effect is to make middle class families appear worse off, when in fact most are far better off than they were in 1980.
The most egregious error in the article is the clear implication that the percentage of those defined as the "middle class" has fallen because many of those who used to be considered middle class have become poor. This is totally untrue. In fact, the ranks of the poor have fallen along with those of the middle class.
Using the Times' characterization of any household with an income below $25,000 in 2003 as being poor, what do the data show? We see that this group fell from 33.1 percent of the population in 1980 to 29 percent in 2002. Looking at the data from the other end, we see that the percentage of those making more than $75,000 has risen from 14.9 percent of the population in 1980 to 26.1 percent in 2003.
In other words, the ranks of the poor and middle class have shrunk for one reason only -- more of them are rich! How can it not be a good thing for society that fewer people are now making low incomes and more are making high incomes?
Just to show that the income gains have not been confined to those who were relatively well-to-do to begin with, there has also been an impressive increase in the percentage of black families with middle- and upper-class incomes.
In 1980, 53.8 percent of black households made less that $25,000 (in 2003 dollars), which fell to 43.4 percent in 2003. The ranks of the black middle class ($25,000 to $75,000) increased from 40.5 percent to 42.9 percent. And the percentage of black families falling into the Times' definition of rich (over $75,000) rose from 5.8 percent to 13.7 percent.
The Times cites Factcheck.org, a website sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center, for its analysis. But I could find nothing on this site with the same figures. The closest thing I could find is an Aug. 3 report that actually disputes Kerry's claim that the middle class is withering away under Republican rule.
In short, the Times has played fast and loose with the numbers in order to turn good news into bad news. The fact that the article also repeatedly uses the term middle class "squeeze," which the Kerry campaign frequently hypes, is further evidence that the report is seriously biased.
Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Townhall.com member group.
New math?
Thanks
No, that would be your field. I made it through Calculus with an A- average. Clean your shoes boy.
Still waiting for your source for your 70% assertion.
I'm sure you are. Just as I'm waiting for you still to deal with the ethical considerations. Guess we'll both be waiting, huh.
No, real dollars means adjusted for inflation.
Because you're showing total growth - including that of the men at the top who now make 311 times what the average worker does. What happens to the numbers if you lop off the rich who got richer while the data from census shows middle class incomes dropping.
Well, since we're talking about median income, lopping off the rich would have a very small effect.
Suppose it might parallel the trend? I'm a math major.
Words almost fail me. You're more a comic than a math major.
I do understand how you can fudge numbers by diluting sample. You poll 9 guys who make 10 bucks an hour and your average is 10 bucks an hour. But if you bring in Bill gates to stand next to them, they suddenly have an average income in the billions. Amazing, huh.
Actually, Bill Gates has never probably never had an income in the billions. His money is all capital gains.
Making a profit is not unethical. You're not a liberation theologist? Right.
Game, set, match!!! Could it be that math major is unemployed because he has a penchant for overlooking critical details.
Null hypothesis: Havoc is equivalent to an intelligent human being
Alternate hypothesis: Havoc is not equivalent to an intelligent human being
Critical value: .01
Student t-score: 117
P-value: 0.000
Decision: Reject the null hypothesis
Conclusion: Within 99% certainty, there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that Havoc is indeed equivalent to an intelligent human being.
No, we just went through this earlier. What is the range shown for said graph?
Sure! Speaking of calculus, it appears that the derivative of your opinion accuracy in relation to time is quite a bit less that zero.
Would that mean something to the effect like: increasing the size of government in order to alter market outcomes and establishing welfare effects (through government tariff revenue) that don't nearly cover the total deadweight losses imposed by the tax? Just checking if this is what you mean by ethical.
UnEthical - you playing robin hood with people's jobs. And doing it in wartime = Treason.
Ethical - not intervening in the market to do the unethical or treasonous above for profit.
-
And an update.
http://www.send2press.com/PRnetwire/pr04_071602-bhcareers.shtml 71% concerned for their jobs.
http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2004/mar/17bpo1.htm 61% in march
http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/ArticleID/7994/7994.html here's Harris saying 64% against in May
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=453 Harris saying 68% against
Havoc is a man of many contradictions.
A math major who doesn't know the difference between mean and median.
A conservative Republican who wants larger government.
He'll be back. Nothing stops these people. Nothing.
Thanks!
As far as those links that you posted...good job, it was about time! And, I've responded to those on this post in another thread. I link to them so that anyone can see the crux of the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.