The Myth of Disappearing Prosperity

October 6, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (46)

The American Dream is in rehab. Unemployment is way too high, the poverty rate is going up, and family income has fallen over the past few years. The bottom line for many families is that it feels awfully hard to get ahead.

[See 12 Ways to Stop America's Decline.]

But America has not become some capitalistic wasteland where ambitious strivers lay spent and broken. It remains one of the most vibrant places in the world. Opportunity exists and prosperity is still attainable. It's harder to find, but gloomy headlines and fear-mongering politicians are exaggerating the death of the American Dream—and creating some misimpressions about how we attain the good life. Here are four bogus assumptions contributing to the national malaise:

If the rich have more money, the poor have less. Income inequality is one factor economists look at to gauge fairness in the economy, and it's been trending in an uncomfortable direction. Here's what the latest Census data shows:

Percentage of all income earned by the top one-fifth of earners: 50.3 percent.

By the middle fifth: 15 percent.

By the lowest fifth: 3.4 percent.

In terms of proportion, the top fifth earn 3.4 times as much as the middle fifth, and 15 times as much as the lowest fifth. That gap has been growing since the mid 1970s. In 1976, for instance, the top quintile earned only 2.9 times as much as the middle fifth and about 10 times as much as the bottom fifth.

But wealth is not a zero-sum game, and bigger incomes for top earners doesn't mean they're taking money from everybody else, which is how the enrichment of the upper class is often portrayed. What it means is the wealthy are benefiting the most from the modern U.S. economy. The reason is mostly education, which has become vital as the economy has shifted from an industrial one based on manual and skilled labor to a service economy based on knowledge. We're still in the midst of that transition, which is a big reason that earnings for most income groups have fallen over the last 10 years: Too many American workers, including many in the middle class, have outdated skills that are in lower and lower demand. The inevitable result is falling pay for their services.

[See how to tell when the recession's really over.]

An unmistakable lesson from these income trends is that more than ever, education is the pathway to prosperity. Top earners aren't earning proportionately more because they're taking it from lower earners. They're earning more because in a global economy, they have the right skills to compete effectively with workers the world over. "Blaming the rich for earning more is like getting a C and blaming the people who get an A," says Southern Methodist University professor Michael Cox, former chief economist for the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank. "As the rewards for education go up, people who don't get educated don't share in the gains the way more educated people do."

Most people don't measure their well-being against the wealthy, anyway. They measure it against their own well-being in the past. If they feel better off, they tend to be satisfied. If they feel worse off, they join the Tea Party or march with Glenn Beck. Ordinarily, a healthy, growing economy creates wealth and everybody's living standards improve, so lower earners don't care that much if the wealthy have proportionately more. But we've got two problems right now: the economy is barely growing, and far too many people lack the skills to climb up the socioeconomic ladder. "I'd be a lot less worried about income inequality if we had better income mobility," says economist Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute. "But we don't have equality of opportunity."

There's sharp disagreement about how to level the playing field throughout the whole economy and make it easier for people to improve their own living standards. The ideal solution would be better skills for everybody, which would raise incomes and living standards for every income group. But even without that, any given individual still has the ability to get educated, work like mad, bound upward, and join that top one-fifth of earners. It might be harder than it was 10 or 20 years ago, but ambitious Americans still enjoy vastly better opportunities than people in most other parts of the world. If you're determined, prosperity is in your future.

[See why the rich need the poor.]

America is in its worst shape ever. Not really. There's plenty of distress and we should all be appalled that 44 million Americans are living in poverty. But we've faced deeper problems in the past and have come up with solutions. Today's poverty rate, for instance, is 14.3 percent. That's awful. But it's still far below the levels of the 1950s and early 1960s, when it was over 20 percent. Social programs passed in the 1960s helped reduce poverty, but recessions have always caused a temporary uptick.

Incomes also fluctuate during recessions. The latest figures show that median real income is down about 5 percent from the peak it hit in 2000. After the 1991 recession—which was much milder than the one we just endured—income fell by about the same amount. Income in 1983—following a double-dip recession and a long bout of double-digit inflation—was 6 percent lower than it was 10 years earlier. Then it rose sharply. The biggest difference between now and then may not be the economy, but the lack of political resolve in Washington to mend it or simply get out of the way. If dickering politicians weren't holding the economy hostage to partisan gamesmanship, optimism would be much higher, perhaps even self-fulfilling.

[See 7 new skills every worker needs.]

Nobody gets ahead in a weak economy. Wrong! For everybody falling behind, many other Americans are learning new survival skills and taking risks they never would have taken in a more stable economy. Research by the Kauffman Foundation has shown that half of the nation's largest and fastest-growing small firms were started in a recession or bear market—often because of "accidental" entrepreneurs who got laid off from conventional jobs. The same pattern seems to be holding true today. The latest numbers from Kauffman show that the pace of new-business creation in 2009 was the highest in the 14 years the foundation has been tracking such activity. That comes despite a brutal small-business lending crunch. Many of those firms will fail, but the proprietors will have learned lessons that aren't taught in school or corporate training programs and will benefit them down the road. And almost assuredly, the next Microsoft or Google or Netflix will emerge from the ashes of the Great Recession.

The irony is that the same forces causing hardships for many—new technology, outsourcing, falling labor costs—are creating opportunities for others able to take advantage of them. "The paradox of progress is we grow through creative destruction," says Cox. "There are opportunities everywhere if you use technology to your advantage."

[See how to survive a 'zombie economy.']

Prosperity should be automatic. For a lucky group of Americans, it was. People who entered the work force in the 30 or 40 years following World War II joined an economy in which incomes mostly went up and American companies were largely immune from the forces of global competition. That began to change in the 1980s, and globalism clearly accelerated over the last decade. The bar for success got raised, and today, a finite set of skills no longer guarantees a comfortable life or predictable retirement. Still, prosperity remains the reward for driven workers who continually improve their skills and take nothing for granted. Working harder for it might even make it more satisfying.

Tags:
economy

Reader Comments Read all comments (46)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Good points. I would just note that global competition probably began more in the 1970's, as Germany, Japan, and other countries fully recovered from WWII.

John of MI 12:33PM December 17, 2011

"But wealth is not a zero-sum game, and bigger incomes for top earners doesn't mean they're taking money from everybody else, which is how the enrichment of the upper class is often portrayed. What it means is the wealthy are benefiting the most from the modern U.S. economy."

Um, not really. This is an extreme example of intellectual laziness. While it is true that the top income earners deserve more income than the bottom income earners, this has zero information content that applies to whether the top income earners deserve all that they get and whether there might be some factor other than laziness contributing to the shrinking of the middle class.

A better assessment is to take each problem at the level where action is possible. If the problem is that a person is out of work, then the fact that we are in an economic malaise is irrelevant. The relevant thing is they need to polish their skills and work on interviewing successfully. That is the level at which you can do something about the problem. Similarly, if you are in a discussion of political priorities, the fact that as individuals, people need to work on skills and get resumes out has nothing to do with the correct approach for politicians. The correct level of analysis should acknowledged that we grew slowly or not at all between 1930 and 1938, then grew rapidly in the 40's and 50's, and then grew much slower in the 80's, 90's, and 00's. Sorry, but "people blamed the rich" in the recent period, but were industrious and hard working in the 40's and 50's does not hold water.

"We're still in the midst of that transition, which is a big reason that earnings for most income groups have fallen over the last 10 years: Too many American workers, including many in the middle class, have outdated skills that are in lower and lower demand. The inevitable result is falling pay for their services."

Again, true, but irrelevant. This is a reason, but not *the* reason, or even the most important reason. Every engineer who designs and builds something supports a salesman, a marketer, an accountant, a boss, and possibly more than one implementer. On top of that, every company that is producing something supports a restaurant, a laundromat, and a hotel. Skill sets and hard work did not create the boom period of the 40's and 50's. You have to look at economic policy to see what the critical differences were.

"Nobody gets ahead in a weak economy. Wrong! For everybody falling behind, many other Americans are learning new survival skills and taking risks they never would have taken in a more stable economy."

I don't really disagree with this as written, but does anybody really believe this? I have never heard anyone say that no-one wins in a weak economy. However, there is significant evidence that weak economies occur when economic power becomes self sustaining rather than requiring efficiency and innovation. Many of the greatest fortunes ever have been built during slowdowns.

Jeff of TX 9:01PM July 10, 2011

Full of shit? What a useless comment. Make the argument if you really can, Nunya.

Gabe is right, I am better off than ever and think the Tea Party has a point.

Jim, most people who are upside down in mortgage needed financial education. The article talks about SKILLS, not college degrees. One in seven in poverty means six out of seven are not.

Joe of MD 10:06AM May 25, 2011

Rick Newman

Rick Newman

The global economy is mysterious, even scary. Chief Business Correspondent Rick Newman connects the dots. In addition to his writing for U.S. News, Rick is the co-author of two books: Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11, and Bury Us Upside Down: The Misty Pilots and the Secret Battle for the Ho Chi Minh Trail.


Read Rick's latest blog entries here.

advertisement

advertisement