David Brooks Complains That He Can't Get Access to Inequality Data

[Derechos]

Dean Baker

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.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/david-brooks-complains-that-he-cant-get-access-to-inequality-data

David Brooks article - "The Wrong Inequality" - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/opinion/brooks-the-wrong-inequality.html?ref=opinion

Paul Krugman's blog post in response to both above - "Graduates vs. Oligarchs" http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/graduates-versus-oligarchs/

[rug]

1. That's not fair.

[Enrique]

2. just another attempt to divide the 99%

just like the "we are the 53%" was an attempt to divide, now Brooks is trying to drive a similar wedge.

[gratuitous]

3. If it was just one thing, Brooks *might* have a point

But it isn't just one thing, and it isn't "blue" or "red" inequality. Part of the gap in college education is that over the last 30 years of Republican hegemony, education has been increasingly reserved for the wealthy and those the wealthy deem "deserving" of higher education. By the way, if you're impoverished, you don't deserve squat-ah, including even elementary education, let alone post-high school education. At least, according to those who set and make the policies. Middle income but late blooming? Forget it, unless you're willing to take on tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt; the Republican elites have decided you're not a wise investment, so they don't provide funding for higher education for the likes of you.

Without driving any more traffic to his "column," I wonder if Brooks addresses this particular point? Knock me over with a feather if he does.

[dtexdem]

4. And in theory, achieving college degrees is supposed to represent merit and building "human capital.

Those would be reasons for conservatives to tout college/noncollege inequality as representing the correct outcomes. That Brooks is trying to use it here as a blue/red issue only shows his true intent: to divide the 99%.

[valerief]

5. More moronic color coding. nt

[hfojvt]

6. I have data though, and think Brooks has a point

Not about college vs. non-college, but about other inequality.

From IRS data, in 1986 the top 10% made more than 48,656 by 2008, it took more than $113,799 to make the top 10%.

The average income of the group in the 90th to 95th percentile was $54,471 in 1986 by 2008 their average income was $124,468 a 129% growth rate.

Now look at the bottom 50%. In 1986 their average income was $8,239. In 2008, their average income was $15,287 for a growth rate of 86%. But percentages do not show how the monetary gap has grown. In 1986 the difference between the 90th percentile and the bottom 50% was $46,232. In 2008, it was $109,181. The actual gap more than doubled.

[FarCenter]

7. However, you would also have to adjust for quality of college degrees

In recent decades a lot more marginal students have been getting college degrees, and many have gotten degrees in subjects with no economic value.

[pennylane100]

8. I can answer that question for Brooks

and if he is half intelligent as he thinks he is, he could find the data himself. The reason there is such a growing wage gap between the college grads and high school grads is that the 1% shipped our our well paying jobs in the manufacturing industry and the call service industry to overseas locations to take advantage of cheap labor.

I am sure there are many jobs that used to provide a decent wage for high school grads that are now overseas and I have no doubt that this is the single biggest reason for the decline in ability of the non college grads ability to earn a good living.