Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

  • “Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
  • “…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
  • “…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
  • “Unintended Consequences offers deep and well-argued analyses on almost every issue.” - The New York Times
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • “A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • “…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
Upside of Inequality Oxford Unintended Consequences
Buy the Books
  • Macro Roundup
  • About Roundup
  • About Ed Conard
  • Highlights
  • Topics
  • Subscribe
Edward Conard
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • youtube

Macro Roundup

  • Email
  • Text Message (SMS)
  • Twitter/X
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • WhatsApp Message
Subscribe to Macro Roundup Emails
Select topics to choose: articles that mention them (broader) or articles mainly about them (focused)
  • Mentions 0
  • Primary focus 0
Showing all 7,326 Macro Roundup articles
When you search for any topic (like GDP, Inflation, or Banking), choose:
Choose search scope

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Bernie Sanders is blatantly wrong: Were far better off than in 1975

AI Summary. US occupational deaths have fallen from about 14,000 to 5,100 a year even as the workforce more than doubled, wages including benefits like healthcare and pensions are up 45%, and spending on essentials such as food and clothing has dropped from 42% to 17% of family income.

David Harsanyi New York Post
Date Posted:
February 22, 2020
Is Database:
Database

Occupational deaths in the US have decreased from ~14k to 5,100 annually since 1970, despite the workforce more than doubling. Americans have also experienced a 45% wage increase since 1964, with medium-household incomes at an all-time high.

Occupational deaths in the US have decreased from ~14k to 5,100 annually since 1970, despite the workforce more than...

Are Americans better off today than fifty years ago?

Core argument: US occupational deaths fell from roughly 14,000 annually in 1970 to 5,100, even as the workforce more than doubled.

Since 1970, occupational deaths in the US have decreased from ~14,000 to 5,100 annually, despite the workforce more than doubling. This decline highlights significant improvements in workplace safety and economic conditions. Additionally, Americans have experienced a 45% wage increase since 1964 when accounting for benefits like healthcare and pensions. Medium-household incomes are at an all-time high, and spending on essentials like food and clothing has dropped from 42% to 17% of family income over the past 50 years. Technological advances and better education have led to safer, more rewarding jobs. Life expectancy has increased by over six years since 1975, and child mortality rates have fallen from 18.8 to 5.7 per 1,000. These data points collectively indicate that Americans are better off today than in the past, contradicting claims of economic stagnation.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. US occupational deaths fell from roughly 14,000 annually in 1970 to 5,100, even as the workforce more than doubled.
  2. American wages have risen 45% since 1964 when benefits such as healthcare and pensions are counted, and median household incomes stand at an all-time high.
  3. Spending on essentials such as food and clothing fell from 42% to 17% of family income over 50 years, while life expectancy rose more than six years since 1975 and child mortality fell from 18.8 to 5.7 per 1,000.

Occupational deaths have dropped btw 1970 and 2019“…In 1970, around 14,000 workers were killed on the job. That’s somewhere around 10,000 more deaths yearly than the number of those who perished in the entire Iraq War. Although the workforce had more than doubled since then, the number of occupational deaths in the United States has dropped to around 5,100….”

David Harsanyi, "Bernie Sanders is blatantly wrong: We’re far better off than in 1975," New York Post, February 21, 2020, https://nypost.com/2020/02/21/bernie-sanders-is-blatantly-wrong-were-far-better-off-than-in-1975/

Bernie Sanders is blatantly wrong: We’re far better off than in 1975

A record-high number of Americans, 90 percent, say they are satisfied with their personal lives, according to Gallup. And 74 percent are optimistic they will continue being financially satisfied. Needless to say, the United States will never be a utopia, but for the vast majority of its citizens, most things are going in the right direction.

During the Democratic presidential debate this week, Bernie Sanders, lamenting how a once-prosperous society had been hollowed out by capitalism, claimed we are no better off today than we were many years ago. It’s a shame not a single debate moderator ever challenges this farcical assertion. In Sanders’ telling, “people... after 45 years of work are not making a nickel more than they did 45 years ago.”

For those who weren’t alive then, the 1970s were largely a crime-ridden decade of stagnant economics, city bankruptcies, crushing energy prices, sky-high interest rates, institutional rot, garbage and retirement-destroying inflation. Though it was a far better place than the Communist hot spots Sanders praised during those years, it certainly wasn’t ideal.

And a big part of the post-’70s economic boom we’re still experiencing today — the one that certain progressive and some statist right-wingers like to disparage — was propelled by policies that freed Americans from overbearing technocratic oversight, intrusive regulations and stifling taxes that undermined growth.

The alleged “wage stagnation” to which Sanders and others are constantly referring is a myth. For one thing, “wage stagnation” fails to take into account the health-care benefits, pensions, vacations, family leave and other perks now embedded in job packages — somewhere around 30 percent of an employee’s overall benefits.

Once those benefits are added, Americans probably have seen about a 45 percent wage increase since 1964. More important, the amount of time we work to buy things we need is less. What we buy does more, and it’s of higher quality. Does anyone believe that a dollar spent on medical care in 1975 equals a dollar spent today?

Partly because of a worldwide retreat from collectivism, extreme poverty has dramatically decreased. Massive new markets have opened to us. Despite the perception of many, medium-household incomes are at an all-time high. The middle class is growing — especially the upper-middle class.

In the past 50 years, spending on food and clothing as a share of family income has fallen from 42 percent to 17 percent. Your house is probably more expensive than the average house was in 1975, but it’s also more comfortable and safer.

The year Sanders graduated from college, less than 6 percent of his fellow Americans — the majority of them wealthy, very few of them minorities or women — were enrolled in higher education. In 1975, only around 11 percent were enrolled in college. According to the Federal Reserve study, millennials are the most educated generation, with 65 percent of them possessing at least an associate’s degree.

Better education, soaring productivity and technological advances allow an increasing number of Americans to pick vocations that are safer, less monotonous and more rewarding.

In 1970, around 14,000 workers were killed on the job. That’s somewhere around 10,000 more deaths yearly than the number of those who perished in the entire Iraq War. Although the workforce had more than doubled since then, the number of occupational deaths in the United States has dropped to around 5,100.

There’s a decent chance that Sanders’ heart attack would have killed a 78-year-old man in 1975. If not, it would have required dangerous surgery. Despite a small dip recently, life expectancy has skyrocketed in the United States over the past 45 years — adding more than six years since 1975.

Most of these developments, not incidentally, were brought to us by profit-driven companies.

In 1975, the child mortality rate was 18.8 per 1,000. In 2019, it was 5.7. Fatalities due to weather events have plunged. Deaths due to air pollution — surely near its smoggy height in 1975 — have fallen, as well. We have cleaner water and cleaner streets.

Also, you have a supercomputer in your pocket that offers you instant access to all human knowledge.

Yes, some Americans still suffer, and some of our goods and services are more expensive than they once were (usually due to market intervention). But we are, by nearly every quantifiable measure, collectively better off today than ever before.

  • Other Comparison
  • Comparisons
    • Historical
  • Healthcare/Seniors
  • Workforce
    • Inequality

Monday, February 24, 2020

Mid-Hudson Valley employment growth tied to low-paying jobs, Marist report finds

AI Summary. A report finds employment growth in New York's Mid-Hudson Valley has been concentrated in low-wage sectors, which have added jobs faster than high-wage sectors. Average wages still rose in both groups, with above-average-wage sectors going from $80,323 to $93,990 and below-average-wage sectors from $34,996 to $41,539.

Paul Kirby Daily Freeman
Date Posted:
February 24, 2020
Is Database:
Database

The Mid-Hudson Valley has seen employment growth in low-wage sectors, but average wages have increased, outpacing the national average. Above-average wage sectors rose from $80,323 to $93,990, while below-average wage sectors increased from $34,996 to $41,539.

Is regional job growth concentrated in low-wage sectors?

Core argument: A Marist report finds Mid-Hudson Valley employment growth since the Great Recession has been concentrated in low-wage sectors, with job growth there outpacing high-wage sectors.

The Mid-Hudson Valley has experienced employment growth primarily in low-wage sectors, with job growth in these areas outpacing high-wage sectors since the Great Recession. Despite this, average wages in the region have increased, with above-average wage sectors seeing a rise from $80,323 in 2009 to $93,990 in 2018, and below-average wage sectors increasing from $34,996 to $41,539 over the same period. The region's average private-sector wage of $58,351 is 25.9% lower than the statewide average but 7% higher than the balance of the state. This wage growth, despite being concentrated in low-paying jobs, has outpaced the national average, highlighting a complex economic landscape marked by income inequality and reliance on commuter income.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. A Marist report finds Mid-Hudson Valley employment growth since the Great Recession has been concentrated in low-wage sectors, with job growth there outpacing high-wage sectors.
  2. Average wages in the Mid-Hudson Valley's above-average wage sectors rose from $80,323 in 2009 to $93,990 in 2018, while below-average wage sectors increased from $34,996 to $41,539.
  3. The Mid-Hudson Valley's average private-sector wage of $58,351 is 25.9% below the New York statewide average but 7% above the balance of the state.

Ed noted:“As of 2018, the average wage for the above-average category was $93,990 compared to $80,323 in 2009, while the average wage for the below-average category was $34,996 in 2009 compared to $41,539 in 2018.”

Paul Kirby, "Mid-Hudson Valley employment growth tied to low-paying jobs, Marist report finds,"Daily Freeman, February 22, 2020, https://www.dailyfreeman.com/news/local-news/mid-hudson-valley-employment-growth-tied-to-low-paying-jobs/article_2e41de7a-54bf-11ea-9d62-03a59b7914da.html

Mid-Hudson Valley employment growth tied to low-paying jobs, Marist report finds

POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. — Employment growth in the Mid-Hudson Valley region is marked with low-paying jobs, a new Marist College study has found.

The study, known as “Special Report: Employment in the Hudson Valley 2018,” analyzes data from the state Department of Labor. It shows that most job growth in the region is tied to low-wage positions.

“Since the Great Recession, job growth in traditionally low-wage sectors has outpaced job-growth in high-wage sectors,” said Christy Huebner Caridi, director of the college’s Bureau of Economic Research, which conducted the study, in a prepared statement announcing the report. “The metric for examining the impact of this phenomena on household income is the increase in the number of persons with more than one job.”

Huebner Caridi also pointed out that the low-paying job growth is the continuation of a trend also noted in last year’s report, which showed growing income inequality in the region.

“The distribution of unearned income within the Hudson Valley is highly skewed,” Huebner Caridi said.

The report also found that in Ulster County, for the 2009-2018 period, "Private-sector employment advanced 0.7 percent on the year, falling relative to the county’s long-term performance, and the performance of both the region and the state."

Health care and social assistance remained the top-employer in Ulster County for the same period, the report shows, "accounting for 20.1 percent of total private sector employment followed by retail trade -18 percent of total private sector employment."

According to the Bureau’s data, Westchester County was the most unequal county in the region, followed by Dutchess and Rockland counties.

The report includes details by county for the seven-county Hudson Valley region and also offers comparisons to statewide information. Other key findings include:

• Private sector employment accounts for 84.1 percent of total employment in the Hudson Valley;

• Health care and social assistance remained the top private-sector employers followed by retail;

• The top five fastest-growing industries in the region are: mining; construction, agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting; administrative and waste services; and health care and social assistance.

• Throughout the region, the sectors that paid the highest average wages were: management of companies and enterprises; finance and insurance; and utilities, and professional and technical services. Accommodation and food services paid the lowest wage.

• On the year, average private-sector wages ($58,351) were 25.9 percent lower than the statewide average ($73,467) and 7.0 percent higher than the balance of the state, defined as New York State less the New York City Region ($54,299).

• As of 2018, the average wage for the above-average category was $93,990 compared to $80,323 in 2009, while the average wage for the below-average category was $34,996 in 2009 compared to $41,539 in 2018.

• As of 2018, above-average wage sectors accounted for 52 percent of total wages and 32 percent of total employment, compared to 54 percent of total wages and 34 percent of total employment in 2009.

• Putnam County is the most dependent on commuter income at 55.5 percent, followed by Westchester at 31.8 percent. Over the five-year period, commuter income has grown more than twice as fast as non-commuter income.

Note I reached out to Caridi the reports author to ask if the wage numbers were real or nominal and if the average wage numbers reflected full time or full and part time workers as it wasn’t made clear by the report. But Caridi didn’t reply to followups.

  • Historical
  • Workforce
    • Wages/Income

Trump’s ‘Blue-Collar Boom’ Is Hard to Detect in Some Wage Data

AI Summary. Analysis of Current Population Survey data finds that the lowest-paid 10% of workers see real earnings gains mainly during tight labor markets and economic expansions, with wage growth accelerating a few years into booms and then tapering. Over the past 20 years, men at the 95th percentile gained 37% while the median rose 3.4%.

Katia Dmitrieva and Alexandre Tanzi Bloomberg
Date Posted:
February 24, 2020
Is Database:
Database

Lowest wage earners see sustained wage gains during sustained expansions, but not in periods of weak growth, according to @AlexandreTanzi @Bloomberg.

When do the lowest-paid workers see real wage gains?

Core argument: Analysis of Current Population Survey data shows the lowest-paid men's real earnings rose 12% at the 10th percentile and 10% at the 20th during tight labor markets in 1995–2000 and 2014–2018, outpacing middle earners.

Analysis of CPS data reveals that the bottom 10% of workers in terms of real annual earnings experience wage gains primarily in tight labor markets, such as those from 1995-2000 and 2014-2018. During these periods, the lowest-paid men saw faster wage growth than those in the middle, with the 10th percentile rising 12% and the 20th up 10%. These gains are concentrated during economic expansions, with wages accelerating a few years into boom cycles and tapering off thereafter. In contrast, men in the 95th percentile saw a 37% wage gain over the last 20 years, highlighting a disparity even near the top. The median wage increased by only 3.4%, while earnings among the top 0.1% grew at more than double the pace of the mere 1%. This data underscores the importance of sustained economic growth for improving wages among the lowest earners.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

  1. Analysis of Current Population Survey data shows the lowest-paid men's real earnings rose 12% at the 10th percentile and 10% at the 20th during tight labor markets in 1995–2000 and 2014–2018, outpacing middle earners.
  2. Over the last 20 years, men at the 95th percentile of real annual earnings gained 37% while the median rose just 3.4%, and top 0.1% earnings grew more than twice as fast as the top 1%.
  3. Wage gains for the bottom 10% of workers concentrate in economic expansions, accelerating a few years into boom cycles and tapering off thereafter.

great chart from Bloomberg highlights an EPI analysis of CPS data that suggests low skill labor is high cost labor in that the bottom 10% of workers in terms of real annual earnings only see wage gains in tight labor markets (1995-2000 and 2014-2018, presumably 2020)

Trump’s ‘Blue-Collar Boom’ Is Hard to Detect in Some Wage Data: Extended Excerpt Image 1


"...There’s disparity even near the top. For example, men in the 95th percentile saw a 37% wage gain in the last 20 years, about twice that for those just next door in the 90th percentile. As for the median, wages ticked up only 3.4%. And among the top 0.1%, earnings grew at more than double the pace of the mere 1%. The lowest-paid men saw faster wage growth than those in the middle, with the 10th percentile rising 12% and the 20th up 10% But those gains among the lowest-paid workers are concentrated during economic expansions, with wages accelerating a few years into boom cycles and tapering off...."

Katia Dmitrieva and Alexandre Tanzi, "Trump’s ‘Blue-Collar Boom’ Is Hard to Detect in Some Wage Data,"Bloomberg, February 20, 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-20/inequality-endured-through-record-u-s-expansion-study-shows

  • Business Cycle
  • Comparisons
    • Historical
    • Skill Level
  • GDP
  • Workforce
    • Wages/Income


Loading More Posts

End of content

No more pages to load

© Copyright 2026 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved · Privacy · Terms