This article is part of David Leonhardt’s newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it each weekday.
Almost half of Democratic voters identify as either political moderates or conservatives. And more than half of Democratic voters say they would like to see the party move toward the center rather than the left.
If you’ve been watching the early maneuverings in the 2020 Democratic primary, these facts may surprise you. So far, the candidates have mostly been trying to appeal to the more left-leaning parts of the Democratic coalition. I understand why. There’s a lot of energy on the political left these days, and most of it is quite healthy.
But I think the Democrats shouldn’t lose sight of the large fraction of voters — a clear majority nationwide — who don’t see themselves as liberals. It’s possible to appeal to these moderate voters while still offering a progressive agenda. There is no need to go all Howard Schultz.
[Listen to “The Argument” podcast every Thursday morning, with Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and David Leonhardt.]
My column today makes the case that Democrats can be strongly progressive and still pitch themselves to swing voters. I hope — and expect — that the primary campaign is about to enter a phase in which this balance gets some more attention.
Inflating reality
This weekend, The Wall Street Journal ran a big package of articles celebrating the state of the American labor market, under the headline “The Great American Jobs Machine.” The subhead proclaimed: “This is the hottest labor market in 50 years.”
My immediate reaction was skepticism. The very same Wall Street Journal ran an article a week earlier (which I cited in this newsletter) explaining that workers’ share of the economic pie was continuing to shrink and that middle-class incomes were stagnant. So I was curious to see how the new, cheerier story would try to prove its case.
The answer was pretty incredible. Two charts showed several steeply rising lines, each meant to depict median weekly earnings since 2007 for a specific demographic group. The lines suggested that weekly earnings had surged by between 15 percent and 35 percent over this period. Sounds great, right?
It would be, if it reflected reality. But the charts committed perhaps the most basic sin of economics journalism: They didn’t adjust for inflation.
When you ignore inflation, most dollar values look as if they’re steeply rising. But that’s meaningless. In truth, weekly earnings for most groups have risen by only single-digit percentage points since 2007. For some demographic groups — like college dropouts — inflation-adjusted pay has fallen. Bottom line: The current job market remains decidedly cooler than the job market of the late 1990s or late 1960s.
I think it’s worth highlighting the Journal package both because of its prominence and because journalism that exaggerates the health of today’s economy is all too common. Why? In part, it’s that journalists enjoy publishing counterintuitive stories. (I’ll confess to having that bias too.) Trumpeting a boom feels counterintuitive these days, because most Americans don’t feel like they’re living through a boom.
Sometimes, though, counterintuitive is just another word for wrong.
Related: Another part of the explanation is that some of the traditional economic indicators, like G.D.P., unemployment and the stock market, look very good. Unfortunately, they no longer accurately describe the experiences of many households. Better measures are income and net worth — including inflation, of course.
If you are not a subscriber to this newsletter, you can subscribe here. You can also join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
David Leonhardt is a former Washington bureau chief for the Times, and was the founding editor of The Upshot and head of The 2020 Project, on the future of the Times newsroom. He won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, for columns on the financial crisis. @DLeonhardt • Facebook
Source: Read Full Article
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | 2020, the Next Phase
Opinion | 2020, the Next Phase
This article is part of David Leonhardt’s newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it each weekday.
Almost half of Democratic voters identify as either political moderates or conservatives. And more than half of Democratic voters say they would like to see the party move toward the center rather than the left.
If you’ve been watching the early maneuverings in the 2020 Democratic primary, these facts may surprise you. So far, the candidates have mostly been trying to appeal to the more left-leaning parts of the Democratic coalition. I understand why. There’s a lot of energy on the political left these days, and most of it is quite healthy.
But I think the Democrats shouldn’t lose sight of the large fraction of voters — a clear majority nationwide — who don’t see themselves as liberals. It’s possible to appeal to these moderate voters while still offering a progressive agenda. There is no need to go all Howard Schultz.
[Listen to “The Argument” podcast every Thursday morning, with Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and David Leonhardt.]
My column today makes the case that Democrats can be strongly progressive and still pitch themselves to swing voters. I hope — and expect — that the primary campaign is about to enter a phase in which this balance gets some more attention.
Inflating reality
This weekend, The Wall Street Journal ran a big package of articles celebrating the state of the American labor market, under the headline “The Great American Jobs Machine.” The subhead proclaimed: “This is the hottest labor market in 50 years.”
My immediate reaction was skepticism. The very same Wall Street Journal ran an article a week earlier (which I cited in this newsletter) explaining that workers’ share of the economic pie was continuing to shrink and that middle-class incomes were stagnant. So I was curious to see how the new, cheerier story would try to prove its case.
The answer was pretty incredible. Two charts showed several steeply rising lines, each meant to depict median weekly earnings since 2007 for a specific demographic group. The lines suggested that weekly earnings had surged by between 15 percent and 35 percent over this period. Sounds great, right?
It would be, if it reflected reality. But the charts committed perhaps the most basic sin of economics journalism: They didn’t adjust for inflation.
When you ignore inflation, most dollar values look as if they’re steeply rising. But that’s meaningless. In truth, weekly earnings for most groups have risen by only single-digit percentage points since 2007. For some demographic groups — like college dropouts — inflation-adjusted pay has fallen. Bottom line: The current job market remains decidedly cooler than the job market of the late 1990s or late 1960s.
I think it’s worth highlighting the Journal package both because of its prominence and because journalism that exaggerates the health of today’s economy is all too common. Why? In part, it’s that journalists enjoy publishing counterintuitive stories. (I’ll confess to having that bias too.) Trumpeting a boom feels counterintuitive these days, because most Americans don’t feel like they’re living through a boom.
Sometimes, though, counterintuitive is just another word for wrong.
Related: Another part of the explanation is that some of the traditional economic indicators, like G.D.P., unemployment and the stock market, look very good. Unfortunately, they no longer accurately describe the experiences of many households. Better measures are income and net worth — including inflation, of course.
If you are not a subscriber to this newsletter, you can subscribe here. You can also join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
David Leonhardt is a former Washington bureau chief for the Times, and was the founding editor of The Upshot and head of The 2020 Project, on the future of the Times newsroom. He won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, for columns on the financial crisis. @DLeonhardt • Facebook
Source: Read Full Article