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.
bttt
This is one of the most infamous and egregious examples of lying by ommission by the press. Another headline that comes to mind is one that John Lott pointed out in his definitive study of media bias, "Bond yields down on jobs data".
The news was a glowing account of record jobs growth. The tenth of a point downward movement in the bond yield was the only negative they could find and they ran with that as the headline. Of course this was during a Republican administration.
The NY Times still has not retracted its false article on the forged CBS TANG documents.
Middle class? What's that anyway? I just want to point out that America is not a country of "CLASSES". Why do we use that term anyway? What does that really mean? Who CARES? And most importantly if the Left wants to "celebrate diversity" why are they always pointing out diversity? If no one NOTICED you're black, white, rich, poor, we wouldn't be having these discussions sometimes, and there'd not be this society of people that want to pidgeon hole others and make them out to be something they aren't (like Gay, Straight, special, etc)... Hmmmmm just my thoughts for the day.
So this is Havoc's proof that Bush is destroying the middle class?
Bartlett must be talking about the Coolidge era.
Otherwise, a fine article.
I linked to your thread above. Check this out . . . looks like your suspicion was true.
It's whatever it's defined to be in any given discussion. In this case, it's that class of Americans with income between 25K and 75K. I think most would agree that today, this would describe those people who are reasonably comfortable materially, neither wealthy nor in danger of being on the street. Of course, you could pick another moniker for those with incomes in this range, eg. "centratodes" or "solventamids." You could even get tedious about it and just keep saying "those with incomes between $25,000 and $75,000" and p*ss off your editor.
The use of terms and expressions that convey distinctions between individuals and groups is useful and I usually see nothing wrong with this practice. It only becomes nettlesome when such terms are used to set up an exaggerated or non-existant significance, ie. when they are loaded.
It's whatever it's defined to be in any given discussion. In this case, it's that class of Americans with income between 25K and 75K. I think most would agree that today, this would describe those people who are reasonably comfortable materially, neither wealthy nor in danger of being on the street. Of course, you could pick another moniker for those with incomes in this range, eg. "centratodes" or "solventamids." You could even get tedious about it and just keep saying "those with incomes between $25,000 and $75,000" and p*ss off your editor.
The use of terms and expressions that convey distinctions between individuals and groups is useful and I usually see nothing wrong with this practice. It only becomes nettlesome when such terms are used to set up an exaggerated or non-existant significance, ie. when they are loaded.
Looks like Rush just mentioned FR on the air, and now everything's running slowly. I'll bet you a nickel this thread doesn't run to 300 replies because its title isn't sufficiently negative enough to attract the Legion of Doom.
With wages flat, college tuition is up an average of $1,207 for four-year institutions since 2000, and yearly health care premiums up $2,360 over the same period.
No mention of which sectors of the economy the government is most involved with.
Could it be that they picked a date range because the census data expressed is only available on certain time tables - showing the difference over a period of general Census counts taken. The implication would then be that because the census happens every ten years, the period of 1980 - 2000 then gives us how many hits for census data? 3 at best. I don't much think the times is the end all be all; but, It doesn't appear you much thought this through. The data is the data. It shows a downward trend which can be accounted for by tight rich guys on both sides not giving raises and helping to depress wages to reserve more profit to themselves. The money more often now goes to stock holders than to employees - ala the 'going public' of so many companies. And outsourcing ocurrs precisely because business doesn't want to pay the going rate for wages in set by the market in which they intend to compete.
Try again.
I don't have to try "again." I'd like you to try "once."
I just gave you a rundown that chokes the crap out of your motivation point. The data is the data. Who is in office during the time isn't germain to the issue. The Census data shows a decline in the time period noted.
What you are trying to say is the guy caught speeding wasn't speeding because you don't like the color of the billboards either side of him. That don't stand up to scrutiny.
Am I to understand that real dollars means that all incomes are included? 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. Suppose it might parallel the trend? I'm 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.
</p>
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.