Reason.com
New at Reason
What worked for Republicans in the election, wonders Jeff Taylor? "Nothing." How many people predicted that? "No one."
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|11.9.06 @ 8:46AM|#
"The actual economy is fairly booming, with low unemployment, low inflation, and relatively low interest rates. Only $2 a gallon gas tells voters that things are not Pareto optimal"
The actual economy, Mr. Taylor, isn't the aggregate figures you find so impressive. It's the experience that the public is having, which isn't adequately captured in those aggregate numbers, owing to increases in income inequality, the rising cost of health insurance eating up any increases in nominal compensation, and extreme levels of volatility and regional disparities.
A period when the pie is growing but most people's slices aren't is exactly the time for the Democratic Party to work on economic issues.
|11.9.06 @ 8:56AM|#
Hurray for the return of Socialism!
|11.9.06 @ 9:12AM|#
Ahh yes, now the Dems must fix the "experience that the public is havin", rather than, uh, real issues. If you just feeeel better, things must be better.
|11.9.06 @ 9:19AM|#
joe, are you talking about malaise?
Just kidding :)
|11.9.06 @ 9:37AM|#
Seriously, Mr. Taylor, you write an column about things the Republicans tried during the election campaign that failed, and not only do you not mention their cheerleading for this wonderful, wonderful economy, but you actually advise the Democrats to adopt said cheerleading for themselves?
Ironchef,
The maldistribution of the benefits of overall growth across economic strata and region, and the massive inefficiency of our health care system, ARE real issues.
|11.9.06 @ 9:40AM|#
Pro Libertate,
No, Jeff Taylor is talking about malaise, attributing the lack of glee among the public over our wonderful, wonderful economy to irrational gloom and pessimism.
I'm talking about the opposite - the public haveing a good understanding of how this economy is effecting them than the Republican and libertarian political types turning cartwheels over increases in CEO pay..
I'm not talking abour malaise; I'm talking abour irrational exuberance.
|11.9.06 @ 9:41AM|#
Oops, type.
Where I wronte "...having a good understanding..."
I should have written, of course, "...having a gooder understanding..."
|11.9.06 @ 9:44AM|#
You might want to take off the oven mitts, joe.
|11.9.06 @ 9:44AM|#
The public generally seems to think the economy is gloomy for longer than it is.
Health care costs too much primarily because our retarded tax law.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|11.9.06 @ 9:48AM|#
'm talking about the opposite - the public haveing a good understanding of how this economy is effecting them than the Republican and libertarian political types turning cartwheels over increases in CEO pay..
Awwwwww, someone didn't get a raise this year. It's okay Joe, try harder.
|11.9.06 @ 9:48AM|#
What do you have against malaiseans, joe? :)
Irrational exuberance. Reminds me of Dow 30,000. I'm all for that, since I own some S&P 500 Index Fund shares, which would presumably increase irrationally, too. Yippee!
|11.9.06 @ 9:50AM|#
I'm really not following joe.
Unemployment is remarkably low. Inflation is relatively low, indeed, the yield curve is still inverted. ...which most think will mean a future rate cut rather than a recession. Consumer confidence is okay...
...What are people supposed to be upset about?
|11.9.06 @ 9:56AM|#
Executive pay is out of control. It doesn't require government intervention, of course, but directors really need to stop overpaying these jokers. A handful of executives are really worth it to their companies (this seems particularly true with founding CEOs, who are usually stupid rich because of all the shares that they own), but I find that most are not. I'm not just talking the top guy, either.
There, I said it. And I'm a libertarian and nominally Republican.
By the way, I think the economy is gooder than you seem to think, joe. Though I do believe that the good effects are offset somewhat by some serious increases in costs. Insurance (including property insurance down here, I might add), housing, property taxes, etc. are out of whack. I think wages are lagging behind these increases right now, but we should see some adjustments in the near-to-medium term. Healthcare is a problem that is going to continue to be a problem whatever is likely to happen. I think there are some viable sets of ways to make healthcare more rationally priced, but those are politically undoable, I'm sure.
R C Dean|11.9.06 @ 9:57AM|#
increases in income inequality
Of course, the fact that my neighbor is making more than I am has no discernable effect on my economic situation.
the rising cost of health insurance eating up any increases in nominal compensation
The vast majority of this rising cost is being absorbed by employers, so the impact on the pippul is attenuated. Not entirely absent, but attenuated.
extreme levels of volatility.
What on earth is this supposed to mean?
regional variations
To the degree this is true, it would mean that regions not doing well must be offset by regions doing extremely well, to keep the aggregate numbers as good as they are.
Larry A|11.9.06 @ 9:58AM|#
The Republicans' massive emphasis on illegal immigration from South of the border did next to nothing for them at the polls.
The problem on the south border isn't immigration. Bell, our Texas Dem-for-governor flamed out with his idea to ease the requirements for citizenship.
What we actually have is two problems.
Labor: Large numbers of Mexicans need work. Large numbers of U.S. employers need workers. Overwhelmingly the Mexicans don't want to become U.S. citizens. They just want to make a little money and go back to their home. Prohibiting this market response creates a black market in labor, the source of most of the people illegally crossing.
Drugs: The war on drugs has created a black market in illicit substances that is profitable enough to defend with deadly force. This is the source of most border violence.
The solution is to get the workers and employers together legally and end the drug war. Somehow I don't think the Democrats are going to see it that way.
That McCain's backing meant so little to his home-state GOPers again indicates McCain's weakness with the Republican rank-and-file that would have to nominate him for president. This small detail is repeatedly overlooked by network gabfest bookers and '08 handicappers.
The network folks are impressed by McCain's Democratic positions on many issues, and therefore see him as a "moderate" who can lead the Republican yahoos down the path of true enlightenment. Republicans accurately peg him as a RINO.
|11.9.06 @ 9:58AM|#
No one should be allowed to make $10 million a year until everyone makes at least $100,000 a year.
|11.9.06 @ 10:00AM|#
Especially in regards to immigration policy, I second the notion that many here in Southern California might take to the notion that if illegal immigrants streaming across our border are to blame for the state of the economy here, then, for goodness sake, let's get the government out of the business of harassing immigrants and maybe we'll get more of the same.
|11.9.06 @ 10:02AM|#
"Only a party with a death wish would embark on some macro-economic heavy lifting right now and thus supply a dazed GOP with something to rally against."
Does "macroeconomic heavy lifting" mean raising the minimum wage? Because as far as I know this is fairly popular with the public.
|11.9.06 @ 10:12AM|#
I think it is a stretch to see this election as rebuke to anti-immigration sentiment. Santorum and Steele's seats were in states that lean or tilt heavily blue anyway. And Santorum is a world class jack-ass and fool. The same can be said for Hayworth. Plenty of GOPers that were gentle on illegal immigration (Chafee and Nancy Johnson for example) bit the dust too. This seems like a rebuke for general arrogance and corruption along with Iraq too me. And well deserved I might add.
|11.9.06 @ 10:12AM|#
Does "macroeconomic heavy lifting" mean raising the minimum wage? Because as far as I know this is fairly popular with the public.
I'd be interested to see historical support for minimum wage hikes--does it go up when times are good and down when times are bad?
|11.9.06 @ 10:23AM|#
Ken, I'd imagine its the reverse. People tend to think that businesses can absorb increased labor costs without some negative effect on some other part of the business.
|11.9.06 @ 10:28AM|#
I don't know.
I remember support for welfare reform, for instance, coalescing when the economy was really bad--back in the early '90s. My sense is that people have less sympathy for the poor when they're worried about their own jobs, but I'd love to see the stats.
|11.9.06 @ 10:40AM|#
Good article in general, but I don't really agree with the conclusion on illegals and border security. I can only judge from anecdotal evidence here, but my republican friends who didn't go to vote decided to abstain because of, apparently, two main reasons: Republicans spending like Democrats, and Republicans not doing enough on the border. Just because more libertarian minded folks would -like- border security to be a non major issue doesn't make it so. I'm a libertarian but a border hawk, cards on the table, and the general feeling among conservatives that I know was "Oh right, yeah, the republicans reallllly want a secure border, that's why the stupid fence bill had huge loopholes allowing the president to use the money for other things, like highways. (insert rolling eyes)"
I think the GOP would have had a bigger boost if they had performed on that issue, frankly. Not that it would have tipped the election.
|11.9.06 @ 10:40AM|#
In terms of the unemployment rate - the first Bush II administration saw fewer Americans having jobs at the end, than at the beginning. A feat last accomplished by Herbert Hoover. A large number of people simply left the labor force (i.e., a drop of 2% (?) in the labor force participation rate). That depresses the unemployment rate, because it only counts active job-seekers.
Anybody looking at the changes in media wages should immediately figure that something's up with the unemployment rate.
|11.9.06 @ 10:46AM|#
Ken, maybe my "sample" is skewed by being in an environment of high-falutin' fancitized liberals.
|11.9.06 @ 10:49AM|#
Barry, do you believe that GWB magically reached into the past and caused the tech bubble that popped just when he came into office?
Plus, I doubt that fewer people had jobs since the population increased by about 15 million in those four years.
|11.9.06 @ 11:36AM|#
Of course, the fact that my neighbor is making more than I am has no discernable effect on my economic situation.
Except for how it affects the price of goods that you're trying to purchase. If enough neighbors make more than you, they'll be able price you out of goods in the market.
ChrisO|11.9.06 @ 12:45PM|#
joe's basically a social democrat, so I disagree with most of his political philosophy. That said, is there 'unease' about the economy? Possibly. I think it has less to do with class envy over multi-millionaire executives and more to do with the fact that a huge chunk of middle-class America has gone into debt up to its eyeballs to support the real estate bubble and to buy lots of konsumer krap. Also, I believe that we may be headed into a recession that will become apparent next year--enough shakiness in the economy to make at least some worry rational, and not merely the typical 'soccer mom' bullshit.
As to immigration, any attempt to relate the issue to this election is forced, at best. Put simply, you cannot reduce the question of illegal immigration into a dichotomous argument. The issue divides both parties and thus forms a difficult basis for debate.
|11.9.06 @ 3:54PM|#
jf,
DFuicvk youi! Oven mitts indeed! ;-)
TPG,
Actually, I'm making more money than I have in my life, since I went into the private sector. I know it's foreign to you, but some of us are able to feel concern for others.
Ken Shultz,
"I'm really not following joe.
Unemployment is remarkably low. Inflation is relatively low, indeed, the yield curve is still inverted. ...which most think will mean a future rate cut rather than a recession. Consumer confidence is okay...
...What are people supposed to be upset about?"
People are unhappy because their incomes are stagnant, even as increases of weath at the very highest levels and greater spending on employee health care produce what look like aggregate gains in median income.
RC Dean,
Let's remember the question: why aren't people turning cartwheels over the wonderful economy? You neighbor's wealth has no discernable effect on your situation, correct. That's why an average increase in the household income on your block, produced by your neighbor getting a big raise, doesn't translate to a better economic condition for you. Which is my point.
"The vast majority of this rising cost is being absorbed by employers, so the impact on the pippul is attenuated." Yes, which is why an increase in your salary+benefits resulting from your employer paying more for your health plan does not make you turn cartwheels about your economic condition.
"Extreme levels of volatility" means that people's jobs are less secure, even during times of strong overall economic growth.
"would mean that regions not doing well must be offset by regions doing extremely well" Yes, exactly. I'm not saying that there isn't solid performance in the aggregate, but that the gains aren't as widely or evenly distributed as they were during, for example, 1994-2001.
Ken Shultz,
"My sense is that people have less sympathy for the poor when they're worried about their own jobs, but I'd love to see the stats."
Since we're spitballing, I disagree. People differentiate between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. Sympathy for people on welfare declines during economic bad times, but I'd guess that concern for people working hard and barely getting by actually increases.
|11.9.06 @ 4:39PM|#
I've mentioned this before (I think in a discussion with you, joe), but the whole "deserving" versus "undeserving" poor view has held traction in this country for a long time. I recall quite a bit of focus on that point in Lawrence Friedman's A History of American Law (A great read. It's as much about our social history as about the law--don't be put off by the title). Our social institutions that provided assistance to the poor before the government got involved often made that distinction. Not that the government doesn't, too, of course.