The Toadie Show's Economic Arrogance
Two of the joys of being on vacation while watching 2 young children are being able to sleep later (15 more minutes at least) and watching some of the morning TV news-type shows.
I was able to see liberal Democrat Matt Lauer discuss the political landscape with liberal Democrat Tim Russert. They never uttered a single criticism of Howard Dean and his party but we learned from Russert how the American people hate the War in Iraq and the Republicans can only maintain their political majority in Congress if they persuade Americans that The Iraq War is part of the greater war against terrorism.
These fair and balanced journalists highlighted the number of deaths in Iraq and the over-all US GI body count without mentioning what Iraqi deaths would have been like with Saddam still in office. Nor do they mention whether the activities of terrorists against the US would potentially be worse with an anti-US billionaire dictator still facilitating terrorism from his safe Baghdad lair. Remember Bastiat’s “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen”---it applies to geo-politics as well as economics.
The next story was a NYT rewrite about how the economic success since the 2001 recession only helped the businesses while worker income did not grow as well. The only economic commentators were people from the liberal research group Economic Policy Institute and some lay people who are trying to make do.
Again, I was waiting fort this balanced report to provide a comment from a supply-side economist who could explain that worker “compensation” has actually exceeded the business receipts. I guess there was no time (is there ever?) to see if there is an alternative view to this NYT cant. They could have found economist Alan Reynolds to explain the true facts.
Alan Reynolds explains in today’s Townhall that besides take-home pay, workers were given increased benefits. Reynolds explains that the NYT analysis (and the Toadie Show follow-up) is true:
[O]nly if benefits are worthless to workers and free to employers. If productivity was growing faster than total compensation, then unit labor costs would be falling. Yet unit labor costs rose 3.2 percent over the past year, and real hourly compensation rose by 1.7 percent.
Non-farm business productivity rose by 3 percent in 2004, and hourly compensation rose by 3.6 percent; productivity rose by 2.3 percent in 2005, and hourly compensation rose by 4.4 percent; productivity rose at a 2.7 percent rate in the first half of 2006, and hourly compensation rose at a 6.2 percent rate. The headline should have read, "Productivity Fails to Match Rise in Worker Compensation."
I suppose Lauer could not locate Reynolds or any of the dozen or so supply-side economists for their balanced report. Nobel Prize winning economists are very camera shy.
Thank God the kids woke up and I had to switch the TV to more accurate reporting on the Disney Channel.