The Reagan Question

[San Siro]

The Reagan Question:
Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Eight Years Ago?

September 2008, John Schmitt and Hye Jin Rho


In his closing remarks during the final presidential debate of 1980, Ronald Reagan famously asked the American people: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"
The table below updates Reagan's question by comparing the state of the economy in 2000 and 2008. We use 25 indicators of economic well-being and economic performance and find that 23 of the 25 indicators are worse in 2008 than they were in 2000. Click here for a list of the sources used.
With this report, CEPR is trying a new feature for our site - allowing you to provide us with feedback. So please take a look at our new commenting system below and let us know what you think.


Economic Indicator 2000 2008

Unemployment rate 4.0% 6.1%
Inflation rate 3.3% 5.4%
Job Growth (preceding 8 years)
Total nonfarm employment 21.4% 4.3%

Private sector employment 23.6% 3.6%

Manufacturing employment 2.9% -22.2%

Employment rate (% of population)
All, age 16 and older 64.4% 62.6%

Men, age 16 and older 71.9% 69.1%

Women, age 16 and older 57.5% 56.5%

Real wage growth (preceding 8 years) 8.2% 1.8%

Minimum wage (July 2008$) $6.58 $6.55

Family income
Median, 2007$ $61,083 $61,355
Growth (preceding 8 years) 14.7% 0.4%

Poverty
Rate (% of population) 11.3% 12.5%

People in poverty (millions) 31.6 37.3

Uninsured (health insurance)
Rate (% of population) 14.0% 15.3%
People without insurance (millions) 38.7 45.7

Personal savings 2.3% 0.6%
(% of disposable income)

College tuition (average per year, 2007$)
Private four-year college $19,337 $23,712
Public four-year college $4,221 $6,185

Gasoline (gallon, 2008$) $2.03 $4.09

GDP growth (preceding 8 years) 34.2% 19.6%

Productivity growth 15.9% 21.9%
(preceding 8 years)

Trade balance (% of GDP) -3.9% -5.1%

Federal debt (% of GDP) 57.3% 65.5%

Net foreign debt (% of GDP) 13.6% 17.9%


tratto dal sito del cepr: www.cepr.net

Molto interessanti anche i commenti

[microalfa]

Questo commento riassume a mio parere una risposta equilibrata al puro e semplice confronto numerico dei dati:


Interesting, but needs a few caveats...
written by Jeremy, September 27, 2008

While I certainly agree that the economy has been mismanaged over the last 8 years, I think the comparison (and the implied message) isn't quite fair for 2 reasons:

1. 2000 was the peak of a long economic boom. The economy was in great shape (at least on paper) due in a fairly large part to the dot-com bubble. The growth was truly unsustainable, and I have little doubt that regardless of the President elected in 2000, we would be in worse economic shape now than we were in 2000. Probably a comparsion with the post-dot-com economy of 2001-2002 would be more fair.

2. The President doesn't really have that much direct impact on the economy - Reagan's was wrong to claim that, and this post is wrong to imply it. The large bulk of our economic woes should probably be laid at the feet of the Fed, who was willing to support the housing bubble in order to avoid a post-dot-com recession. In a sense, our poor economy now is much more a result of the good economy of 2000 than it is a result of President Bush's policies.

That being said, the cost of the war will impact the economy for years, or even decades to come. Bush and the Congresses he has served with certainly deserve no congratulations for fiscal responsibility.

[San Siro]

Originalmente inviato da microalfa

Questo commento riassume a mio parere una risposta equilibrata al puro e semplice confronto numerico dei dati:


Interesting, but needs a few caveats...
written by Jeremy, September 27, 2008

While I certainly agree that the economy has been mismanaged over the last 8 years, I think the comparison (and the implied message) isn't quite fair for 2 reasons:

1. 2000 was the peak of a long economic boom. The economy was in great shape (at least on paper) due in a fairly large part to the dot-com bubble. The growth was truly unsustainable, and I have little doubt that regardless of the President elected in 2000, we would be in worse economic shape now than we were in 2000. Probably a comparsion with the post-dot-com economy of 2001-2002 would be more fair.

2. The President doesn't really have that much direct impact on the economy - Reagan's was wrong to claim that, and this post is wrong to imply it. The large bulk of our economic woes should probably be laid at the feet of the Fed, who was willing to support the housing bubble in order to avoid a post-dot-com recession. In a sense, our poor economy now is much more a result of the good economy of 2000 than it is a result of President Bush's policies.

That being said, the cost of the war will impact the economy for years, or even decades to come. Bush and the Congresses he has served with certainly deserve no congratulations for fiscal responsibility.

Vedo che sei andato sul sito originale e hai dato un'occhiata anche ai commenti.
Complimenti.

Riguardo all'obiezione che hai citato, essa può essere divisa in due.
La prima parte, dove si afferma che l'economia andava bene a causa della bolla delle dot.com, mi sembra un po' tirata per i capelli.
La crescita dei corsi azionari è avvenuta negli ultimi due anni della presidenza Clinton, un po' poco per ascrivere il "successo" di quegli anni (lo metto tra virgolette perché un gran successo non è stato) a un fenomeno prettamente finanziario. Stiglitz ha scritto un libro in cui spiega le ragioni della crescita nel periodo clintoniano, e molto onestamente ha detto che il fenomeno era stato generato da cause non previste del pool di econoimisti governativi di cui faceva parte. Si è trattato di un fenomeno che li ha completamente scavalcati.

La seconda parte dell'obiezione, invece, è sintetizzata in questo concetto: "In a sense, our poor economy now is much more a result of the good economy of 2000 than it is a result of President Bush's policies." E questa non vale neppure la pena di essere commentata. Dare la colpa a chi viene prima è già di per sé ridicolo. Ma che senso ha fare un'affermazione del genere, quando per contrastare gli effetti nefasti della politica clintoniana si fa la stessa politica, ma questa volta su scala ancora maggiore. Il buon Jeremy se la cava dicendo che queste cose le decide la Fed e il Presidente non conta un tubo. Ma allora non contava neppure Clinton. Invece lui la colpa ce l'ha: il responsabile del casino che c'è oggi è... lui.

Comunque, l'epoca di Clinton è stata pessima sotto gli aspetti della distribuzione del reddito. Che non è il discorso delle disuguaglianze. E' il discorso che chi guadagnava 100 quando si è insediato Clinton, dopo 8 anni si è ritrovato a guadagnare 90 in termini reali, o anche meno, se si è trovato nell'ultimo quintile della distribuzione dei redditi. (Questo nonostante gli sbandierati aumenti della produttività americani.)

[microalfa]

Ho detto risposta "equilibrata", non esauriente.

Il succo del discorso sta nel fatto che l'input governativo non é mai assolutamente proporzionale agli effetti sul campo. Non può esserlo.
In situazioni economico-sociali diverse - poni per assurdo uno scambio cronologico Clinton - Bush - i risultati reali sarebbero rimasti grosso modo quelli che possiamo leggere oggi.

Ho dei grossi dubbi che la guida repubblicana o democratica offra una differenza sostanziale, forse nemmeno sensibile, nel cammino degli States.