economic statistics (as if people mattered)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Fri Nov 10 11:33:38 PST 2000



>John Halle wrote:
>
>>I should have made clear that I agree with you on this-though Kelly, from
>>what she posted may feel otherwise. Still, there is reason to believe that
>>census figures routinely underrepresent low-income communities, for the
>>reasons which Kelly gives.
>
>For sure. There's no question that poor folks are underrepresented
>in the official stats. Though it's also a fact that many poor people
>work off the books, and their incomes may not be as low as
>officially reported. I was once at a seminar where a rather
>prominent academic advocate for the poor almost whispered this point
>and told us not to repeat it outside those walls.
>
>>Where I think I do disagree with you is on your half-full perception of
>>how most of us are experiencing the Clinton-era economy. While it's true
>>that economic statistics are all we have to measure this, any number of
>>the standard measures of improvement, as you know, may be seriously
>>misleading.
>
>Yes, the inflation indexes are questionable, as is the Current
>Population Survey itself. But other income measures tell pretty much
>the same story - like the average wage data, which comes from a
>monthly survey of employers and is benchmarked against unemployment
>insurance data every year. And polls of people's reported well-being
>also tell a similar story. The late 1990s were the best period for
>the U.S. working class since the rot set in around 1973.
>
>Doug

Since poor folks have _always_ been underrepresented in the official stats, John's suspicion has to be grounded in evidence that poor folks have been _more often_ under-counted than in the past, I think.

That said, since one feature of neoliberalism is a growth of what is called "informal economy," John's suspicion that official stats are increasingly unreliable (compared to, say, the period from the Korean War and the Oil Shock) may be valid after all (more valid in poor nations than rich ones, since poor nations have much bigger informal sectors than rich ones do -- hence the difficulty of taxation, corruption, etc. in poor nations).

As for the impact of incarceration rates on unemployment rates which I believe John mentioned earlier, the growth of the prison-industrial complex must have an effect of decreasing unemployment rates & thus raising the median wages of lower-income-bracket workers (by taking adult males of prime working age out of the regular workforce & creating many jobs, both in public & private sectors), no? At the same time, the wars on crimes & drugs have made costs of living higher (& lowered standards of living) for an increasing number of people, since fines, court costs, lawyer fees, bail bonds, etc. must be paid & prisoners can't contribute to household incomes (through regular or unofficial jobs) & instead have to be supported by their families. In short, fighting against the criminal justice system has become a part of daily necessities for the poor, but this fact is ignored when economists discuss "standard budgets" & "official poverty lines," I believe.

Yoshie



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list