NN: And you wonder why I find the LBO denigration of the progressive
movements so irritating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-If someone says X is an -important factor in the economic boom, and -I see no evidence for such a statement, -pointing this out does mean I am -"denigrating" X.
Max, fine, you think progressive movement are swell and fine, but are just abject failures at accomplishing any of their stated goals. And the goals they accomplish - such as the EITC, labor policy improvements, minimum wage raises, etc. - had nothing to do with improving the wages of low-income workers.
And that was what this whole thread was about. To reprint Brad's original comment and Seth's attack that I responded to:
> From: Brad DeLong[SMTP:delong at econ.Berkeley.EDU]
>
> Yes. But look on the bright side! 4% unemployment. A bunch of
> after-tax money transferred to the working poor via the EITC. The
> first sustained growth in low-end real wages in a generation. And at
> least a halting of the rise in income inequality if not a reversal in
> relative inequality trends.
-Three out of four of these are mostly Alan Greenspan's doing.
You, Seth and Doug argue that none of the improvements for low-income workers were significantly impacted by progressive groups or progressive policy changes.
How is that not a denigration of the efforts of the progressive groups who fought for those policy changes?
-- Nathan Newman