William Smith asked me to comment on "Larry Bartels' new book, especially that graphic that Dani Rodrik is floating around." I don't have Bartels' book yet, but the graphic thats floating around is this one:
What it shows, in short, is that income growth during Democratic presidencies is both more progressive -- which is to say, more of it accrues to the poor -- and higher for everyone. So Democrats are better on growth and distribution. Looking at this, Paul Krugman comments, "I’ve known about this result for quite a while. But I’ve never written it up. Why? Because I can’t figure out a plausible mechanism." And nor can I. To some degree, there are a lot of outside variables here. Economic growth is not really under the president's control, and you wouldn't necessarily expect policy to take effect quite so quickly.But it reminded me of a quote by Justice Louis Brandeis: "Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." And when it favors the rich, so too does the culture. Distribution is affected by a thousand little decisions every day. Whether a boss feels he needs to give a raise, or whether he imagines he can keep excess profits for himself. Whether a corporation decides to unionbust, or whether they decide they'd rather not get into a fight with the National Labor Relations Board. Whether a Congress decides to raise the minimum wage, or whether they block its increase. The causality here is, of course, complicated. It may be that the election of Democratic executives happens, in general, in times when the culture is trending in a more egalitarian direction, and so the Democrat is being elected for the same reason distribution is improving. And, conversely, it can be the example set by presidents -- as when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers to usher in the era of unionbusting, or Bush cut taxes for the rich and opposed increases in the minimum wage -- that help steel the will of the greedy and lower the working class's expectations and estimation of their own power. So the bottom line is that, like Krugman, I don't really know why the graph is as stark as it is, and how much of it is the result of Democratic governance. But it sure is suggestive. And I'd like to see some Republicans explain why the numbers tilt so firmly against them.
What it shows, in short, is that income growth during Democratic presidencies is both more progressive -- which is to say, more of it accrues to the poor -- and higher for everyone. So Democrats are better on growth and distribution. Looking at this, Paul Krugman comments, "I’ve known about this result for quite a while. But I’ve never written it up. Why? Because I can’t figure out a plausible mechanism." And nor can I. To some degree, there are a lot of outside variables here. Economic growth is not really under the president's control, and you wouldn't necessarily expect policy to take effect quite so quickly.But it reminded me of a quote by Justice Louis Brandeis: "Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." And when it favors the rich, so too does the culture. Distribution is affected by a thousand little decisions every day. Whether a boss feels he needs to give a raise, or whether he imagines he can keep excess profits for himself. Whether a corporation decides to unionbust, or whether they decide they'd rather not get into a fight with the National Labor Relations Board. Whether a Congress decides to raise the minimum wage, or whether they block its increase. The causality here is, of course, complicated. It may be that the election of Democratic executives happens, in general, in times when the culture is trending in a more egalitarian direction, and so the Democrat is being elected for the same reason distribution is improving. And, conversely, it can be the example set by presidents -- as when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers to usher in the era of unionbusting, or Bush cut taxes for the rich and opposed increases in the minimum wage -- that help steel the will of the greedy and lower the working class's expectations and estimation of their own power. So the bottom line is that, like Krugman, I don't really know why the graph is as stark as it is, and how much of it is the result of Democratic governance. But it sure is suggestive. And I'd like to see some Republicans explain why the numbers tilt so firmly against them. 
