Krugman's column tomorrow,
"Whining Over Discontent" (subscription required) rips into conservative pundits who try to explain away discontent with the current economy with straw-man arguments, false numbers and misleading statements:
Right-wing commentators would like you to believe that the economy's winners are a large group, like college graduates or people with agreeable personalities. But the winners' circle is actually very small. Even households at the 95th percentile -- that is, households richer than 19 out of 20 Americans -- have seen their real income rise less than 1 percent a year since the late 1970's. But the income of the richest 1 percent has roughly doubled, and the income of the top 0.01 percent -- people with incomes of more than $5 million in 2004 -- has risen by a factor of 5.
While Krugman is (in my opinion) always worthwhile and usually brilliant, what I particular admire in tomorrow's column is a juxtaposition with David Brooks' column today
"The Populist Myths on Income Inequality" (subscription required). Without citing a single source, he argues:
Workers continue to see their wages rise as they age. The typical male worker with some college but no degree has seen his income rise from $34,000 in 2000 to about $40,000 today.
Brooks goes on to argue it is about skills, arguing
In other words, the market isn't broken; the meritocracy is working almost too well. It's rewarding people based on individual talents. Higher education pays off because it provides technical knowledge and because it screens out people who are not organized, self-motivated and socially adept. But even among people with identical education levels, inequality is widening as the economy favors certain abilities.
While Krugman does not name names, he says:
Notice the desperate effort to find some number, any number, to support claims that increasing inequality is just a matter of a rising payoff to education and skill. Conservative commentators tell us about wage gains for one-eyed bearded men with 2.5 years of college, or whatever -- and conveniently forget to adjust for inflation. In fact, the data refute any suggestion that education is a guarantee of income gains: once you adjust for inflation, you find that the income of a typical household headed by a college graduate was lower in 2005 than in 2000.
Krugman consistently speaks truth to power. He ends with a call for action:
The good news is that these concerns are finally breaking through into our political discourse. I'm sure that the usual suspects will come up with further efforts to confuse the issue. I say, bring 'em on: we've got the arguments, and the facts, to win this debate.