David Brooks' column today is a "Greatest Hits" compendium of Brooks' dishonest techniques and false conclusions. The ostensible theme is that education, rather than "redistribution," is the key to overcoming inequality.
But it's really a primer in how to be deceptive and disingenuous. In just one column today he shows how six tried and tested techniques have brought him money, fame and disastrously undeserved respect:
1. Ignoring non-conforming data: Brooks writes, "The 'redistributionists' say "productivity should no longer be the focus because it doesn’t lead to shared prosperity. . . But their view is biased by temporary evidence from the recession. . . Increasing worker productivity is the key."
The "redistributionist" view is not based on "temporary evidence," but 35 years of increased worker productivity without any increase in real wages. You hear nothing about that long term trend from Brooks. Just the limited data scope that supposedly fits his thesis.
2. Blinders on Republican Obstruction: Brooks writes: "No redistributionist measure will have the same long-term effect as good early-childhood education and better community colleges." Not really true, but great ideas! And both parties have worked together to implement and fund that right away, right? No? Why not?
This is of a piece with his October 24, 2014 column where he wrote: "The fact that the federal government has not passed major infrastructure legislation is mind-boggling, considering how much support there is from both parties." It's only mind-boggling if your mind blocks out that one party, your party, doesn't support it.
3. Fancy and value-laden Jargon: "Human Capital" sounds so much wiser than simply "education," and "redistributionist" raises the specter of Marxism or, as your right wing facebook friend calls it "giving out free stuff."
4. Citing Outdated Views: Brooks quotes MIT economist David Autor saying "What I find destructive . . . “is the message that if you don’t get into the top 1 percent then you’re out of the game. That’s deeply, deeply incorrect.” He doesn't say when Autor said that. (I googled the phrase and didn't find it and there's no link in Brook's column. He said something similar, but not that quote.)
Though Autor was an advocate of the primary role of education until recently, he has has changed his position. Here is Autor's quote from two weeks ago, in which as Mike Konczal reports he walked back his education-centered "job polarization arguments from 2010:"
The premium to higher education has plateaued over the last 10 years. We see evidence highly skilled workers have less rapid career trajectories and are moving into less skill occupation if anything. Productivity is not growing very rapidly, and a lot of the employment growth we’ve seen in the past 15 years has been in relatively low education, in-person service occupations.
At the same conference, Larry Summers (not noted as a wild "redistributionist") said:
I am concerned that if we allow the idea to take hold, that all we need to do is there are all these jobs with skills and if we can just train people a bit, then they'll be able to get into them and the whole problem will go away.
Dean Baker cited those statements as "intelligent life" in the economics profession.
Keep up, David.
5. Misleading Data with Non-sequiturial Conclusions: Brooks writes:
Since 2000, the real incomes of the top 1 percent have declined slightly. If you limited your view to just those years, you’d conclude that there is no inequality problem, which is clearly not true.
Oy. Why would anyone (except someone like Brooks forcing a wrong conclusion) conclude that the data re real income of the top 1 percent leads to that conclusion? Inequality is driven by
wealth more than income, and the wealth of the
.01 percent has drastically gone up since 2000 at the expense of everyone else, including the top ten percent and the rest of the one percent.
6. The False Dichotomy: Brooks poses the key economic issue as a choice between emphasis on "Human Capital Progressivism" and "Redistributionist Progressivism."
People in this camp point out that inflation-adjusted wages for college grads have been flat for the past 14 years. Education apparently hasn’t lifted wages. The implication? Don’t focus on education for the bottom 99 percent. Focus on spreading wealth from the top. Don’t put human capital first. Put redistribution first.
(He claims it's "emphasis" and not "either/or" but the column is one big "either/or" analysis.)
Now that Summers and Autor et al have come around, there is no inconsistency between the two camps. But it has always been true that progressives can walk and chew gum at the same time. Those who emphasize "redistributionist" policies like stronger unions or corporate reforms also believe in strengthening education.
But by making the polar distinction, Brooks avoids confronting the very issues he raises about the economy (that education and rising productivity have not improved wages).
Of course education is critical. But in Brooks' context it is used as a false choice to prevent the liberal policies that Brooks abhors.
As usual, Driftglass pares Brooks' column down to its essence:
Don't Touch My Stuff!
Sat May 02, 2015 at 2:54 PM PT (Anonymous Coward): http://www.asp-piacenza.it/...
url=cheap[/url]