Post-Gazette Editorial – 9/4/06

This page was last updated on September 4, 2006.

Honoring labor / American workers deserve better than this; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; September 4, 2006.

As you will read below, the PG got caught in another “oops” moment.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“America’s employed began the Labor Day weekend with news Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that 128,000 new jobs had been created in August and that the unemployment rate had dropped a hair to 4.7 percent.”

[RWC] As a reminder, the 2005 Labor Day editorial said unemployment around 5% was “low by historical standards.”

“The new-jobs total in August was better than July’s 113,000 but still way below the 150,000 needed to meet the number of new entries to the job market. Any joy at the slight drop in the jobless rate was tempered by analysts who said it was due to people leaving the job market in despair or in quest of more training, rather than an improvement in the jobs climate.”

[RWC] You have to love it when an editorial ignores trends. According to the August Bureau of Labor Statistics data reported on September 1^st, the economy has created more than 1.7 million jobs over the past 12 months – and more than 5.7 million jobs since August 2003. The economy has added jobs for 36 straight months.

Regarding the comments by “analysts,” these are the guys whose monthly estimates constantly over- or underestimate actual results. I should note the editorial didn’t say “all analysts.”

“Previous news that wage increases are not keeping pace with the rising cost of living underlined the dilemma. Many people -- perhaps most -- are working harder and longer hours, but are still unable to keep pace.”

[RWC] Here’s the “oops” moment I mentioned above. I believe the source of this comment was a NY Times article of August 28^th.¹ Three days later and based on new data, one of the article’s co-authors wrote another NY Times article which stated, “Perhaps the biggest surprise in yesterday’s report was new evidence of a surge in wage-and-salary income in the first half of this year. Between the fourth quarter of last year and the second quarter of 2006, pay grew at an annual pace around 7 percent after adjusting for inflation.”²

As Emily Litella would say, “Never mind.”

“Their concern is increased by a weak housing market, which means that most families’ principal asset is losing value. Speaking last week in Gulfport, Miss., where he had gone to view the repairs that the federal government has failed to carry out in that Katrina-struck area, President Bush announced Delphically, ‘Houses will begat jobs, jobs will begat houses,’ thus revealing a misunderstanding of procreation, economics or grammar, or all three.”

[RWC] The federal government has failed to carry out repairs?

Congress approved approximately $110 billion for the recovery effort and more than $44 billion has already been released to the state and local governments.

Here’s an example of what the editorial is complaining about.

A tree falls on your house during a storm and does extensive damage. In an act of good will, your neighbors give you the money to fix your house. You complain, however, because your neighbors didn’t also arrange for the repairs to be made. In your mind, your “bungling neighbors” are the reason your house isn’t fixed.

“Thomas Carlyle, a 19th-century Scottish essayist and historian, said: ‘The progress of human society consists ... in ... the better apportioning of wages to work.’ In other words, the quality of one’s work should be rewarded proportionately, in wages and benefits or in other sources of satisfaction. That is manifestly not what is taking place in the United States. A CEO, even in a company with mediocre performance, pulls in millions of dollars in compensation, while a lower-wage employee, perhaps holding two jobs, can’t pay the rent, afford medical insurance or put much aside for the children’s birthday presents.”

[RWC] The PG is relying on 19^th century writers for economic guidance?

In fairness to Mr. Carlyle, I don’t know what he meant by “the quality of one’s work.” If he meant that of two guys making widgets, the guy doing a better job should be paid more, I would tend to agree. If, however, he meant a guy doing an excellent job of sweeping floors should be paid more than a guy doing average work as an engineer, I would tend to disagree. This second interpretation, though, is the one used by the editorial author.

Substitute “economic value” for “quality” in the above quote and it is completely true.

“Organized labor has made it clear that it is going to mobilize its resources, and the portion of the population that makes up its membership, to try to elect Democratic candidates, focusing on what it considers to be particularly vulnerable Republican seats. This assumes that a stronger Democratic role will result in an increase in government support for public education, a halt to tax changes friendly to the rich, more access to affordable health care, a rise in the federal minimum wage and other policies that are more beneficial to the worker.”

[RWC] “Organized labor” really means “labor union management.” The editorial falsely implies union membership supports these positions. Remember, union membership is not voluntary in many cases because of closed shop laws. Studies routinely show about 40% of union members vote Republican. If workers love unions so much, why do less than 10% of private sector employees belong to unions?

For once I’d like to see the PG present one scintilla of proof any of these socialist talking points “are more beneficial to the worker.” Remember, this comes from a paper that considers itself “more conservative on economic issues.” This begs the question, more conservative than whom?

I’ve addressed all these issues in previous critiques so I won’t repeat myself here.

“It would be nice to think that candidates of both parties would view the declining situation of the average wage-earner and advocate policies to reverse it. That is something that Americans would see as a cause for hope as they take stock of their position this Labor Day.”

[RWC] You have to love it when an editorial’s closing paragraph is based on a demonstrably wrong premise.

1. Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity; Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt; The New York Times; August 28, 2006.

2. Revision Lifts Pace of Growth; David Leonhardt; The New York Times; August 31, 2006.