Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

David Brooks' myth-world

Posted by Amy Traub at 7:39 AM on February 16, 2007.


Amy Traub: Bobo in obliviousness...
0923sbdb2
brooks

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

New York Times columnist David Brooks drives me nuts on a regular basis. His latest column is par for the course.

Brooks hails conservative Democrats and dismisses the middle-class squeeze as a myth, "detached from the reality most Americans experience." This was particularly interesting to learn as we just finished putting together a DMI overview of the middle class squeeze grounded in that very reality. With the overwhelming majority of Americans agreeing that as a nation we're working "as hard or harder than ever just to get by" and less than a third of voters saying that they personally are getting ahead financially, one wonders who it is that's out of touch.

Economist Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute makes the point excellently in this letter to the editor:

To the Editor:
In "Who's Afraid of the New Economy?" David Brooks and the analysts he cites use rose-colored glasses and tortured data to dismiss pressing concerns facing the middle class.
They want us to take solace in the fact that the income of the typical prime-age household is in the $60,000 range, but don't mention that this income has fallen 4.4 percent, about $3,000, since 2000.
To these analysts, globalization is not a problem because unemployment is low. Never mind the job quality hit taken by millions of workers who've moved from manufacturing to low-end services.
These analysts similarly dismiss inequality concerns caused by the profit squeeze on wages. Yet corporate profits as a share of income are at a 56-year high, while the real earnings of even college graduates are up only marginally since 2000.
The administration made these arguments before the midterm elections. They were rejected by voters for whom the middle-class squeeze is a reality that can't be explained away by political spin.
Jared Bernstein

Washington, Feb. 12, 2007

The writer is a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute
But I still have one more beef with this latest Brooks column. Brooks remarks that "the main reason incomes have become more volatile over the past decades is motherhood… as women play a more signficant role in the economy, their movements in and out of the labor force to care for children increase volatility." It's true that having a baby is the leading cause of poverty spells in the U.S., that working mothers are paid less than childless women for the same work, and that married couples with children are twice as likely as childless couples to file for bankruptcy. So what's the upshot, Mr. Brooks: do we fight for paid family leave? Universal pre-school? Health care for all kids? An end to wage discrimination against mothers?

None of these. For Brooks, the fact that becoming a mother causes family incomes to plummet is simply a way to say that falling pay doesn't matter. Pay no attention to the squeeze: it's mostly the people trying to raise the next generation that are getting the worst of it.

Digg!

Tagged as: economy, new york times, david brooks, middle class

Amy Traub is the Associate Director of Research at the Drum Major Institute.


Going Extreme: Demint Says Recruiting Electable Moderates "Doesn't Make Any Sense"
You thought only the left formed up into circular firing squads.
Post by Jed Lewison. November 8, 2009.
House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
The Stupak amendment -- an anti-choice measure that could virtually eliminate insurance coverage for abortion -- will be attached to the health-care reform bill.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
David Brooks
Posted by: boing007 on Feb 16, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
David Brooks lives in an ivory tower. Send him on weekly fact finding junkets to middle class families across the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: David Brooks Posted by: ElanaDMI
» JonA/WI Posted by: JonA
Well done
Posted by: citizenjoe on Feb 16, 2007 7:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brooks is scum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

David Brooks on the Economy
Posted by: the islander on Feb 17, 2007 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is David Brooks' presence that turned me off Jim Lehrer's News Hour years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brooks?
Posted by: wleming on Feb 21, 2007 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Brooks is to journalism what Goebbels was to ethics: hes a mouthpiece for a paper which has been reduced to "state department hand out". Don't believe tha? Consider the Miller lies for access case or ask Raymond Bonner- who the times fired for reporting the truth about the el mozote massacre.
Brooks sniveling sycophant turns on PBS should be enough=- they are stomach turning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Brooks , nothing but conservative wolf in sheeps clothing
Posted by: Bozwell on Feb 21, 2007 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Find it amazig , Brooks has been allowed to spout and sputter as if presenting "impartiality" to his presentations but have long been slanted towards "mainstream conservatisimaticals"...Have figured that perhaps is put on the air, as perhaps some considered him less "radical" than known arch conservative flack hackers, but perhaps too few have bothered to note where his heat/soul lie(and take the double entendre of "lie" the various ways as well...!!! Interesting to hear him rahter "endorsing Hilary these days...think the Gopers would indeed prefer her as their "opponent" for 08 as they figure her nomination and possibility would stir their core groupies into action and elect ANYOE but HER !!!! He snidely writes off Obama, and the others he basically ignors thou does give a cursory nod to Edwards. Listen to him for sure, but listen up wisely and be aware and wary of whatever he proffers about and forth!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]