No Class Warfare, Please: We’re Americans
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/durantelallera
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
As a result, reported David Leonhardt in a front-page story in the New York Times ( 7/22/13):
On average, fairly poor children in Seattle—those who grew up in the 25th percentile of the national income distribution—do as well financially when they grow up as middle-class children—those who grew up at the 50th percentile—from Atlanta.
The report made headlines across the nation. “Upward Mobility Is Bay Area Challenge,” reported the Tampa Bay Times ( 7/23/13). “People born poor [in Ohio urban areas] are more likely to stay poor,” wrote the Cincinnati Enquirer ( 7/23/13). The PBS NewsHour ( 7/24/13) brought on one of the study’s authors, Harvard economist Raj Chetty, to try to answer the question, “Is the American dream alive, and how does it vary across areas of the U.S.?”
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria devoted two separate segments to the story ( 8/4/13, 8/18/13). First Zakaria interviewed Chetty—plus self-proclaimed “radical centrist” economist Jeff Sachs, libertarian columnist Megan McArdle and Brookings Institution inequality skeptic Scott Winship—to discuss the study. He then delivered an on-air op-ed that cited Canadian economist Miles Corak as noting that “America spends much less on the education and well-being of poor people, especially poor children, than any other rich country”—though Zakaria also noted that “the U.S. has many more broken families, single parents and dysfunctional domestic arrangements than Canada and Europe.”
The mobility study was indeed important news—though it was the rare story that mentioned that if the ability to rise in economic class is your main criterion, the American dream is far more alive in Denmark and the United Kingdom that anywhere in the United States (Guardian, 1/17/12). But in focusing solely on whether some poor Americans can swap places with those in the middle or upper classes—and pinning the blame for those who can’t on poor education or single moms, things that the Harvard/Berkeley study, which focused solely on the role of regressive state tax systems in decreasing income mobility, didn’t address—media coverage skirted the larger issue: the growing distance between top and bottom earners.
Corporate media took far less notice back in January when another of the NBER study’s authors, Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, released a report showing that in the first two years of the economic recovery, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners saw their earnings rise by 11.2 percent, while the other 99 percent saw their incomes fall by 0.4 percent. Three weeks later, the New York Times ( 2/15/13) reported this in its business section under the headline “Incomes Flat in Recovery, But Not for the 1 Percent.”
That was it for attention to the growing gap between rich and poor, unless you count a much-cited Wall Street Journal article ( 2/13/13) headlined “What Recession? Americans Regain a Craving for Luxury.”
Source: Census Bureau/Mother Jones
The mobility story had a lot of appeal to journalists: It was a new finding, and it had the benefit of ranking cities against each other, always a plus for local news editors looking for a hook for their own readers. The main attraction, though, was amply spelled out by Zakaria, who began both of his CNN segments, plus a Washington Post op-ed ( 8/14/13), with variations on the same phrase: “If there’s one issue on which both the left and right agree, it is the crisis of declining mobility. The American dream at its core is that a person, no matter his or her background, can make it here.”