Tipped off by Dmitriy T.M., I enjoyed a Slate slideshow depicting and contextualizing the shrinking of the middle class and the growing advantage of the very top earners in the U.S. over time. We’ve highlighted this slideshow before, but I thought this image deserved its own post. Drawing on data from 1948 to 2005, put together by Larry Bartels, Slate shows that all income brackets prosper under both Democratic and Republican leadership, despite the idea that Republicans are fiscally responsible and Democrats irresponsible. Under Democrats, however, nearly everyone is much more prosperous. The highest income brackets are, given the margin of error, equally prosperous and all other brackets are significantly more so.
The figure reminds us that stereotypes about Republicans and Democrats don’t reflect reality and economic prosperity isn’t a zero sum game.
More slides at Slate.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 17
Grizzly — January 20, 2011
This slide is confusing correlation and causation. There is nothing to indicate that policies implemented by the Democrats caused the increase in prosperity. This could be more an indicator of how the population tends to vote when times are good compared to lean times.
MK — January 20, 2011
Funny, there is a similar graph making the rounds in Sweden where I'm from. Sadly, it is interpreted as poorly there as in this blog. It's always hard to show causation, but if you're going to rely on correlation alone, at least rule out some alternative hypotheses! Starting by the one Grizzly points out for example.
Joey P — January 20, 2011
The slide doesn't imply correlation and causation, but Wade's headline certainly does. Is this dataset really reliable enough to make such a claim, however? We're talking about a sample size of 11 presidents. More importantly, it's a stretch to suggest that in an economy as sprawling and dynamic as that of the United States, the principal determinant of income growth would boil down to the party affiliation of whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office.
Jirka — January 20, 2011
Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan (both Republican) were Presidents during recessions caused by oil embargoes (hardly their fault), Bill Clinton presided over the dot-com boom, while Bush the First inherited the resulting dot-com bust. Therefore, I also call bullshit on the headline.
thlingan — January 20, 2011
At the very least, this does show that the Republican certainly cannot claim that electing a Republican president guarantees income growth due to fiscally conservative policies. It may not be fair to claim democrats make people richer, but it's certainly shows that a Republican president alone does not guarantee improved income growth
Anonymous — January 20, 2011
This also makes no mention of a possible time-lag between a policy's implementation and its effects. It takes time for policy effects to trickle down into wage increases. Also, I think it's common knowledge now that the economic conditions during a presidency are mostly determined by actions taken by previous administrations.
Lastly, are these numbers calculated before or after taxes? If the wealthy gain a 2% income increase and pay 3% more of their income as taxes...
nok413 — January 20, 2011
This also makes no mention of a possible time-lag between a policy's implementation and its effects. It takes time for policy effects to trickle down into wage increases. Also, I think it's common knowledge now that the economic conditions during a presidency are mostly determined by actions taken by previous administrations.
Lastly, are these numbers calculated before or after taxes? If the wealthy gain a 2% income increase and pay 3% more of their income as taxes...
Eve — January 21, 2011
Ha! Nobody cares about the 95th percentile anymore. The 95th percentile is full of nabobs and Kardashians. The 99th percentile is where it's at. Those folks are the ones that are driving policy.
whaaaaat? — January 21, 2011
When you're poor, you pray. When you're rich, you play.
If I were malicious, I could turn this statement around and say:
God makes people poor, because when they pray, they are poor.
Like some comments here, I agree that the graph doesn't indicate any causation. Anyone could read into it and turn it around to fit their agenda.
Keeping The Faith « NoOneOfAnyImport's Blog — January 22, 2011
[...] has a discussion of it from 1986. As recently as two days ago, some charts from Slate were touted as proof of “the shrinking of the middle class and the growing advantage of the very top earners in the [...]
frontpack — February 5, 2011
Really you guys?!
I agree the title was probably a poor choice, but I think it's meant to be a bit sarcastic and/or just serve to shake-up what our preconceptions may be concerning a topic like this.
And yes we of course know that a President's influence on prosperity and growth is very complex (the inherit lots of things, face unique challenges, and their influence may not be realized for years, etc etc), but I think the point is that people still tend to vote based on perceptions such as the perception that Republicans are greater supporters and protectors of individuals' wealth and that therefore this will to increased prosperity for themselves.
The chart is merely meant to shake-up these perceptions regardless of their right or wrongness.
JayLee — February 10, 2011
Of course, doesn't the president's party usually lose the majority in Congress (the people who make the budget) sometime during the president's term? So another possible correlation is the precise opposite of what the author implies.