A few links: Cassidy-Graham just-as-bad-as-the-rest health care bill, and more re last week’s Census data

September 19th, 2017 at 10:09 am

My CBPP colleagues have been churning out scads of analysis of the Cassidy-Graham last-ditch attempt to repeal and replace the ACA. Here’s CBPP’s main bullet points with color commentary from yours truly.

Second, while I justly touted last week’s good news from the Census of median incomes, poverty, and health coverage, it’s very important to put the last few years within their historical context. I do so here.

Print Friendly

One comment in reply to "A few links: Cassidy-Graham just-as-bad-as-the-rest health care bill, and more re last week’s Census data"

  1. Smith says:

    You say cheer up because the last two years have gotten us to where we were 10 years ago, before the recession? I will repeat my discomfort with that type of assessment, including the last two years, as good years, as about a million people still missing from prime age labor force, and that measurement not as low since 1986, unemployment plus those MIA equals 5 percent. Not that 5 percent is that high, but wages have not caught up.
    Interesting observation about returning workers lowering wage rates, since the underemployed (part timers, low income) are the last to regain jobs (and also drag everyone’s wage down a bit with them). Also wages helped by historically low inflation, still partly a ripple of oil prices dropping in half, just a year and a half ago.

    Totally missing from your or the analysis of anyone else is reference to the over skilled over credentialed workforce, which I’ve supplied links to support previously, and also emphasized the important effect. High skills or high income work surplus has a larger effect on wages than a surplus of labor in low skills. This phenomena explains low employment and stagnant wages. It has many policy implications. We need more high skills jobs, not more high skills workers.

    Here is a more concise story that the NBER link you gave to crappier declining lifetime earnings of people joining the workforce since 1967. There is no indication that it was or wasn’t caused by wages declining from that point, as 1980 seemed to mark the inflection point, but it was this cohort that received a net fall in earnings. It would be interesting to determine if this intuition is correct, that really post 1980 wages created fall in lifetime earnings.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/business/economy/bump-in-us-incomes-doesnt-erase-50-years-of-pain.html


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.