October 24, 2006
Clarifying Household Income II Posted by John Steele Gordon at 02:25 PM EST Mr. Zeitz accuses me of side-stepping the issue. But the issue, raised in Mr. Zeitz’s second post, was his claim that wages were falling. I gave evidence that, in fact, they are not. (He also raised some other points in his first post that he has chosen not to pursue, ignoring one and admitting the other was “over-zealous.”)
It was not until his third post on this thread, having admitted that compensation has been rising, that he mentioned household income. Compensation and household income are, while obviously related, two very different things. Apparently because his previous statistics weren’t working too well, he’s trying some new ones in order to shore up his argument. Mr. Zeitz is a fan of L. Frank Baum, and I think he is here trying to tell the readers to pay no attention to that man—the Wizard of Zeitz—behind the curtain who keeps changing the subject.
He writes, “The thrust of Mr. Gordon’s original argument was that since compensation has risen over the past 50 years, workers are doing fine without unions.”
I made no such argument. I merely argued that Mr. Zeitz’s statement, that wages were falling and therefore unions are needed, was not correct.
He writes, “But I don’t think his reply necessarily addressed the issues I raised, however clever and hip it is to be flip.” I think I did, but this is surely the first time I have ever been accused of being hip. I’ll take any compliments I can get, however, regardless of how far from the truth they might be.
|
