After almost 15 years of a disappointing US economy, it is easy to get pessimistic. Incomes for the middle class and poor have now been stagnating over a two-term Republican presidency and well into a two-term Democratic one. The great wage slowdown of the 21st century has frustrated Americans, polls show, and raised serious questions about what kind of policies, if any, might change the situation.
Yet, if you look around the world, you can find reasons for hope.
While wages and incomes have stagnated in the US (as well as in Japan and large parts of Europe), they have not done so everywhere. In Canada, a broad measure of incomes has risen about 10 percent since 2000, even as it has fallen in the US. In Australia, it is up 30 percent.
Illustration: Lance Liu
These are not just any nations, either. They are among those most similar to the US: far-flung, once ruled by Britain, with a frontier culture and a commitment to capitalism. Although Australia and Canada are not identical to the US, it seems worth asking what they are doing differently.
On Thursday, an all-star commission of economists and policy experts from several nations published a detailed analysis of the great wage slowdown. It is a defining challenge of our time, the report said, before offering a meaty list of possible solutions.
“Today, the ability of free-market democracies to deliver widely shared increases in prosperity is in question as never before,” wrote the group, which includes Rockefeller Foundation president Judith Rodin; economist Lawrence Summers; and leaders from Britain, Canada and Sweden. “This is an economic problem that threatens to become a problem for the political systems of these nations — and for the idea of democracy itself.”
In a clear reference to China, the report said that “apologists for anti-democratic regimes” have used the stagnation of living standards in the West as a cudgel to argue that capitalist democracies are broken. Those democracies and China are racing for influence across much of the world, especially in Africa and Asia.
The report is meant to shape the political debate — both in this year’s British general election and next year’s US presidential campaign. Democrats and Republicans have signaled that the wage slowdown will be at the center of their campaigns. Former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton often says: “It feels harder and harder to get ahead,” while Jeb Bush, in a nod to upward mobility, has named his fundraising operation “Right to Rise.”
The report includes ideas that can appeal to conservatives, including more employee ownership and profit-sharing at companies and a more rigorous approach to infrastructure financing. However, it is hard not to see the report partly as the first draft of an agenda for a presumptive campaign by Clinton.
The commission was created by the Center for American Progress, a Washington research group founded by Clinton allies as a counterweight to influential conservative groups. The report also avoids some topics that make many progressives uncomfortable (public-school accountability and the decline of two-parent families).
Politics aside, it is a deeply serious document — one of the best overviews of income stagnation and inequality that I have read. Its central message is that the great wage slowdown is not inevitable. Yes, some unstoppable economic forces, namely technological change and globalization, have played a role. However, those forces have also brought great benefits to billions of people, and some high-income nations have done a better job capturing the benefits of the modern economy while avoiding its downsides.
AUSTRALIA AND CANADA
“We should not be fatalistic,” Center for American Progress president and commission member Neera Tanden said. “There are things we can do. They may be hard things, but there being hard things you can do is very different from there being nothing to do.”
Two protagonists in this optimistic take are Australia and Canada. They too have suffered from slower growth in recent decades, and they too have rising income inequality. However, the bottom 90 percent of earners are still faring better than the bottom 90 percent in the US, the report showed. An Upshot analysis last year came to the same conclusion: The US’ middle class, long the world’s richest, has fallen behind Canada’s.
What are Canada and Australia doing differently? For starters, a better job with mass education. They have near-universal preschool and do more to get low-income students through college.
“Increasingly, a college education is similar to the high school education of the past — necessary for a prosperous life,” the report said.
The efforts to create a more skilled workforce in Canada and Australia (as well as Sweden and some other nations) have led to better jobs — and stronger pretax income growth.
Also different: more intervention in the free market on behalf of the middle class and the poor.
“It was a reasonable reading of history for a substantial time that the principal determinant of what happened to middle-class families was the overall rate of growth for the economy,” Summers told me. “Today, a substantial part of our success or failure in raising middle-class living standards will have to do not only with overall economic performance, but also with the distribution of income.”
The commission has proposed a list of solutions, touching on many areas I have mentioned here. It also proposes a middle-class tax cut and fewer tax breaks for executive compensation.
Whatever people think about any one of these, the crucial point is broader: Middle-class stagnation is not preordained. No nation has a magic bullet, but many are doing some things better than the US — and have results to show for it.
Three years ago, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, in an important book called Why Nations Fail, said that the defining features of national success were broadly shared prosperity and political participation.
The debate over how, or whether, to help the US middle class and poor has its technocratic aspects, as any policy debate must. Yet ultimately, it is a debate about the future of the US’ global standing.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.