Today’s Paul Krugman: low wages and safety nets

Today’s Paul Krugman column makes some valid points that shouldn’t be dismissed because he’s a crazed leftist political hack.

Paul Krugman describes the phenomenon of the shrinking middle class, which I think is a real phenomenon. Globalization is reducing the value of labor because people in third world countries are willing to work for a fraction of what Americans get paid.

Paul Krugman also writes about the inflation of CEO salaries. I don’t think there’s any justification for high CEO salaries. “It’s the free market,” say defenders of CEOs. But I own stock in many corporations and no one ever asked me for my opinion on what the CEO should be paid. It seems to me like high CEO salaries rip off the shareholders.

However, instead of proposing any real solutions to these problems, Krugman uses this as an excuse for why we need to increase our commitment to Social Security. I don’t see how it benefits the young worker who is in the shrinking segment of the middle class if old people get fatter Social Security checks.

Paul Krugman cites a Business Week article which tells us that “67% of Americans think it's a good idea to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens.”

Although one suspects that the poll which produced that figure may be somewhat biased, I have no doubt that a large percentage of Americans like the idea of government transfer payment programs, if for no reason other than society (including the liberal media and liberal educational institutions) telling us over and over how good these programs are.

Joe public isn’t always the brightest person, so while his response to polls helps guide politicians seeking to win elections, it doesn’t tell us what policies are best for the nation.

Comments

[Scott S]

This is why, although I am a libertarian, I am also apathetic. The public wants a free lunch, and they have had decades of government schooling to insulate them from ideas of government not being the best place to hold your eggs. The public does not want the federal government to actually stick to the original meaning of the Constitution, and most are too busy trying to get by (thanks, democracy-and-freedom tax rate!) to worry about what our government is doing. Ah well, thank god it's Friday.

[Dave M]

Why do you call Krugman a "crazed leftist political hack"?

As far as I've read, his "leftist" tendencies start and end with a vehement vitriolic criticism of George Bush's (and his ideological allies') policies, and his mendacity in passing those policies. Unless you have some new evidence that supply side economics is working, or that complete abdication of government from any regulations (i.e. laissez faire) looks to have any alternative result than it has had in the past, or that Iraq is in fact a success, I hardly think that makes Prof. Krugman "leftist".

If you look at his positive policy proposals (as opposed to his criticisms of the dominant paradigm of today), I hardly think they're radical. Tax credits? Marketplace incentives? I mean, the good Professor is not calling for mass redistributions of wealth or any such.

There's a new generation of folks out there, who were called moderate or even conservative 10 or 20 years ago. They see the dominant ideological basis of the current GOP as dead wrong, and so they're opposing it, sometimes vociferously. I don't think that loud opposition (or radical moderatism) constitutes extreme political views, per se.

[Soft-shell commie]

I just wish these people would be honest and advocate the elimination of private property - it's at the root of all market "evil". Surely a learned council (featuring Klugman and the like) can dole out resources better than Stan Six-pack, driving his beat up Ford to Walmart to buy discount diapers for his six kids.
There are poor people out there, folks - we obviously haven't stolen enough from the rich!