Scott Winship of the American Enterprise Institute tackles misconceptions about the American economy.
Sometimes it seems like Americans can’t decide whether we work too much or too little. We hear that because of rising inequality and a lack of good jobs, workers must toil too many hours at wages too low to support a family. By other accounts, the machines— if not robot overlords, then at least their touchscreen-kiosk cousins—are already beginning to take our jobs. Women work more than in the past. But is that because of the declining pay of their husbands, or is it a reflection of greater economic freedom? Older workers can’t afford to retire, but all those men sitting in their parents’ basements playing video games need to get to get off their butts.
What many of these claims have in common—whether they decry how much we must work or how scarce jobs are—is economic declensionism. It’s an increasingly popular view that the economy is failing us, necessitating greater government intervention. Or perhaps the blame lies with policymakers wedded to outmoded ideas. Either way, declensionists of the left and right tell us it’s time for a fundamental rethink.
Assessing the evidence over one hundred years and more, however, suggests that declensionists have it backwards. Both declines and increases in work that have occurred over the long run turn out to mostly reflect the country’s increased affluence rather than an underperforming economy. By misunderstanding trends in work as problems created by rapacious capitalism or out-of-touch elites, we fail to grapple with the choices everyday Americans and denizens of other rich countries have made. The resulting trade-offs have created a variety of quality-of-life improvements while destabilizing other aspects of society. If we wish to remedy problems like increased dependence on safety net benefits, declining marriage, or rising single parenthood, it will not do to indulge myths of economic decline.
