Lead New York Times Headline
Claims "Sharp Increase in Living Standard": Where's the Evidence?
August 8, 2001
The front page lead story in The
New York Times the other day was headlined "Census
Data Show A Sharp Increase in Living Standard." This seems to
be one of the least justified headlines in recent memory.
The evidence the article
gives for a "sharp increase in living standard" basically
boils down to:
- more high school and
college graduates
- more people owning cars,
with 18% owning three or more
- bigger homes, with a
"slight" increase in the number of houses with seven rooms or
more
- growing family incomes
More high school and
college graduates: What does this have to do with standard of
living? Perhaps the assumption is that more well-educated means higher
income. The article doesn't give any data about this.
More people owning cars,
with 18% owning three or more: The article doesn't tell us if the
increase in the number of people owning cars is "sharply" higher
or just a bit more. 18% owning three or more cars fits in with the
proposition that those in the top income brackets are doing far better
proportionately than the rest of the country, not with the proposition that
there is a broad-based "sharp increase in living standard."
Bigger homes, with a
"slight" increase in the number of houses with seven rooms or
more: How much bigger, and whose homes?
Growing family incomes: Adjusted
for inflation? Growing how much? Spread throughout the population, or
only in the upper income brackets? The result of more and more families with
two or more parents/others working? The result of working many more
hours? The article doesn't give us a clue.
You may well be thinking of a
host of other measurements that go into "standard of living" which
the article doesn't touch upon, such as access to decent health care, the
quality of housing, how clean is the air and water...
Beyond the fact the the
article's headline is not borne out by the article itself, isn't it the case
that many Americans feel they are working harder than ever and have less
to show for it?
If The New York Times
was a Republican-oriented newspaper, I'd just assume the publication was
engaging in some pro-Bush spinning. But since the newspaper is
traditionally Democratic-leaning, the headline is quite puzzling. |
