Recent ecomomy op-ed in NYTimes

[Alan Bolte]

First off, I never know how much to trust an op-ed, so bear with me. Second, Does anyone know anything about the author, Bob Herbert? I ask only because I've developed opinions about some of the op-eds that get reprinted in my (somewhat conservative) local major newspaper, but I don't know this guy that well. The man is obviously liberal, whatever you may think of that.
Mostly, I'm looking to substantiate his claims, because if they are true, then I may finally form an opinion about the US economy, and not a positive one.
It was his April 5 column, titled "We're more productive. Who gets the money?" Essentially it cited a study from the Center for LAbor MArket Studies at Northeastern University, "The Unprecedented Rising Tide of Corporate Profits and the Simultaneous Ebbing of Labor Compensation - Gainers and Losers from the National Economic Recovery in 2002 and 2003," which determined that, on average for recoveries after WW2, labor (wages, benefits, salaries, etc) gets 65% of the growth, while corporate profits get 15-18%. This time, profits got 41% and labor 38%. The rest is opinion.

I guess I could scan it if you want, not gonna bother just now.

[Loki]

SECTION: Section A; Page 21; Column 1; Editorial Desk
LENGTH: 697 words
HEADLINE: We're More Productive. Who Gets the Money?
BYLINE: By BOB HERBERT; E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com

BODY:
It's like running on a treadmill that keeps increasing its speed. You have to go faster and faster just to stay in place. Or, as a factory worker said many years ago, "You can work 'til you drop dead, but you won't get ahead."

American workers have been remarkably productive in recent years, but they are getting fewer and fewer of the benefits of this increased productivity. While the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, has been strong for some time now, ordinary workers have gotten little more than the back of the hand from employers who have pocketed an unprecedented share of the cash from this burst of economic growth.

What is happening is nothing short of historic. The American workers' share of the increase in national income since November 2001, the end of the last recession, is the lowest on record. Employers took the money and ran. This is extraordinary, but very few people are talking about it, which tells you something about the hold that corporate interests have on the national conversation.

The situation is summed up in the long, unwieldy but very revealing title of a new study from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University: "The Unprecedented Rising Tide of Corporate Profits and the Simultaneous Ebbing of Labor Compensation -- Gainers and Losers from the National Economic Recovery in 2002 and 2003."

Andrew Sum, the center's director and lead author of the study, said: "This is the first time we've ever had a case where two years into a recovery, corporate profits got a larger share of the growth of national income than labor did. Normally labor gets about 65 percent and corporate profits about 15 to 18 percent. This time profits got 41 percent and labor meaning all forms of employee compensation, including wages, benefits, salaries and the percentage of payroll taxes paid by employers got 38 percent."

The study said: "In no other recovery from a post-World War II recession did corporate profits ever account for as much as 20 percent of the growth in national income. And at no time did corporate profits ever increase by a greater amount than labor compensation."

In other words, an awful lot of American workers have been had. Fleeced. Taken to the cleaners.

The recent productivity gains have been widely acknowledged. But workers are not being compensated for this. During the past two years, increases in wages and benefits have been very weak, or nonexistent. And despite the growth of jobs in March that had the Bush crowd dancing in the White House halls last Friday, there has been no net increase in formal payroll employment since the end of the recession. We have lost jobs. There are fewer payroll jobs now than there were when the recession ended in November 2001.

So if employers were not hiring workers, and if they were miserly when it came to increases in wages and benefits for existing employees, what happened to all the money from the strong economic growth?

The study is very clear on this point. The bulk of the gains did not go to workers, "but instead were used to boost profits, lower prices, or increase C.E.O. compensation."

This is a radical transformation of the way the bounty of this country has been distributed since World War II. Workers are being treated more and more like patrons in a rigged casino. They can't win.

Corporate profits go up. The stock market goes up. Executive compensation skyrockets. But workers, for the most part, remain on the treadmill.

When you look at corporate profits versus employee compensation in this recovery, and then compare that, as Mr. Sum and his colleagues did, with the eight previous recoveries since World War II, it's like turning a chart upside down.

The study found that the amount of income growth devoured by corporate profits in this recovery is "historically unprecedented," as is the "low share . . . accruing to the nation's workers in the form of labor compensation."

I have to laugh when I hear conservatives complaining about class warfare. They know this terrain better than anyone. They launched the war. They're waging it. And they're winning it.

Andrew Sum: Professor of Economics, Director Center for Labor Market Studies, Northwestern University

It's legit.

[Alan Bolte]

I guess I finally understand why many people still think the job situation is so bad when we've added, what? 300,000+ jobs in the past quarter? The new jobs are no more worth having than the jobs most already had in 2002-03, they just show up on reports better.