The New York Times reports at the top of its front page today: "In 90's Economy, Middle Class Stayed Put, Analysis Suggests." A headline inside the paper says "Boom May Not Have Lifted Middle Class." The gist of the article is that the median family income in New York, adjusted for inflation, declined $2,876 over the decade from 1990 to 2000. The article includes a slew of caveats and explanations, but it misses one obvious point. The 1990 census put the New York State population at 17,990,455. The 2000 census counted the state's population at 18,976,457. That's a 5.5% increase. When you measure the median income of a population that includes at least a million new people, the answer you get doesn't tell you whether anybody "stayed put." To figure out whether the "middle class" is staying put or being lifted you need a longitudinal study that tracks individuals over time, not a comparison of medians in different populations measured ten years apart. You'd also want to know how many hours people are working -- if their income is the same but they are choosing to work fewer hours, they may have been "lifted" and are simply choosing to enjoy more leisure time. The article also doesn't take into account the effects of the tax system. Between the increase to the upper income tax rates and the increase to the earned income tax credit, the combined effect of the changes to the tax structure between 1990 and 2000 probably would take some of the edge off of the claims by the Times's consulting sociologist that the median income declined and that "the biggest gains occurred among the most affluent."
Drunk on ADA: An article in the metro section of today's New York Times reports on a dispute between the mayor and the police union over the provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. "Legal experts said the federal law cited by Mr. Lynch did protect people from dismissals based simply on their alcoholism and has prodded employers to make some accommodations for them. The experts added, though, that the law has not protected employees with alcohol problems from being fired for otherwise prohibited conduct, such as absenteeism, even if that conduct had arisen from their drinking." Rather than relying on the unnamed "experts," the Times could have checked the actual law. It says employers: "may prohibit the illegal use of drugs and the use of alcohol at the workplace by all employees," "may require that employees shall not be under the influence of alcohol or be engaging in the illegal use of drugs at the workplace" and "may hold an employee who engages in the illegal use of drugs or who is an alcoholic to the same qualification standards for employment or job performance and behavior that such entity holds other employees, even if any unsatisfactory performance or behavior is related to the drug use or alcoholism of such employee." Seems to Smartertimes.com that the ADA doesn't stop the mayor from establishing not driving drunk while off duty as a qualification standard for employment or job performance, even for employees who are alcoholics.
Late Again: The New York Times waddles in today with a story in the national section about lost federal tax payments at a Pittsburgh processing center. The Washington Post had this story yesterday.