Per Capita Income in the South as % of the Nat'l Avg, 1932-2002

[The Duke]

AMAZING!!!!!!!!1111  It is just AMAZING that farmers earn so much less than a high-paid actuary living in New York City.

Farmers actually earn quite a bit nowadays. But you are missing the whole point.

Here is the data for the "Southeast BEA region", dividing 1932-80 and post 1980.

51.5% (85.6% or +34.1) {89.8% or +4.2}

Average 1932-80: +0.71% per year.
Average 1980-2002: +0.19% per year.

The difference is even more dramatic for those who feel the true realignment was 1980.

There was a lot going on in the south from '32-'80 aside from ideological stuff that contributes to that.  The south was agrarian, rural, and segregated at the start of the period with the higher growth.  Most of that growth is due to the arrival of industry and electricity and the like in the '30s, the emergence of real urban centers (Atlanta, New Orleans) with real industry and the end of segregation and the beginnings of including a large portion of what was untapped human capital in the '60s and '70s.

Its also true that countries that are developed tend to grow more slowly than countries that are just developing industry, so the period of the New Dealers is already predisposed to having the kind of growth we only associate with emerging markets during the 1980-2002 period.

There is one serious surprise here: Florida.  Florida has a great economy today, but its growth over the measured period in the last 20 years is not so great.  Perhaps this is because much of Florida's wealth is in savings, not spending, and so gets missed by GDP measurements, but I expected Florida to have the highest growth of the states mentioned, instead they have the lowest.

[The Duke]

One other point, in 1932 things were at rick bottom.  In 1980, things were bad but they weren't depression bad.  So simply getting back to normal would require a huge increase in per capita wealth if you're starting in 1932, so that inflates the gain during the 1932 to 19?? number.

[The Duke]

One other point, in 1932 things were at rick bottom.  In 1980, things were bad but they weren't depression bad.  So simply getting back to normal would require a huge increase in per capita wealth if you're starting in 1932, so that inflates the gain during the 1932 to 19?? number.

Actually the economic condition of the working class wasn't all that great during the Roaring Twenties (the high point prior to the low of 1932), though the difference was they could subsist.  That period was analogous to the last 10-15 years - fortunes made, yes, but workers lost income or were static.

The interesting political point here is that apparently workers have to fall below subsistence level to vote in their economic interest.

By the way, thanks to Beet for this fascinating thread, and for finding those statistics.

Per capita GDP doesn't measure distribution.  Only averages.

AMAZING!!!!!!!!1111  It is just AMAZING that farmers earn so much less than a high-paid actuary living in New York City.

Farmers actually earn quite a bit nowadays. But you are missing the whole point.

Here is the data for the "Southeast BEA region", dividing 1932-80 and post 1980.

51.5% (85.6% or +34.1) {89.8% or +4.2}

Average 1932-80: +0.71% per year.
Average 1980-2002: +0.19% per year.

The difference is even more dramatic for those who feel the true realignment was 1980.

There was a lot going on in the south from '32-'80 aside from ideological stuff that contributes to that.  The south was agrarian, rural, and segregated at the start of the period with the higher growth.  Most of that growth is due to the arrival of industry and electricity and the like in the '30s, the emergence of real urban centers (Atlanta, New Orleans) with real industry and the end of segregation and the beginnings of including a large portion of what was untapped human capital in the '60s and '70s.

Yes, and a lot of the things that contributed to things such as rural electrification, industrialization in the South, and the end of segregation with the need for movement away from the old agrarian structure based on black labor, was brought about by a combination of progressive economic policies. Whereas the South should have industrialized after the Civil War, the 70 years after the Civil War left it relatively poorer than when it had begun. The "free market" somehow did not help the South to industrialize... but the government in this case did.

Here's the trouble with what you're saying.

Your thesis is that New Deal policies are good because the south grew faster relative to toehr time periods during the New Deal, thus showing how the New Deal can bring prosperity to all.

My thesis is that the south experienced cultural, population, and technological developments that were uniwue to the south at this, but had already happenned in other regions, and this explains why the relative growth existed.

Look at you data, and you'll see that my thesis is a much more logical conclusion.  Your data shows that the south grew much faster than other regions, yet the New Deal was not a regional program.  If the results we see are specific to New Deal policies, you would not expect to see the south grow wealthier relative to other regions, you would expect it to grow wealthier with other regions as the nation as a whole grew wealthier.  You would not expect to see such a dramatic regional bias in these numbers, since public works were going on all around the coutnry.  The New Deal, and subsequent infrastructure programs like the Interstate Highway system, did not have the regional bias they would have to have to produce the results you show.  Instead, we should look for other, region specific causes.  The emergence of major urban centers, the abolition of Jim Crow, electricity reaching the south (which wasn't all because of the New Deal), etc are all good region specific reasons for what happenned.

I actually like infrastructure investment as an economic policy, but I don't think we should simplify everything down so much and act like this was THE reason something happenned when economics is about more than just government policy.

[The Duke]

I think its a stretch to say that Jim Crow was abolished as a result of the New Deal.

[The Duke]

Beet,

Its pretty obvious what you're doing.  You are trying to make the claim, albeit indirectly and shrewdly, that southerners vote against their own economic interests by showing the south do better in one economic indicator under Democrats versus Republicans, and that therefore Democratic economics are better.  You never say this explicitly, but its clearly your intent.

When someone points out that there were other more important factors not related to economic policy, you switch your comparison to a period before the initial post referred to (Post Civil War, pre-depression).  Yet you seem incapable of acknowledging the basic facts.

Historic forces beyond government control were the single biggest factor in the transformation of the south.  Civil Rights was not New Deal economics, neither was urbanization.  Electrification was accelerated, but not caused by the New Deal.  Government can influence, but not control the economy.  They did not cause these historic forces and more than the policymakers of 1769 could claim the invention of the steam engine as a result of their policies.

I like some of the New Deal, I dislike other parts.  I like rural electrification programs, but I'm not going to pretend it was the cause for what happenned.  You now back off you initial thesis, that the difference between '32-'68 and '80-'02 is the economic policies and that conservatives should shudder before the truth, because someone points out that its bogus, now saying that well, maybe other factors were involved after all.  But if you admit you can't isolate the intended variable, why pretend that that variable causes the different outcomes in 1932 verus 1980?

The whole point of your excercise is that the New Deal is better than Supply Side, but if you admit that the variables you intend to isolate haven't been isolated, and that other factors were involved and perhaps were even more responsible for all this than econ policy, why even start the thread?  The thesis is destroyed anyway.