IBJOpinion

MARCUS: Small gains do not deserve a celebration

Morton Marcus
April 3, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Morton Marcus

Julius Jolley burst into the pancake house, his smile a banner across his face.

“Coffee, please. Eggs Benedict, easy on the sauce, no potatoes, no pancakes, fruit cup if it’s fresh,” he called to a waitress, not stopping until he reached the table where I sat with my newspaper.

“Wonderful day,” Julius exclaimed. “See the story, spoilsport?”

“Which story?” I asked, although I knew the answer.

“The state personal income data just released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis,” he said with a smile like a poppa wolf bringing a fresh carcass back to the den.

“I saw it,” I said flatly. “It was OK; Indiana’s annual average growth rate for personal income from 2007 to 2009 (0.64 percent) exceeded that of the U.S. (0.57 percent) and of our industrial neighbors (Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin).”

“Yes,” he beamed. “And … what else?”

“Our population growth rate (0.60 percent),” I said, then paused to gulp some coffee, “was higher than any of those other four states, although lower than the national rate (0.90 percent).”

“Isn’t that cause for a big smile?” he taunted.

“It is,” I said, “if small differences in pathetic numbers make you happy.”

“That’s cruel and unbecoming commentary from a gentleman,” he said and turned his attention to his order, which had just arrived.

“Public relations and puffery are not my business,” I said. “Both the Indiana and U.S. income growth rates are extremely small and each rounds off to a measly 0.6 percent. To be somewhat healthier than your sickly neighbors does not mean that you are well.”

“You’re refusing to get to the heart of the matter,” Julius scolded. “From 2007 to 2009—during the worst times since the 1930s—Indiana’s per-capita personal income, the general standard of economic well-being, rose, climbed, expanded, improved while the per capita personal income of the nation fell, declined, contracted and deteriorated. Do you deny it?”

“No,” I admitted. “But it’s nothing to be excited about. The Hoosier increase you cite was a pathetic 0.03 percent, and that’s without taking into account the low 1.7-percent average annual increase in consumer prices during those years. That means real income in Indiana fell. Yes, the U.S. was worse, but we were still in the lower half of all states. So what’s to celebrate?”

“We need to celebrate,” Julius insisted. “Hoosiers need to hear the good news. That’s why you hear so much about positive plans, intentions and aspirations. These give us hope, which is the currency of bad times.”

“What does hope buy?” I asked. “Are banks crediting mortgage payments when a homeowner brings in a bushel of hope?

“Indiana has hard realities to face. We are hobbling local governments with our irrational opposition to local property taxes. We do nothing about wasteful township governments. We refuse to consider a progressive income tax.

“All the while, our economic base is shrinking. Indiana’s share of U.S. earnings from durable goods manufacturing is smaller today than it was in 1990. In the past two years, earnings in this sector fell an average of 10.6 percent here, compared to a national drop of 7.2 percent. This is our primary economic issue, not protecting horse racing and casino profits.”

“Aren’t you asking a lot?” Julius demanded. “What do you expect to do about durable goods manufacturing or whatever you said?”

“The Legislature could increase funding for the technical assistance program at Purdue. They could employ faculty or staff from our various universities to help solve management problems, like lazy thinking and lack of imagination.”

“You’re not an economist anymore,” he told me. “You’ve become a comedian.”

I didn’t find anything funny to laugh about.•

__________

Marcus taught economics for more than 30 years at Indiana University and is the former director of IU’s Business Research Center. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mmarcus@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT