Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
For a president who underlined the increasing importance of working-class whites to the GOP coalition, and who trampled so much bipartisan economic orthodoxy during the campaign, to be so overtly obsessed with the stock market is a strange disconnect.
In fact, no president in memory has so publicly staked himself to the market. Trump has, in contrast, paid relatively little public attention to wage growth, which is the measure that more closely tracks with his particular political project, especially considering that his election prospects may again depend on Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Why the focus on the stock market? For one thing, it's impossible to avoid. The stock-market numbers run in little boxes in the bottom right-hand corner of cable-news TV screens. Big gains or drops make front-page news. The market's performance affects how people feel about the economy on any given day.
On top of all this, the market clearly acts for Trump like poll numbers or TV ratings — immediate, easily digestible feedback on his perceived worth or that of his economic stewardship.
This isn't how he should view it, and it was short-sighted to be so boastful about the good times.
The stock market goes up and down. Trump didn't have sole responsibility for the runup in the market after his election (although taking the regulatory boot off the economy helped) and doesn't deserve the blame for the downward trend now (although the contention with China and general sense of chaos don't help).
Trump has lashed out at Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for being too tight on interest rates, and he might be right. But the president should be less Âbeholden to the gyrations of the market.
Wages would be a worthy new object of his attention. Trump has the ability to shift the public conversation onto ground of his choosing, and it would be better if wages didn't often take a backseat to the stock market and GDP growth.
Trump has a story to tell here. A historically low unemployment rate is having an effect. Wages grew 3.1 percent year-over-year in October and November, the highest level since 2009.
When Trump hears complaints from employers that they are having trouble hiring, his answer should be: "Good. Pay your workers more."
On the other hand, the political downside of focusing on wages is twofold: Like the stock market, it is a metric that the president doesn't have direct control over, and unlike the stock market, it hasn't mostly enjoyed strong upward momentum over the last couple of decades.
Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute and author of the thought-provoking new book, "The Once and Future Worker," argues that the point of comparison shouldn't be whether wages are better than they were in post-crisis in 2010, but how they are doing compared to business-cycle peaks in 2007, 2000 and 1989. Here they are lagging.
Wages are ultimately related to productivity growth, which has been increasing more slowly than in the golden age of the American economy in the mid-20th century.
Robert Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation argues forcefully that policy-makers should make fostering productivity growth their foremost goal.
For his part, Cass suggests a worker-friendly, longer-term agenda of reforming education to put more emphasis on the Âinterests of students who won't go on to get a four-year college degree; changing our immigration system to keep the lower end of the labor market as tight as possible; and exploring innovative models of unionization to give workers more leverage.
Maybe these particular initiatives aren't to the liking of the White House, but a working-class Republican should have an agenda very specifically tailored to the Âinterests of workers. Alternately bragging and complaining about the stock market isn't a substitute.
Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
(COMMENT, BELOW)