KRUGMAN: Back in August the Census bureau released family income data for 2004. The report, which was overshadowed by Hurricane Katrina, showed a remarkable disconnect between overall economic growth and the economic fortunes of most American families.
It should have been a good year for American families: the economy grew 4.2 percent, its best performance since 1999. Yet most families actually lost economic ground. Real median household income—the income of households in the middle of the income distribution, adjusted for inflation—fell for the fifth year in a row.


KRUGMAN (12/5/05): But the main explanation for economic discontent is that it's hard to convince people that the economy is booming when they themselves have yet to see any benefits from the supposed boom. Over the last few years G.D.P. growth has been reasonably good, and corporate profits have soared. But that growth has failed to trickle down to most Americans.

KRUGMAN: The Bush administration seems genuinely puzzled that it isn't getting more credit for what it thinks is a booming economy. So let me be helpful here and explain what's going on.
I could point out that the economic numbers, especially the job numbers, aren't as good as the Bush people imagine. President Bush made an appearance in the Rose Garden to hail the latest jobs report, yet a gain of 215,000 jobs would have been considered nothing special—in fact, a bit subpar—during the Clinton years. And because the average workweek shrank a bit, the total number of hours worked actually fell last month.

REICH (continuing directly): But to have a Rose Garden ceremony when you're celebrating the fact you've got 215,000 new jobs. That's nice. But the average per-month job growth during the Clinton administration was 240,000 new jobs. And there were very few Rose Garden ceremonies just saying 240,000 new jobs. I mean, you need 150,000 new jobs just to keep up with population growth. This is nothing to celebrate.