Are You Better Off in 2008 Than You Were in 2000?

During
the final presidential debate of the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan,
running against Jimmy Carter, turned to the camera and asked "Are you
better off than you were four years ago?" The debate took place against
a backdrop of spiraling inflation and rising unemployment. A week
later, Reagan won the election by one of the largest margins in recent
history. Now, with the 2008 presidential election just weeks away and
the economy once again in turmoil, a new report from the Center for
Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) updates the Reagan question by
comparing economic indicators in 2008 and 2000, and finds that most
indicators suggest that voters are worse off now than they were eight
years ago.

The report, "The Reagan Question: Are You Better Off Now Than You Were Eight Years Ago?," uses a range of economic indicators to give voters a basis of comparison of their sense economic well-being.

"The data seem to suggest that voters are worse off today than 8 years ago," said report author John Schmitt. "It is hard to see how voters could answer Reagan's question any other way."

The study finds that 23 out of 25 indicators are worse in 2008 than
they were in 2000. Some of the indicators examined included the
unemployment rate, annual inflation, the "Misery Index" (the sum of the
the unemployment rate and the inflation rate), job growth, wage growth,
the poverty rate, the number of uninsured, college tuition costs, and
gasoline prices. Of these, only inflation-adjusted median family income
and productivity growth were higher in 2008 than they were in 2000.

For an opportunity to discuss and comment on the findings of the report in an online forum, please see our interactive webpage. That page also has links to the resources used to produce indicators and related material.

The full report can be found here.