The problem is that with mathematical models you often lose track of the intuition and the subtleties necessary to properly grasp what's going on, while additionally making the arguments inaccessible to the general public.  It's one thing to say "GDP growth was 2.2% in 2007."  But when you discuss the microeconomics that are the foundations of the macroeconomics -- how different people react in different ways, and to different degrees, given a set of incentives -- you can quickly find that words are simply the more effective means of explanation.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

asdf:

This is actually one of my hot buttons. Anybody can write an editorial, but if there's no underlying analysis, it's just an argument.

Lots of maths in the FT and the Econo. It's not like they ever pull an argument out of thin air and try to make it convincing by repeating it over and over, even if it's nonsense.

If you're looking for quantitative support, consider:

1. Relative incomes
   
2. Relative taxation
   
3. Relative debt burden
   
4. Income changes over the last thirty years
   
5. Practical - i.e. High Street and Main Street - inflation increases.
   
6. Dot com, oil, and housing bubbles.
   
7. The current credit crunch.
   
8. Fradulent trading including BCCI, Enron, and the current crop of bandits.
   
9. Cultural changes and increasingly abusive work practices.
   
10. Union busting.
    
11. Deliberate use of outsourcing and immigration to drive down wage prices.
    
12. Constant media calls for 'reform' - juxtaposed explicitly againts worker income and job security.

I'm sure there's plenty there to keep you busy investigating real numbers.

Of course, apart from all of those - and it's not a complete list by any means - there's no evidence of a problem at all.