Krugman: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/opinion/10KRUG.html

Last Friday the Bureau of Labor Statistics delivered yet another disappointing employment report.

Since there's a lot of confusion on this subject, let's talk about the numbers. The bureau actually produces two estimates of employment, one based on a survey that asks each employer in a random sample how many workers are on its payroll, the other on a survey that asks each household in a random sample how many of its members are employed. Most experts regard the employer survey as more reliable; even in the midst of the recovery, that survey has contained nothing but bad news. The household numbers look better, but not particularly good.

For technical reasons involving seasonal adjustment, many economists expected the January report to show a one-time bounce in both measures. Yet employment as measured by the payroll survey rose by only 112,000 — well short of the increase needed just to keep up with a growing population. If employment were rising as rapidly as it did when the economy was emerging from the 1990-1991 recession, we'd be seeing monthly numbers more like 275,000.

Taking a longer view, the payroll numbers tell a dismal story. Since the recovery officially began in November 2001, employment has actually fallen by half a percent, while the working-age population has increased about 2.4 percent. By this measure, jobs are becoming ever scarcer.

The household survey, on which the official unemployment rate is based, tells a less dismal but far from happy story. (Why the discrepancy? We don't know.) The number of people who say they have jobs has risen since the recovery began — but has still lagged behind population growth.

[papau]

1. "only nine more months" of lies echo'd by media - and then it won't matter

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/opinion/10KRUG.html

I liked:

"To justify policies that more and more people call irresponsible, he must claim that wonderful things are happening as a result. For a while, that famous 8 percent growth rate seemed to be just what he needed. But in the fourth quarter, growth dropped to 4 percent. And as we've seen, the jobs still aren't there. So Mr. Bush must put on a brave face. He and his officials must talk up weak economic statistics as if they represented stunning success, and predict marvelous things any day now. After all, they have to keep this up for only nine more months."

And our media will let him - because a lie is not a lie if a GOP'er says it.

Our not owned and controlled by the right wing GOP media - they just act like they are.

[priller]

2. Too bad he didn't mention Bush's ludicrous job projections for this year

Read Brad DeLong's site. Basically, the crack Bush economic team (on crack, that is) is predicting job growth on a scale that, according to Brad, the US has *never* had. Pure fantasy.

Krugman could also have mentioned that many of the lost jobs are relative well-paying factory and engineering jobs, where many of the new ones are lower-wage service industry jobs.

Not that I'm complaining, Krugman rules!

[Beetwasher]

3. "Why the Discrepancy?"

"The household survey, on which the official unemployment rate is based, tells a less dismal but far from happy story. (Why the discrepancy? We don't know.)"

Oooh! Oooh! I know, I know! Ummm, maybe because they're cooking the number somehow? Just a guess...It's not all that difficult to tweak a number based on a household survey. Just bias your sample a bit, adjust the instrument slightly, tweak the weighting a tad and voila! Better numbers...