Deinonychus antirrhopus

So, the bottom line is, farming doesn't count as employment?

I guess the bigger question is, what is the main point? Overall employment numbers provide one measure of the overall health of the economy. But non-farm employment tells us, what? That the manufacturing sector isn't doing as well? But doesn't non-farm include service-sector jobs?

When an analyst is going to start parsing (as Krugman does), then I think the analyst owes it to the readers to tell us WHY they're parsing.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to say, frex, that manufacturing jobs have taken a hit under this Admin (assuming it's true). And that has all sorts of implications, some good, many bad. This is what Glenn Reynolds, IIRC, has warned about, when saying that outsourcing overseas could become a major issue.

But to simply chuck numbers around w/o context, what insight does that provide?

There are times where using the non-farm employment data makes sense in context, but such use is noted. This is another case where Krugman knows better, and his misleading use of data can't be accidental.

This is what Glenn Reynolds, IIRC, has warned about, when saying that outsourcing overseas could become a major issue.

Actually, I've always interpreted that as talking about outsourcing white-collar jobs. Like programming, for example.

It seems Krugman is talking about, among other things, a net loss of jobs. That's a statement that's been echoed a lot.

And which Brian are you, the real Brian or the Brian from the alternate universe where Spock has a little goattee?

Pardon me?

Yes Brian that is right, net job loss. The question I have is why didn't Krugman tell us he was using the non-farm payroll data? Also, why did he use that vs. the total private employment data? Was it for a specific reason other than being able to make the claim about Herbert Hoover? If so, I'd sure like to know, but I doubt I'll ever find out.

Well, jobs are jobs.

Really, Brian?

Then I'm sure that you're never going to use that absurd line about "McJobs," where the jobs created are all fast-food jobs, vice the "good jobs of the 1950s," right?

And temp jobs and programmer jobs and migrant labor-filled jobs and assembly line jobs, they're all to be taken as roughly equal?

And elminating an entire CATEGORY, i.e., farm jobs, that doesn't matter much?

Well, jobs are jobs.

Yes, I suppose in one sense. However, a job is not just a job. Each profession is different. A brain surgeon is not the same as a garbage man.

There are two questions here Brian, maybe you can take a stab at answering them.

1. Why was the farm sector excluded from the data set?

2. Why didn't Krugman tell us he was focusing on the non-farm data?

There might be a perfectly valid reason for number one, although I must confess I don't see it. If it was selected simply so he could make his statement, fine, but I think it is a tad bit dishonest. Especially when you factor in the second question of why he didn't tell his readers.

Can the difference between those two data sets really be only that farm employment is included in one and not the other? Have we really added 2,000,000 farming jobs in three years? I am not familiar with the BLS statistics but it seems to me there has to be something else there.

He didn't eliminate an entire set.

He didn't eliminate an entire set.

Well in one sense no. The data is still there. In another sense he did eliminate it. He could have selected total employment, instead he chose to remove the farm payroll subset from the data.

And yes a subset is indeed a set; it is a set contained in a larger set.

Brian,

It really is pathetic to watch you comment on stuff that is so far above your head. You don't even understand why your "Well, jobs are jobs" comment shows that you don't even understand what is being discussed in this post.

Krugman doesn't think that "Well, jobs are jobs", as he apparently ( and secretively ) bases his piece on a statistic that only includes some jobs.

This can't get much simpler and yet it goes over your head.

To Steve and Robin:

Think whatever you want, especially Robin. DeLong, someone much more experienced in these matters than all of us put together, was pleased with this column.

Are you collecting logical fallacies, Brian?

Meanwhile, Man without Qualities also has some illuminating criticism of Krugman's silly column.

What are you talking about, Robin?

As for Musil, that looks to be another one of his long-winded, twisted entries.

Brian,

I can't help it that DeLong wont admit to Krugman's dishonesty (and I don't blame him). Academics can be a vindictive lot. They tend to be really smart, employed for life (if they have tenure) and for the most part ignored, even when they hold fairly high level policy positions. Saying outright that Krugman is dishonest could be a career wrecker. Krugman is probably an editor of several journals, and getting tenure means getting published.

Get the drift.

Oh, and you are misleading about DeLong, IMO. From DeLong's website:

But I do have one complaint. Asking that Bush leave "the job market no worse than he found it" is setting the bar too high by perhaps 2 million jobs or so. It would have been very hard for any set of economic policies to have sustainably kept the economy at the high-pressure state it was in in 2000.

What, surprised that I read Brad's blog? You shouldn't be, I do have a link to him over there on the right.

Your comments on why DeLong doesn't attack Krugman avoid the obvious points. DeLong, like Krugman, is an economic expert, or at the very least, the next best thing. He knows what he's talking about and can see that Krugman is right.

As for your comments on DeLong's remark, you're talking about a different issue.

DeLong, like Krugman, is an economic expert, or at the very least, the next best thing. He knows what he's talking about and can see that Krugman is right.

Man, you are dense as a fence post sometimes aren't you Brian. I didn't say that Krugman was wrong, in fact, my update makes it patently clear that Krugman is right, but that he didn't tell his readers all the facts. That, is undoubtedly misleading.

And no, DeLong's point get to the matter of Krugman's snarky comment about the employment situation. DeLong points out that no matter who was President they'd probably be having the same problem. Sheesh

"Man, you are dense as a fence post sometimes aren't you Brian. I didn't say that Krugman was wrong, in fact, my update makes it patently clear that Krugman is right, but that he didn't tell his readers all the facts. That, is undoubtedly misleading."

Krugman isn't misleading. That's just it.

I would also like to commend you for not attacking me personally.

"And no, DeLong's point get to the matter of Krugman's snarky comment about the employment situation. DeLong points out that no matter who was President they'd probably be having the same problem. Sheesh"

That's a fair point, but like I said, it's a different subject.

And even so, one has to wonder, for instance, how much of a difference targeted tax cuts towards the middle and lower classes would have stimulated the economy. B

Krugman isn't misleading. That's just it.

Not telling us all the facts, leaving it to the reader to ferret out the details is not misleading? Bullshit. If Bush did the same thing Krugman would have a complete bowel prolapse.

And even so, one has to wonder, for instance, how much of a difference targeted tax cuts towards the middle and lower classes would have stimulated the economy.

Hardly no stimulus at all. Those in the bottom 50 percentile in terms of income pay only about 4% of the income tax collected in this country. Granted if you throw in SS taxes, and state and local taxes the amount of taxes they pay is fairly substantial. However, the federal government has no control over State and Local taxes and the boyos from your end of the spectrum would have a hissy fit so huge at the idea of Bush cutting the SS tax.

"Not telling us all the facts, leaving it to the reader to ferret out the details is not misleading? Bullshit."

What facts did he leave out?

"Hardly no stimulus at all. Those in the bottom 50 percentile in terms of income pay only about 4% of the income tax collected in this country. Granted if you throw in SS taxes, and state and local taxes the amount of taxes they pay is fairly substantial. However, the federal government has no control over State and Local taxes and the boyos from your end of the spectrum would have a hissy fit so huge at the idea of Bush cutting the SS tax."

That's a very interesting claim, one that against basic ideas taught in economics. You claim that the middle and lower classes don't pay as much as the upper classes when it comes to income taxes. That's true. But what group is more likely to spend the money?

Now, you can have an objection to such targeted tax cuts, but they would have put money into the hands of people likely to spend it.

Brian, what am I talking about? What I'm talking about is that it sounds like you need to add a course in logic to your current high school program.

I studied logic in eighth and ninth grade, after I started being a year ahead in math. It was one of a few topics in all of my years of math that I actually liked.

What facts did he leave out?

For God's sake.

What did he leave out? How about the fact that he was talking only about the non-farm payroll? He didn't tell you that, I did. If it wasn't for me cluing you in on this, you'd still be happy and dumb thinking unemployment was going to end lower at the end of Bush's term than when he started.

That's a very interesting claim, one that against basic ideas taught in economics. You claim that the middle and lower classes don't pay as much as the upper classes when it comes to income taxes. That's true. But what group is more likely to spend the money?

If I were your econ prof. I'd flunk you...when you took the course again (to remove the F), I'd flunk you again on the first day. I'd say, "Brian no need to come to the rest of the lectures you get an F."

You said tax cut, right? As such if you cut the taxes for the lower 50% percentile (which is actually fairly low) you'd only give them back about 4% of the income tax collected. Sure they'd spend it, but there isn't much money there to spend. Do you understand the words that are coming off of my keyboard?

If there is very little money in the form of tax cuts you get very little economic stimulus. The only way around this is to engage in income redistribution, which is different than a tax cut. It is called taking money from one group (i.e., those who have money) and giving it to another group (i.e., those who don't have as much money). Typically such transfer programs are called welfare.

Now, you can have an objection to such targeted tax cuts, but they would have put money into the hands of people likely to spend it.

Where exactly did I say they wouldn't spend any money the get via a tax cut? (Here's a hint: Nowhere) What I said was that the stimulus would be small. You didn't ask what the marginal propensity to consume is, but the magnitude of the stimulus for a tax cut.

Krugman can't use total private employment data, because there are counterexamples to his "since-Hoover" claim if that is the measure:

Eisenhower:
Jan 1957 - Total Private Employment = 44554
Jan 1961 - Total Private Employment = 44208

"What did he leave out? How about the fact that he was talking only about the non-farm payroll? He didn't tell you that, I did. If it wasn't for me cluing you in on this, you'd still be happy and dumb thinking unemployment was going to end lower at the end of Bush's term than when he started."

Nonsense. I might get back to you about this later.

"You said tax cut, right? As such if you cut the taxes for the lower 50% percentile (which is actually fairly low) you'd only give them back about 4% of the income tax collected. Sure they'd spend it, but there isn't much money there to spend. Do you understand the words that are coming off of my keyboard?

If there is very little money in the form of tax cuts you get very little economic stimulus. The only way around this is to engage in income redistribution, which is different than a tax cut. It is called taking money from one group (i.e., those who have money) and giving it to another group (i.e., those who don't have as much money). Typically such transfer programs are called welfare."

Bingo. I knew that all along. Don't be so arrogant as to assume that I didn't know that.

You can have a disagreement with the idea of giving tax cuts in that way, but it's an accepted idea that such cuts are the best method of giving a good boost to the economy in the short-term.

Bingo. I knew that all along. Don't be so arrogant as to assume that I didn't know that.

You can have a disagreement with the idea of giving tax cuts in that way, but it's an accepted idea that such cuts are the best method of giving a good boost to the economy in the short-term.

No, it isn't. Do you have any idea of how much money you are talking about? Let us suppose for the sake of argument we are talking about $2 trillion dollars. 4% of $2 trillion is what? $80 billion. That is practically nothing when you have a $10 trillion dollar economy! Further that is a 100% tax cut for those people. If you only give them a 50% tax cut we are talking only $40 billion which is even smaller.

Nonsense. I might get back to you about this later.

Yeah right. Careful, or I'll have to start changing your userid to Wimpy (I'll gladly get back to you on this next Tuesday....). It is really simple there Brian, quote the part of Krugman's column that mentions non-fram payroll.

"No, it isn't. Do you have any idea of how much money you are talking about? Let us suppose for the sake of argument we are talking about $2 trillion dollars. 4% of $2 trillion is what? $80 billion. That is practically nothing when you have a $10 trillion dollar economy! Further that is a 100% tax cut for those people. If you only give them a 50% tax cut we are talking only $40 billion which is even smaller."

You're still fixated on the idea of not using something like a negative income tax. That's what I'm advocating.

"Yeah right. Careful, or I'll have to start changing your userid to Wimpy (I'll gladly get back to you on this next Tuesday....). It is really simple there Brian, quote the part of Krugman's column that mentions non-fram payroll."

Whatever you say.

You're still fixated on the idea of not using something like a negative income tax. That's what I'm advocating.

We already have that, and many of those people already get it. Further, it does precisely what I noted above, it is transferring the wealth from those how have it to those who don't. Basically you are calling an income transfer a tax cut.

Whatever you say.

Another demonstration that you are using a cap gun.

"We already have that, and many of those people already get it. Further, it does precisely what I noted above, it is transferring the wealth from those how have it to those who don't. Basically you are calling an income transfer a tax cut."

Well, I will admit that I and many others let the terms be muddled up, but I'll try to work on that.

You're still ignoring my point: the best way to stimulate the economy in the short term is to give money to the people who are going to spend it. I'm not describing something far out and bizarre here.

"Another demonstration that you are using a cap gun."

No.

Well, I will admit that I and many others let the terms be muddled up, but I'll try to work on that.

You're still ignoring my point: the best way to stimulate the economy in the short term is to give money to the people who are going to spend it. I'm not describing something far out and bizarre here.

No, you are worming your way out of a tough situation. Your initial point was cutting taxes, not a wealth transfer.

No, I was talking about giving people money, by the way of tax cuts, even if they did not pay those taxes in the first place. As I said, I didn't use the right term, a mistake many have made, but I will try to do that in the future.

No, I was talking about giving people money, by the way of tax cuts, even if they did not pay those taxes in the first place. As I said, I didn't use the right term, a mistake many have made, but I will try to do that in the future.

Brian that is not a tax cut. There are three ways of doing what you are saying.

1. Barrow the money.
2. Raise taxes on the rich and give it to the poor
3. Print more money.

Raising taxes, then giving the money to poor and not lowering the taxes for the poor is not a tax cut. It is called an income transfer. Each of the above comes with its own problems.

1. Barrowing money might raise interest rates.
2. Printing more money causes inflation.
3. Increasing taxes on the rich could result in lower economic output.

The last one probable eludes you, so I'll explain. People like to consume at a given level. If you take away current income, there is a distinct possibility that they will reduce current savings/investments to increase current consumption. This could result in lowered economic output in the future.

"Brian that is not a tax cut. There are three ways of doing what you are saying."

What don't you understand? I said that I used the wrong term, as many have. I also said that I would try to be more careful in the future. But you know what I meant. End of story.

"The last one probable eludes you, so I'll explain. People like to consume at a given level. If you take away current income, there is a distinct possibility that they will reduce current savings/investments to increase current consumption. This could result in lowered economic output in the future."

How arrogant. Of course I understand that.

Brian,

You have given me little reason to believe you understand much of anything. Sorry about that, but try harder to discuss things honestly and you might find you'll be getting more respect.

I do understand the topic at hand. As I have said several times now, I muddled the terms, as others have done. It was a mistake, one that, once again, a lot of people made.

What is so difficult to accept?

Because your explanations only compound the impression that you don't understand any of the rather simple concepts being discussed.

According to your overall chart, 1.3 million people started working in January of this year. That blip doesn't occur in the non-farm data. Thus, 1.3 million people started farming in January of this year. Seems unlikely.

Actually, there was a technical adjustment of about 1.3 million in January of this year, which, coupled with another technical adjustment in January of '01, accounts for the difference between those two data streams. 2 million fewer people are working now than January of '01, it is just that it has been exactly offset by changes in the data collection. This is all in the footnotes of the BLS statistics, and not hard to find. This is why virtually every economist of any political stripe has used the non-farm numbers recently - they may be flawed, but they are consistently flawed, and so trendable. You should too, if you want to be fair.

Congratulations, of all criticisms of Krugman I've seen, this is the first one which I've been absolutely sure is invalid. He's gone off the deep end, but he hasn't lost all of his ability at macroeconomics.