In an email that crossed my desk, New York Times reporter Edmund Andrews explains why he reported (incorrectly) that the Bush administration forecast was that 2.6 million payroll jobs would be created this year:
MY editors forwarded your note to me, complaining about how I depicted the Bush projections for job creation that were in the economic report to the president. I understand the criticism, and Brad Delong isprobably right that the real projection implies average monthly job creation of more than 300,000 jobs a month rather than just 230,000 jobs. In fact, my colleague Dick Stevenson went through those calculations in a follow-up story the next day.
I defend my article in a literal sense. As the story noted, the administration was forecasting an increase of 2.6 million jobs this year. At the time I was writing, I could not understand how an increaseof 2.6 million jobs could lead to such large monthly numbers and I was uncomfortable going with those numbers. So instead, I wrote that IF the nation were to add 2.6 million jobs by the end of the year, the economy would need to add about 230,000 jobs a month. That is actually true, but you are also right that the Administration was in fact predicting an average increase of 2.6 million jobs over the entire year and that implies much bigger monthly gains.
Thanks, Ed Andrews
Perhaps the most interesting thing about Andrews's email is the apparent absence of any sense of... yes, let's call it shame.
Andrews wrote, in the first and second sentences of his February 18 article, of "the Bush administration's official prediction that the nation would add 2.6 million jobs by the end of this year. That prediction, which is far more optimistic than that of many private sector forecasters, was part of the annual economic report released last week by the White House Council of Economic Advisers and was immediately echoed by Mr. Bush himself." But the "official prediction... by the end of the year... part of the annual economic report released last week" was the much more optimistic 3.8 million. Andrews got snookered.
Why did the administration bother to snooker Andrews? Because it now thinks the 3.8 million number underlying its forecast is way too optimistic. Why does the administration not simply say, "We made this forecast last November, and we've had bad news since then, so we're lowering our projection"? Because that would contradict the administration's claim that over the past five months the economic news has been good. The administration wants to (a) both lower its forecast and (b) claim that the recent economic news has been very bright.
And they think (correctly) that they can snooker Andrews into helping them to do so.
Posted by DeLong at February 23, 2004 10:54 AM | TrackBack
Think you are being a bit harsh on Ed Andrews here. He admits in the article that he wasn't comfortable, and makes it clear that the numbers he had were still far too high. He also admits his colleague went over the numbers again.
The tone may not be all that anyone might hope for - but his bottom line:
1. The Executive's numbers were bad, even at face value.
2. They are worse when you go over them closely.
is basically sound.
You must be a tough grader Prof. DeLong.
But one phone call to, say, Greg Ip of the _Wall Street Journal_ (who had essentially the complete story eight days earlier) would have cleared up Andrews's confusion.
Or Andrews could have simply asked Snow's staff, and if they refused to tell him, have written, "Treasury staff refused to tell me how many jobs the forecast envisions being created in 2004."
Posted by: Brad DeLong on February 23, 2004 11:16 AMwhat you want to do is get reporters to work with you in putting the Bush claims in a proper perspective.
So you critism here is probably too harsh and
needlessly antagonizes an individual you are starting to win over to your side.
show a little appreciation for the pressure he works under.
Posted by: spencer on February 23, 2004 11:19 AMIs it being too "harsh" to expect that an economics reporter for a great newspaper would accurately translate into plain English the data presented in president's Economic Report?
Posted by: joe on February 23, 2004 11:27 AMDear Brad,
I do think you need to respectfully consider Bob Herbert's jobs articles. No, Mr. Herbert is not an economist. Yes, he does worry about American jobs in a way that all too many cushy laired economists sluff off. Too many people I trust and care about worry about this issue to simply recite theory at them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/opinion/23HERB.html
Theory vs. Reality
By BOB HERBERT
Welcome to the 21st century. The landscape has changed. We're in a new hypercompetitive worldwide economy, driven by breathtaking advances in technology. Men and women are being added to the global work force by the hundreds of millions.
In this dynamic, potentially very treacherous labor market, few people are looking out for the interests of the American worker. The very concept of the traditional high-paid American job, with its generous health and pension benefits and paid vacations, is at risk.
Senator Charles Schumer of New York sees the economic changes as a paradigm shift. In an era of high-bandwith communications and the free flow of capital, most goods and services can be produced or performed anywhere in the world. And with highly educated workers in countries like China and India ready and able to perform sophisticated tasks at a fraction of the pay earned by Americans, there are fewer and fewer reasons for those American jobs not to take flight.
In light of these changes, said Senator Schumer, we should at least be asking some tough questions about the real-world effects of free trade as we've known it.
Referring to David Ricardo, the 19th-century British economist whose theory of comparative advantage became the basis of free trade, Mr. Schumer said: "Ricardo set up a model that served very, very well for a very long time. But now there are new facts on the ground."
The biggest and most ominous new fact for American workers is the dreadful employment environment of the current economic expansion. In terms of job creation, it's the worst expansion on record. The job growth since the recession officially ended in November 2001 has been primarily in low-paying sectors. These are not the upwardly mobile jobs long associated with entry into the American middle class.
And they are not the kinds of jobs that free-trade advocates were promising in the 1990's, when they were hustling American factory workers, assuring them that the transfer of their jobs to low-wage countries overseas was a good thing. Globalization will be wonderful, the advocates said. There will be more jobs. Better jobs. Higher-paying jobs.
The multinational corporations, which have had by far the biggest say in the development of America's trade policies, are thriving in the new environment. Workers are the big losers, and the losses are only beginning. We now know that offshoring or outsourcing — whatever the term of the moment is for dumping American workers in favor of cheaper workers elsewhere — was never going to be limited to factory jobs....
Posted by: anne on February 23, 2004 11:30 AMDoen't this guy falsify his own excuse? The excuse is that he was "uncomfortable" with the higher number. When I first started reading, I sympathized. There are lots of times that I have to write carefully to be able to publish, because I know the source I'm working from has left out information I need to make complete sense of its contents. So I write carefully. Then, I got down to the part about "add 2.6 million jobs by the end of this year." Andrews wasn't careful. He let the lack of clarity, or knowlegde, or whatever it was, trip him up. Surely, this notion of writing carefully so are to represent source statements accurately, even if doing so doesn't satisfy readers questions, is not unknown to journalists. If dissatisfaction becomes overwhelming, then get busy figuring out what you've missed, but don't guess and say "by the end of the year."
One must wonder, though, how quickly White House officials began to walk away from their own forecast, if the meaning of the 2.6 mln figure was not clarified by the White House in the first 24 hours.
Posted by: K Harris on February 23, 2004 11:35 AMPush the New York Times as much as you may. The economics reporting of the New York Times has long needed to be strengthened, and I love the paper and read it through without fail.
Posted by: anne on February 23, 2004 11:42 AMWell, at least he didn't tell you to go fuck yourself.
Posted by: FMguru on February 23, 2004 11:44 AM"... The multinational corporations, which have had by far the biggest say in the development of America's trade policies, are thriving in the new environment. Workers are the big losers, and the losses are only beginning. We now know that offshoring or outsourcing — whatever the term of the moment is for dumping American workers in favor of cheaper workers elsewhere — was never going to be limited to factory jobs...."
This is the only way out:
Push for a New-New Deal with a global reference. It is going to come any way. But ordinary folks are going to be suffering until it comes.
Locking yourself out of the world is no sustainable solution. But then it might speed up the New New Deal. Go for it then. More power to you.
At first i thought the prof was being a little too harsh, but on reflection, i agree with anne (who is virtually always right) and joe: we should expect - no, demand - the new york times to do a better job than the norm.
Posted by: howard on February 23, 2004 12:04 PMI can't possibly see it as "harsh" to expect that economics reporters be able to do basic, pre-algebra arithmetic! I mean, a little division would have cleared the issue up. The Bush admin would be in trouble if No Child Left Behind worked--there'd be no one left to lie to!
Posted by: WoburnDave on February 23, 2004 12:20 PMNote the Bush claim today that 5.6% unemployment is "pretty good". If he keeps this line up, it will be another blunder that opens the door to Dem attack.
Posted by: Bob H on February 23, 2004 12:40 PMThe administration also wants to complain about their own forecast without actually lowering it, because if they lower it someone will notice that in 2004 employment is projected to be lower than when Bush took office in 2001.
Posted by: Bob on February 23, 2004 12:41 PMThe administration also wants to complain about their own forecast without actually lowering it, because if they lower it someone will notice that in 2004 employment is projected to be lower than when Bush took office in 2001.
Posted by: Bob on February 23, 2004 12:42 PMThe administration also wants to complain about their own forecast without actually lowering it, because if they lower it someone will notice that in 2004 employment is projected to be lower than when Bush took office in 2001.
Posted by: Bob on February 23, 2004 12:42 PMi can't imagine a NYT reporter calling his competitor at the WSJ to ask for help deciphering the administration's numbers.
i could well imagine (although it's probably unlikely) the NYT giving the story a different spin from the WSJ's earlier account as a way to justify running its running the story a week after the WSJ.
I would love to understand better how the competitive pressures facing reporters covering the same story from different beats and perspectives -- White House press corps v. Wall Street economics writers v. Treasury beat -- not to mention WSJ v. NYT v. WP v. all the others.
Posted by: kit on February 23, 2004 12:47 PM" can't possibly see it as "harsh" to expect that economics reporters be able to do basic, pre-algebra arithmetic! I mean, a little division would have cleared the issue up. The Bush admin would be in trouble if No Child Left Behind worked--there'd be no one left to lie to!"
The error was one many people made - not reading the report closely with its claim of "average" job numbers. Now the reporter should have gotten it right, and to the NYT's credit, they did get it right soon there afterwards.
But yes, I agree that the standard of reporting isn't what it should be. More reporters should check into this site - as well as angrybear and argmax - on a regular basis.
Posted by: Stirling Newberry on February 23, 2004 01:26 PM"Note the Bush claim today that 5.6% unemployment is "pretty good". If he keeps this line up, it will be another blunder that opens the door to Dem attack."
It's a pretty good number, it just doesn't happen to have much to do with reality.
Posted by: Stirling Newberry on February 23, 2004 01:28 PMI don't think shame is quite correct. The press should be angry at the administration for not giving them the straight story. The press have been more or less going getting revenge with stories of the administration not sticking by their numbers and misleading the press / credibility gap.
Posted by: bakho on February 23, 2004 01:43 PMDear dear Brad
Never ever did I mean to imply that you are cushy laired, though the world's most lovable dog is no doubt. Still, the trade issue troubles me since I am thrilled that development has taken so strong a hold in China and India but do worry about labor adjustments.
Wash-Your-Pet indeed.
Posted by: anne on February 23, 2004 02:02 PMTo everyond defending Andrews: What the hell? This is the flippin' New York Times, not your local high school paper.
Flat out, any reporter who can't tell the difference between a sum and an average should be immediately removed from the economics beat. Any reporter who doesn't understand the numbers at hand -- feels "uncomfortable" about them -- yet files anyway is ignorant or lazy.
Andrews doesn't say he's uncomfortable about the implications of the numbers, but rather he's uncomfortable about whether the results of simple algebra are accurate or not. There's no room for comfort or discomfort in such a calculation. No grey, just black or white: Either the prediction requires more than 300k jobs/month or it doesn't. J. H. Christo.
On the left, Andrews can email me, Kash, Brad, ArgMax, Max S., and others if he wants to resolve his "discomfort." (Non-economists Matt Y., Atrios(economist?), CalPundit, and many others are also fully up to the task -- why is Andrews highly paid while these guys do a better job for near-free in their spare time?) I'd gladly show a reporter my work, or email a spreadsheet, so he or she can examine, replicate, verify, and even claim the result. (In this case, there's a hard way and an easy way to find the monthly number that generates a given change in the annual average employment -- I'll toss in two for the price of one.)
AB
Posted by: Angry Bear on February 23, 2004 02:04 PMI am not sure that snooker is the correct word, to give a comparative american expression, would be "Behind the eightball".
Posted by: big al on February 23, 2004 02:05 PMEntries like this give me hope that the NYTimes might actually improve going forward.
Before the invention of the blog, it would have been very hard and time consuming for most people to find out whether the NYTimes was doing an honest job reporting economic policy and forecasts or whether they were being spun by their administration sources.
Now, with the help of people like Prof. Delong, it is relatively easy for the non-expert to get a
reasonable idea of what is actually going on.
People at the NYTimes surely realize this, and if they care about their credibility (and if they are not credible, who will buy their newspapers?), will make an effort to do a better job. And if they don't, I predict their business will suffer.
Posted by: Jeffrey Miller on February 23, 2004 02:21 PM
"To everyond defending Andrews: What the hell? This is the flippin' New York Times, not your local high school paper."
I don't think anyone's defending him. Merely saying he is, sigh, better than average. Grading on the curve as it were.
"New Deal"...
Well Bush is doing his part by borrowing out the core of the current money system...
Posted by: Stirling Newberry on February 23, 2004 02:57 PMThe e-mail "crossed your desk" ? Do I understand that someone at the NYT *leaked* it to you ?!? Wow now that would be big time power.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann on February 23, 2004 03:40 PMBrad:
You're right that Andrews has no excuse for his sloppy reporting. But don't forget the three rules for dealing with reporters:
(1) flatter them; (2) do their work for them; and (3) never *ever* expect them to feel shame.
Live by these rules and eventually the poor slobs will come to you whenever the Administration dumps those big numbers on them. Math is hard, you know.
Posted by: Dinky on February 23, 2004 03:56 PMThis isn't about grading. Andrews is not a student. He is a fellow member of the community of scholars. His work should be held to as high a standard as possible.
There is a sheepish, don't-blame-me tone to Andrews' letter. That is irresponsibly self-abasing and should be reprobated. He has a job to do, and he shouldn't behave as though helpless resignation is a sign of doing his duty.
Posted by: Rowdy on February 23, 2004 04:29 PMWhat else do you expect from a paper where Maureen Dowdism is the order of the day? Unquestioning acceptance of phony jobs numbers, but lots of up-to-date gossip about Teresa's botox injections.
Posted by: Bob H on February 23, 2004 05:22 PMFrom today's NYTimes, part of Bill Safire's column
reflects a kind of desparation from one of the more intelligent pro Bush columnists/spinners. The Bushies say that unemployment is down to 5.6% from 6.0%. That's good news. Of course then the Brad Delongs and Paul Krugmans, among many others point out that that is because people have stopped looking for work. So how can the Bushies respond to that. Well, first lets not respond with facts. Let's not speak the truth. Let's say our opponents just want to throw water on a good statistics. Then lets just say they are pessismists. Let's go back to a tactic that good old VP Spiro Agnew (didn't he have to later resign and wasn't his speechwriter Bill Safire)used in the early 70's. Our opponents are nabobs of negativism, fearmongers, troubadors of trouble, gloomy Guses. From today's Safire column:
"Fearmongers want you to believe that unemployment is getting worse. Just the opposite is true: We've come down from over 6 percent to five and a half, but the troubadours of trouble have changed the rules about what is good news. Whenever the unemployment rate drops, gloomy-Gus politicians insist "it's because people have given up hope and stopped looking for jobs." But back when unemployment was going up, did you ever hear "it's because people are hopeful and more are out looking for jobs"? Never.
"And media fearmongers never report the happy decline in unemployment rates without making the lead "but the rate of job increases is lower than expected." From Democrats, all you hear is the mantra "biggest job loss under Bush since Hoover."
"But let's ask the pessimists: When did the job boom of the 90's begin to turn around? Who was in charge when that new measuring stick, "job creation," started to show the news turning bad? It was in the year 2000, when unemployment was low and the stock market bubble was bursting. At the end of Clinton's last year, there were 380,000 fewer new jobs created than had been created at the end of 1999.
"And where were Senators Kerry and Edwards then, when job creation started to slump? Not a peep out of either. With their fellow Democrats in charge, they closed their eyes to job growth declining and the hard time coming at us.
"Only now — when the Bush tax cuts have stimulated a solid new prosperity, and hundreds of thousands of new jobs are being created again — have these Democrats discovered what an awful legacy their party left.
"Only now is the tax-raiser from Massachusetts announcing speeches on job creation, calling low-cost producers traitors, reversing a lifetime's votes on free trade. Only now is the anti-free-trader from North Carolina reviving fears of Ross Perot's "great sucking sound" pulling jobs across our borders, and trying to minimize the impact of this year's bullish stock market on retirement plans of working families.
"I stand here before you in my $24 Rockport shoes — yes, I went and bought a pair; my momma didn't raise no fool — and say yes, there are "two Americas."
"Pessimistic America is pandered to by politicians demanding tariff walls and costly entitlements, preaching resentment, envy, anger, class war.
"Optimistic America responds to competition, opportunity, openness, freedom — ready to do the business that not only creates tomorrow's jobs but spreads the prosperity that leads to peace around the world.
"My friends, I've chosen my America. I hope it's yours."
Maybe Safire is writing tongue in cheek. Maybe he thinks it will work today. However, I think we are a little smarter today.
Posted by: jim on February 23, 2004 05:46 PMSafire's take on employment was absurd, but his take on trade was excellent, light-years better than Bob Herbert's "the theory is wrong, even though I have no idea what the theory is" column. Quoting Charles Schumer on free trade is like quoting Anne Coulter on Max Cleland: something you should do only to showcase an example of supreme idiocy.
Posted by: Steve Carr on February 23, 2004 11:41 PMSteve Carr
“Safire's take … on trade was excellent
“Quoting Charles Schumer on free trade is ……an example of supreme idiocy.”
Free Trade: A system whereby the free movement of all goods and services, investment money and workers between countries is neither restricted nor encouraged by government.
This situation does not exist today. It will never exist. Workers will never have the free movement between countries that capital is permitted.
This leaves two options.
1) Relegate labor forever to it current subservient role to capital
2) Do something to level the playing field.
Schumer has recognized the existence a problem. And suggested solutions. This is idiocy?
Jack.
"There is a sheepish, don't-blame-me tone to Andrews' letter. That is irresponsibly self-abasing and should be reprobated. He has a job to do, and he shouldn't behave as though helpless resignation is a sign of doing his duty."
Such an idealist, expecting people to work for a living. We all schmooze for a living, the work is merely what we do in our spare time...
Posted by: Stirling Newberry on February 24, 2004 07:24 AMIt's Andrews' reportorial "objectivity" in this note which really gets me: "Brad Delong is probably right..." No. It's math. Probably doesn't enter the equation. This on the one hand, on the other hand approach- when adopted as life view leads to letting someone get away with saying 2+2=1. And that's part of what the administration counts on (and why they won't defend it or say anything really. to do so would change the "on the other hand").
If reporters can't sort out lies from truth, how are their articles going to help the readership do the same?
Posted by: tegwar on February 24, 2004 07:58 AMI think the Safire article is a masterful piece of political spin that takes data and places them in their worse possible context. For example he makes it sound like a terrible thing that in the last year of the Clinton administration fewer jobs were created than in the prior year-- he does not point out that job creation in the last year was one of the strongest on record and that the prior year may have been an all time record.
But this is the problem we are dealing with. At least he knows enough about the subject to spin it. In contrast the typical reporter does not know enough to even realize they are being spun.
We need to work with reporters to help them overcome this disadvantage.
Posted by: spencer on February 24, 2004 11:39 AM