Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

The writer fails to understand that the jobs picture is not really getting better, the jobs picture is just not continuing to get worse. Unemployment is in the mid 5% (7% or higher if you add the discouraged). We are supposed to think Bush has done a great job on jobs based on that pathetic record? The gist of the article is that he may make it back to zero by the time he is voted out of office. He is not even back to square one yet.

By "better", you mean "even more anti-Bush than it already is".

The text did correctly note that the share of income going to profits has risen (share to wages has declined). But the only place where this article noted the cumulative job gains (losses) is the table. The text acts like job growth and output growth have been strong during the Bush43 years by lookiing only at the past 9 months. This would be like me telling my wife to notice the 10 pounds I've lost this period and never mind the 40 pounds I gained over the previous 3 years.

Can't we just blame Jane Galt for this? Not that she had anything to do with it, of course, but the blogosphere has been fairly boring in the last couple of days. (Not even much hilarious bile (only a third of which I actually understand) from dsquared). A flame war would liven it up.

To my incomprehension, the Economist has been kneejerk Bush supporters for 3 years, though Bushie policies clearly run against what they claim to be for (ugh, responsible government). The only way to get them against Bush would be a Bush visit to Zimbabwe and videotaped evidence of Bush praising Mugabe as a "great leader and a God fearing man."

Is it likely that this sort of job creation is going to continue?

There wasn't a number on that why oh why. Reached the limits of counting in Roman numerals effectively? Or just starting the series over. I snark, you decide.

The ruder Brad gets the more your realize he knows he was seriously wrong on this one.

Take the employment figures for the last 5 months, fit a trend line and lo and behold, as the Economist says, the figures will beat the projection’s 134.7 million jobs by the end of the year. So maybe they did work harder and worked out a better estimate than Brad’s seat of the pants projection.

Ah yes, if only Brad DeLong could be both President of the United States and Editor of The Economist, all would be well. Woe is us.

Ah yes, if only Brad DeLong could be both President of the United States and Editor of The Economist, all would be well. Woe is us.

Delong, why don't you dump that rag. Write 'em a letter and tell 'em they suck.

Trend line does not get you to 134.7 by the end of the year. Sorry. The graph to use is the cumulative graph that shows Clinton jobs off scale and WBush in negative territory. It is not the preceptions that are lagging. It is the jobs.

And now for Ronald Reagan Irony #1762.

During the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan quickly deflated Jimmy Carter’s reelection bid with a simple question, asking the American people, “are you better off today than four years ago?” The answer, at a time of high unemployment, staggering inflation, spiraling energy prices, and hostages in Tehran, was an obvious - and devastating - no.

Now it’s George Bush’s turn to face the Reagan question. And as with Jimmy Carter, the verdict from the American people won’t be kind: the numbers speak for themselves...

For more, see:

"The Reagan Question: Are You Better Off Today Than Four Years Ago?"

http://www.perrspectives.com/articles/art_betteroff01.htm

Employment figures are
159.00
83.00
353.00
346.00
248.00

do it - it gets you to 134.7 million.

..."are you better off today than four years ago?"...

But G.Bush is a War President. Apparently you whiny liberals still haven't realised that 9/11 changed everything. Without his leadership, and our jobs sacrifice, swarthy men with box-cutters would bring America to it's knees!

We can thank G.Bush that there are any jobs at all, as we'd all be speaking Islamic by now.

"We can thank G.Bush that there are any jobs at all, as we'd all be speaking Islamic by now."

I can only hope this is an attempt at humor, because if it's not, God help us all.

And Islamic? Isn't it called Arabic?

The prof cited a fact: that the Mankiew forecast was for much more job growth than 2.6M.

Anyhow, the really relevant forecast was the one the backbone administration used to justify its 2003 tax cuts: the between july 1, 2003 and december 31, 2004, the economy would create 5.5M net new jobs, which isn't going to happen (no matter what trendline Giles wants to use!).

As for the rest of the Economist write-up, i'd say it's rather rich to compare the job gains that were occuring after the longest peacetime expansion in history had nearly run its course to the job gains finally emerging some 30 months after an expansion began....

In considering the jobs data, the Birth/Death model accounted for 733,000 of the 1,010,000
payroll jobs created over the last 4 months. But the model is not seasonally adjusted and the bulk of the annual contributions from that source occur in the spring. The seasonal pattern for job gains from the model will be much weaker for the rest of the year.

What astrid said. Shocking how pro-Bush they have been. Great mag in many other respects.

Holy christ, you have been pointing out that simple arithmetic error for months now. The dead-tree-sphere is clearly can't keep up with the blogosphere.

I'm not surprised that journalists mix up end of year and average over the year. I am surprised that journalists are not surfing the blogs.

In the case of your blog, I think you need a better index (brilliant insight since one always needs a better index). Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? part MCCCLXIII is not helpful. You need index for
Reporters can't do arithmetic
Other factual errors in the press
The press swallows a spinner (kind of fishing lure)
The press is showing it's left wing bias (empty)
The press effectively has a right wing bias (huge but no one will read it)
Journalists at a respectable outlet take Drudge moonies or Murdochies seriously (almost empty)

This is going on too long. I mean
1. It is aweful that an arithmetic boo boo seems immortal
2. Reporters should be able to find a list of known errors of fact in the press not mixed with someone objects to slant or interpretation.
3. I know there are too many such sites so no one has time to look at them.
4. Tell factcheck.org with an e-mail.

Giles-
my math
Total jobs in 1st 5 months of 04= 1.2 million
Average jobs in 1st 5 months= 238,000
12 month total at that rate= 2.9 million
Jobs in Jan 04= 130.1 million
130.1+2.9= 133 million jobs

You are 1.7 million short

Did you go to a "child left behind school" for the mathematically challenged? Could you cite the source of your erroneous calculations?