Author Topic: Political Economics  (Read 793160 times)

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Commercial Real Estate’s Looming Defaults
« Reply #2400 on: January 24, 2024, 09:40:13 PM »
2nd post, which contemplates the commercial real estate vacancies in blue cities, quantitive tightening, the Fed’s interest rate gaming, and their possible impacts on inflation et al. It ain’t a pretty picture:

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/01/24/bidenflation-ii-fiscal-boogaloo-another-sequel-nobody-asked-for-n4925789


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2402 on: January 26, 2024, 04:54:48 AM »
Another one in the same vein, this one from the WSJ:

It mentions govt. spending, but as we have seen here (spending 40% over revenues IIRC?!?) this is a really big fg deal and deserves far more mention.

That said , , ,

===================

America’s Remarkably Resilient Economy
Spending by consumers and governments keeps powering growth. Can it last?
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
Jan. 25, 2024 6:31 pm ET


Thursday’s fourth-quarter GDP report no doubt elated the White House and Federal Reserve. The economy grew at a solid 3.3% clip last quarter and 3.1% over the past year while inflation is now nearing the central bank’s 2% target. The question is whether—and for how long—consumers and government can sustain the expansion.

Maybe the best news in the report is that the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index—the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge—rose by only 1.7% in the fourth quarter, down from 2.6% in the third. Excluding food and energy, the PCE rose 3.2% year-over-year. Declining inflation helped lift real disposable personal income by 2.5% in the fourth quarter.

A buoyant labor market and rising real wages (at long last) are also boosting purchasing power while Americans continue to spend down their pandemic savings. Consumer spending continues to drive GDP growth, contributing 1.91 percentage points of the 3.3% in the fourth quarter. Net exports added 0.43 points while government spending chipped in 0.56.

States and localities are blowing through federal pandemic and infrastructure money. Over the last two years, state and local government spending has contributed more than twice as much to GDP than from 2017 to 2021. Increased government spending is partly compensating for a slowdown in business investment.

Non-residential investment contributed a mere 0.26 points to fourth-quarter GDP. Research and development spending has been essentially flat for 18 months. The surprise is that business investment is so weak despite the Administration’s gusher of subsidies.

One explanation could be that the Administration’s regulatory avalanche is magnifying the business uncertainty from Fed tightening and growing geopolitical risks. Its flirtation with a ban on new liquefied natural gas export projects is a case in point. Nearly every day businesses wake up to a new proposed rule.

It’s a testament to America’s economic resilience that the economy keeps chugging despite a regulatory fusillade. President Biden has a growing economy, but can he keep it?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2024, 10:18:44 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2403 on: January 26, 2024, 08:29:51 AM »
Still reopening from covid closures, artificially injecting trillions of printed dollars, have millions upon millions coming in across no border, and getting 2% growth.  Can it last?  No.  Are we smart enough to recognize that?  Doubt it.

The policies of Venezuela and Argentina here can't have the results they had there because why?

We are the world's reserve currency. We are?  The rest of the world can't even trade with each other without using the US$.  They can't??

The party of spoken "sustainability" is giving us none.

The party of "put the adults back in charge" is behaving like economic infants.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2024, 08:33:49 AM by DougMacG »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Adam Smith would be Pleased by the Mark this Leaves Behind
« Reply #2404 on: January 26, 2024, 09:03:24 AM »
The stuff of Statist nightmares:

Samizdata quote of the day – economic dynamism
Samizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · Economics, Business & Globalization · Slogans & Quotations

Ah! A testable proposition. So, currently the UK government takes 45% of everything, 45% of all economic effort and GDP.

The US government – at all levels – consumes about 28% of GDP, the Indonesian about 11% (yes, 11%) and Singapore’s some 17% or so.

So it would seem that economic dynamism is indeed associated with less than the UK’s confiscatory tax rates. Even, that fructifying idea has some empirical legs.

As ever, all economics is either footnotes to Adam Smith or wrong.

– Tim Worstall

January 25th, 2024 |

https://www.samizdata.net/2024/01/samizdata-quote-of-the-day-economic-dynamism/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Re: Adam Smith would be Pleased by the Mark this Leaves Behind
« Reply #2405 on: January 26, 2024, 09:22:31 AM »
"As ever, all economics is either footnotes to Adam Smith or wrong."
– BBG  (Tim Worstall)

Love it!

And, "1984" was written as a warning, not a how-to guide.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2406 on: January 26, 2024, 10:24:20 AM »
I would note that had the $5T "Build Back Better" program gone through we would be seriously fuct right now.

Senators Manchin and Sinema made the difference in a key moment.

I think this a pithy good point to use in conversation.

Also to be noted here is that advancing the Bidenomics sales pitch can now point to Kudlow and the WSJ in support.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
About that 3% growth...
« Reply #2407 on: January 26, 2024, 01:05:14 PM »
About that 3% growth...

Government expenditures have increased faster than consumer spending for the last 6 quarters in a row.
  - economist EJ Antoni, Heritage, CTUP
https://www.heritage.org/staff/ej-antoni
 
Sustainable?

Democrats used to (falsely) tout the multiplier effect of their spending. Now what do they call it, subtraction effect?

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Need a Job? Get a Gov Gig or Become a Health Administrator
« Reply #2408 on: February 06, 2024, 05:51:19 PM »
Digging into the jobs report. The big winners? Gigs that consume rather than produce, just what the economy needs:

The Black Cloud in Jobs Growth’s Silver Lining
The Beacon by William F. Shughart II / Feb 6, 2024 at 2:22 PM//keep unread//hide
“Jobs Growth Defies Expectations” blares a WSJ headline on the front page of the paper’s first-weekend edition of February 2024.

The story by reporter Sam Goldfarb goes on to say that “hiring is booming, defying [economists’] expectations [that] the economy would cool after going gangbusters last year.” Last month’s employment numbers, showing a gain of 353,000 jobs economywide (revised upwards from an initial estimate of 216,000), kept the U.S. unemployment rate “steady at 3.7%,” were correlated with a 4.5% seasonally adjusted increase in (presumably nominal) wages of 4.5% year over year, and generally signal that the economy is on track to avoid a once widely predicted recession (either a “soft” or “hard” landing).

The only flies in the ointment are that the rise in wages “may have reflected a big drop in hours worked—a possible result of bad winter weather, according to some analysts.” Moreover, the apparently strong U.S. labor market may justify the Fed deferring interest rate cuts to continue its “fight” against the inflation for which it is solely responsible. And the labor force participation rate remains at a miserably low 62.5%, meaning that many Americans live on the dole.

But is an economy that Fed Chair Jerome Powell characterizes as “good” something to cheer about? Turn to p. A2, on which the jobs growth numbers are disaggregated by sector. As has been true over the recent past, #1 on the list is health care, which is predictable with an aging U.S. population and substantial taxpayer-financed subsidies that lower patients’ out-of-pocket costs of seeking treatment.

Number 2 is (federal, state, and local) government, likewise a major contributor to jobs growth for years. Perhaps that is good news for the people who are hired by the public sector, but not for the rest of us. Most government “workers” do not produce anything of value; they shuffle paper (or electrons) from desk to desk, rob Peter’s pocket to pay Paul, rarely show up at their offices, and impose significant costs on private sector actors forced to comply with their mandates.

Increases in governmental employment frequently persist over the long run. Once a bureaucrat serves a brief probationary period (usually six months for a federal “civil servant”), he or she has a job for life. Compared to the private sector, total compensation, including health insurance options and pension benefits, is generous. Annual cost-of-living adjustments (“step” increases in pay) are built into the system, and it nearly is impossible for a tenured federal employee, even a grossly incompetent one, to be fired.

Do not be fooled by the rosy scenario painted by recent jobs growth numbers. Large increases in the number of Americans employed by government are nothing to celebrate. Just the reverse is true: more bureaucrats (and the spending necessary to finance their hiring and retention) are drags on, not boosts to economic growth, liberty, and prosperity.

The post The Black Cloud in Jobs Growth’s Silver Lining appeared first on The Beacon.

https://blog.independent.org/2024/02/06/black-cloud-in-jobs-growths-silver-lining/?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=black-cloud-in-jobs-growths-silver-lining

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Political Economics, Inflation is never "transitory"
« Reply #2409 on: February 07, 2024, 08:51:38 AM »
Recessions are tough but affect some more than others and generally have endings to them.  Inflation OTOH confronts  evveryone eryday, from now until election day and beyond. 

[Yes we conflate "inflation" with prices and general price level.]

Jerome Powell said it to the nation Sunday, prices are not coming down [except for specific products that defy general trend].

This piece makes good political economic points,
Sean Trende: 'Why is Joe So Unpopular': https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/02/07/why_is_joe_biden_so_unpopular_150455.html

First, inflation is never “transitory.” Even after it is over, price levels rarely fall appreciably (indeed, deflation has its own problems). Consumers don’t automatically reset their baseline. So even if prices are level (and there is still inflation in the U.S.; it is just the rate that has slowed), people are still surprised when they pay $2 per pound for chicken, comparing it to when chicken was $1.44 for a pound in 2021.

Second, inflation is constantly in our face. Every time a consumer goes to the store and makes a purchase, they’re reminded of the impact. This is true for gasoline, food, clothing – every commodity an individual consumes. That’s not to say other indicators don’t hurt; it’s just to say they are not felt as often.

-------------------------------------------------------
Third, the Biden inflation led to higher interest rates to fight it which also give us higher costs.  There's no escaping it.

It can be measured different ways but generally prices are up 20% under Joe and wages are up 15%.  A good test of that is credit card debt (and national debt).

Credit card debt passes a trillion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/07/credit-card-debt-new-record-pay-off/

Nobody runs up credit card debt with 20+% interest rates on purpose.

For a lot of people, we buy with credit cards and earn through direct deposit.  There is a disconnect that catches up, especially if you only pay the minimum a couple of times.  Expenses keep rising and income not so much.

Car insurance up is 26% and the law says you have to pay it or stop driving.  The car needs gas and the fridge needs groceries so you keep buying.  You keep the old  car to avoid new debt and the repair costs go up and so on.

More people are working second jobs. 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inflation-american-workers-are-taking-on-second-jobs/
Does Biden team think people don't notice losing the freedom of having an evening or weekend where you don't have to work to make ends meet?  If they were 'getting ahead' with the second job, why the spiking credit card debt?

Why people don't see this is a great economy is because it isn't.

Here's another price level indicator not coming back down.  Lumber price is indictor of the cost to build or remodel.  It tripled under covid and came back down after interest rates jumped, but the new level is more than 40% higher than the pre-covid Trump level:
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lumber  Click 5 year chart and do the math.  Window cost etc. are similarly not coming back down.

People are stuck in their homes because new ones, even old ones, are out of reach.  But the cost of staying put includes homeowner insurance rising at double digit rates:  https://money.com/home-insurance-rates-predictions-2024/

Biden intervening in the energy has only pushed prices up:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2023/03/09/high-electricity-prices-will-go-even-higher-unless-we-change-course/?sh=598ed7a16a8b

Try putting lipstick on THAT pig.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2024, 09:16:32 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2410 on: February 07, 2024, 09:47:44 AM »
good post!

"Car insurance up is 26%"

I haven''t gotten my new insurance bill yet  :cry:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2411 on: February 07, 2024, 10:42:29 AM »
Yes.

I like the articulation that prices rarely come back down, hence the world "transitory" is inapplicable.   I will be using this point.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1474
    • View Profile
Income Inequality: It's the Yardstick, Stupid
« Reply #2412 on: February 08, 2024, 12:01:37 PM »
Book review re The Myth of American Inequality: How Government Biases Policy Debate that argues the War on Poverty has been won and asks why the left/Great Society types haven't taken a victory lap (Wait! I know! If they take that lap they can no longer claim wicked people using nefarious means to scoop up more of some zero sum pie are to blame for the plight of the poor as it poops all over their very simple formula: proclaim gross unfairness hurts poor people bigly hence The Feds need to ride to the rescue with regressive regulations they call "Progressive" approaches).

Setting the Record Straight on Income Inequality
Book Review of The Myth of American Inequality: How Government Biases Policy Debate by Phil Gramm, Robert Ekelund, and John Early.
February 8, 2024
By ART CARDEN

Also published in The Library of Economics and Liberty Mon. February 5, 2024
Everyone knows inequality is growing. As a trio of economists consisting of former senator Phil Gramm, economics professor Robert Ekelund, and economist and former assistant commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics John Early demonstrate, however, everyone is wrong. The supposed rise in American inequality to unacceptable levels has been greatly overstated. Gramm, Ekelund, and Early help us get the facts straight.

In The Myth of American Inequality: How Government Biases Policy Debate by Gramm, Ekelund, and Early, their methodological message is simple: “The Census Bureau is accurately measuring what it has chosen to measure, but it is not measuring the right things” (p. 3). Their empirical message is also simple but a lot more controversial:

There are certainly people who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves and have fallen through the cracks in the system that delivers transfer payments, but, for all practical purposes, poverty due to a lack of public or private support has been virtually eliminated in America. (p. 4)

The post-tax, post-transfer poverty rate, they argue, is not the 12.3% the Census Bureau reported in 2017, but about 3%. The enormous difference is because the Census Bureau is not measuring the right things.

As Gramm, Ekelund, and Early make their argument, they kick the legs out from under the conventional wisdom about inequality. Taxes in the United States are extremely progressive, and the rich pay a higher share of taxes than they earn in income. Income mobility is alive and well. “Tax cuts for the rich” made “the rich” reorganize their affairs so that, as they quote JFK, they spent less time and money on “avoidance of taxes” and more on “production of goods” (pp. 115-116). “Tax cuts for the rich,” they argue, in 1962 and 1986 actually led to the top 1 percent and the top 10 percent paying higher percentages of their incomes in taxes.

One of their most striking findings compares the real income distribution today to the real income distribution of the 1960s. After accounting for taxes and transfers, Gramm, Ekelund, and Early argue that the top three quintiles in the 2017 income distribution and two-thirds of the households in the second quintile from the bottom have incomes that would put them in the top quintile of the 1967 income distribution. They recount a series of facts that we take for granted about the diffusion of indoor plumbing, air conditioning, cars, and televisions. Half of households in the bottom two quintiles own homes (p. 28). Restaurant meals used to be the privilege of the rich, but in 2017, “the average bottom-quintile household spent 34 percent of its food budget away from home,” much more than the 27% of top-quintile households in 1967 (p. 146). For the modern rich, cooking is a hobby, not a necessity.

To get an idea of what this means, watch an episode from the first season of The Wonder Years, which ran from 1988-1993 and was set in 1968-1973. Would we call the solidly middle-class Arnold family of the late 1960s and early 1970s “poor”? Would we say they hadn’t achieved the American Dream? Their standard of living would have put them in the bottom 40% and maybe even the bottom 20% of the 2017 income distribution. To the extent that the American Dream is harder to achieve today, it is because we have redefined it to mean two (or three) cars rather than one, central heating and air conditioning, a microwave, a programmable coffee pot, multiple streaming subscriptions feeding to multiple giant flat-screen TVs, computers, mobile devices for everyone in the family, an Xbox, and multiple bathrooms (with toilets that would flush and showerheads that would work if they weren’t regulated to reduce water use).

In his book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, Thomas Sowell referred to what he called “A-ha!” statistics that support left-wing narratives, at least superficially. A bit of further examination, however, causes things to come apart. Talking about what has happened to “the poor,” “the rich,” or “the middle class” across long periods is dangerous because the people at the bottom of the income distribution in 2023 are not the same people who were in the bottom of the income distribution in 1983.

First, there is the fact that income distribution statistics are comparing people at different life stages. I was at the bottom of the income distribution as a graduate student in 2002, but it would have been silly to say I was “poor.” I moved up after my wife and I married and created a new household that merged her income with mine. I was in another place in the income distribution in 2012 as an Assistant Professor with three young children, and I occupied yet another place in the income distribution as the Margaret Gage Bush Distinguished Professor of Economics in 2022. I will likely fall down into a lower income quintile should I ever decide to retire (not likely).

Second, there is the fact that the population is always changing. Suppose you have five people. One earns $25,000; one earns $48,000; one earns $50,000; one earns $90,000; one earns $100,000. Then two things happen simultaneously: everyone’s income rises by $1000 and four people enter the labor market. One earns $24,000, two earn $30,000, and another earns $200,000. This means we now have one person earning $24,000, one person earning $26,000, two earning $30,000, one earning $49,000, one earning $51,000, one earning $91,000, one earning $101,000, and one earning $200,000. You can expect a flood of headlines about how median earnings have fallen to $49,000 even as the average income in the t​​op quintile has risen by about 50%. The ratio of top to median income has risen from 2:1 to about 4:1, the ratio of top to bottom income has risen from 4:1 to more than 8:1, and people with high incomes are “capturing” a larger share of the total income. The headlines paint a picture of an economy that is working for only the few at the top while everyone else suffers stagnation or decline even though everyone is better off. The real story—that people are earning higher incomes—disappears under the non-story that the median income has fallen not because any actual person’s income has fallen but because the population has changed.

The Myth of American Inequality answers the “what’s the point?” question people have about the arcane, minute details of academic research. Measurement is a lot harder than it appears at first. There are well-known problems of technological improvement—a car in 2023 and a car in 1993 or 1973 are very different things—and then there are questions about what to count as “income.” There are wages and salaries, but what about benefits? Should transfers like Medicaid and food stamps be counted as “income”? One of the book’s critics has pointed out that the payments Medicaid makes go to doctors rather than patients and therefore complicate the story, but the patients receive medical services that are, we hope, at least as valuable as what the doctors are being paid for them. Food stamps are not cash, but they spend like cash—at least on approved items (the political economy of how something gets and stays on that list is a dissertation waiting to be written). Do official measures overstate inflation? The answers change how we make policy, write op-eds, argue at the dinner table, and write textbooks.

Since the Census Bureau (and economists) are not measuring the right things, it’s hardly clear we are going to make the right policies. So what should we do in light of this new story about postwar inequality? First, Gramm, Ekelund, and Early argue, we must get the theory straight and do the math right. It is one thing to look at pre-tax, pre-transfer inequality and be horrified. It is something else to think you can get less pre-tax, pre-transfer inequality with taxes and transfers: you cannot, by definition. If we want to know the real story about actual, on-the-ground inequality for living, breathing people, we need to look at measures that account for those taxes and transfers. Once we do so, we get a very different story from what we read in the New York Times.

All this makes me wonder why the left does not embrace this book and take a victory lap on behalf of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. It seems like, “even Phil Gramm admits we won the war on poverty” would be cause for celebration. All I have seen from the left, however, is breathless indignation about how the authors are heartless because they say poverty has fallen and extol Ebenezer Scrooge’s thrift, and wrong because their approach jars with the claims of economists like Thomas Piketty that ignited the “Occupy” movement in the Great Recession’s aftermath.

Second, Gramm, Ekelund, and Early propose changes to how we do welfare with special attention to the work disincentives very high implicit marginal tax rates create. If the 70% marginal tax rates Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed a few years ago would be disincentives to produce at the top of the income distribution, then surely similar implicit rates are disincentives to produce at the bottom of the income distribution. If slashing top marginal tax rates in the 1960s and 1980s unleashed forces of production, then slashing implicit marginal tax rates in 2023 would have a similar effect.

Third, the authors go after occupational licensing. When I teach about licensing in my classes, I talk about the medieval guilds and South African apartheid. The logic is the same in all these cases: an interest group enlists the state to protect itself and its members’ incomes from potential competitors. Lest one think these rules are about public safety, they write,

New York State recently added a new requirement that entry-level shampoo assistants in beauty parlors and barber shops must complete a five-hundred-hour training course at an average cost of $13,240 before they can practice this complex art that most of us perform daily without mishap. Of course, three of the four regulators issuing this requirement have economic interests in companies that sell the required training. (pp. 181-182)

Fortunately, occupational licensing has gotten at least some bipartisan attention—and perhaps more people will come to understand that the poor and downtrodden wouldn’t need so much of our “help” if we weren’t spending so much on trying to “protect” them.

I would add another, though I admit it is a pipe dream: we should stop caring so much about inequality per se. It’s reasonable to care about poverty. Having enough food, clothing, and shelter to lead a meaningful life matters, and I am pleased to see people’s possibilities expanding year after year. It’s unreasonable to care about inequality per se. In a commercial society, whether your neighbor has more does not mean you don’t have enough. The qualifier “in a commercial society” is very important. Capitalism is the greatest positive-sum game in history. Competition for admission to elite universities is fierce, but have you been robbed if the kids whose parents read to them every night and hired math tutors get into Stanford, Harvard, and Penn while your kids have to settle for Samford, Haverford, and Penn State? If the extra effort these families put into getting their children into an elite school means they have more skills and higher earnings capacity, then everyone wins. These kids have only been able to get into an elite school by equipping themselves with the tools they need to serve people better. It only becomes a problem when people use those tools to rule rather than serve—by, say, establishing licensing boards and commissions to micromanage the lives of the unshampooed masses.

“As a nation,” Gramm, Ekelund, and Early write, “we need to get our facts straight.” I agree, and I hope this book moves the policy needle. Resistance will be fierce, of course, given that many people’s careers, incomes, and self-images are inseparable from the “rising poverty and inequality” story and the welfare state we have built to deal with it. The Myth of American Inequality is an important contribution, however, that shows how the story is built on a foundation of theoretical and empirical sand.

 
ART CARDEN is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and an Associate Professor of Economics at Samford University.

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14823

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
Oops, highest inflation since April 2022
« Reply #2413 on: February 14, 2024, 06:29:40 AM »
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-inflation-tops-forecasts-likely-134729393.html

Let's see if they can put lipstick on this pig.

Same policy, expecting a different result. Insane.

My view, the "2% target" should be lowered to 0.2%. 2% inflation is theft. Above that is reckless criminal endangerment.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2024, 06:34:37 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18066
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2414 on: February 14, 2024, 06:38:37 AM »
PauL Krugman already did on MSLSD 2 nights ago.
Biden's memory not an issue. 
He has accomplished SO many things to prove it.

Brought us out of a terrible economic mess more and yada yada.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
How many jobs?
« Reply #2415 on: February 14, 2024, 07:02:53 AM »
Household survey is the more accurate of the two main methods.

"According to that survey, employment actually fell by 31,000 workers from December to January, and by some 700,000 over the two-month period from November to January, compared to the 353,000 and the 686,000 increases respectively reported in the payroll survey. That adds up to a difference between the two surveys of some 1.4 million jobs between November and January. Over the past year, the household survey reported that the economy added 1 million new jobs—2 million fewer than the payroll survey’s estimate."

https://www.city-journal.org/article/employments-hidden-figures

Krugman can't read or is he lying to his faithful followers?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: February 17, 2024, 09:28:25 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17984
    • View Profile
100% of net new jobs went to two groups
« Reply #2418 on: February 20, 2024, 12:53:05 PM »
100% of net new jobs went to two groups:

Immigrants and illegals.

Further, the decline in full-time jobs with benefits in December and January was the largest decline since the pandemic.

The reported 'jobs growth' is in part-time jobs and since many hold two or more of those, 'jobs growth' doesn't mean more people working.

Similarly, with 5 million out of the workforce, the unemployment rate does not reflect the number of people out of work.

I did not make up the connection between people coming across our border and the bragging of "new jobs created".

Real wages for people already employed have dropped under Biden.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/feb/20/bidens-low-marks-on-economy-reflect-reality/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 68566
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #2419 on: February 20, 2024, 01:17:00 PM »
Yes, key points we need to hammer made there!