Paul Krugman Blog: Yes He Did

[n2doc]

These days many Americans live in an alternative political reality, in which the simplest factual assertions are met with anger and derision. When I, like many others, noted that job growth since Obamacare went into full effect has been the fastest since the 1990s — which is simply what the BLS data say — I got a barrage of mail from people claiming that I’m crazy, a liar, etc.. Similarly, but on of course a much bigger scale, a lot of what I’m seeing in reactions to the State of the Union amounts to the assertion that only an imbecile or a hack could believe Obama’s talk about the strength of the U.S. economy relative to other advanced countries — when that’s a simple fact.

But that involves grading on a curve, one where the average is dragged down by the awful performance of Europe. What does the economic record look like compared with our own past?

Not great, but not too bad.

Unemployment is, of course, more or less back to pre-crisis levels, but that’s in part due to falling labor force participation. So what’s happening to family incomes? Unfortunately, the Census data on those incomes come with a long lag, but Sentier Research now produces much more timely estimates (using the CPS data), which are shown above. What they say is that after a severe drop, median real household income is also roughly back to pre-crisis levels.

That’s not a great result; once upon a time we expected median income to be markedly higher at each business cycle peak than it was at the preceding peak. But that wasn’t true under Bush, who also only more or less presided over a return to the previous peak on the eve of the Great Recession — and the Bush-era economy only got there thanks to a disastrous housing bubble. (As an aside: median income didn’t rise much under Reagan either.)

more

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/yes-he-did/?smid=re-share

[CTyankee]

1. his blog in the nyt is on my regular read list each morning...I don't have a smiley

day when he doesn't do a blog (which he does gratis btw so I have to cut him some slack. When his little cat died he talked about how much he cried and I felt so much empathy with him...so many other commentators wouldn't show that much feeling and compassion, but Paul doesn't care. I wanted to put my arm around his shoulder...

[hfojvt]

2. I dislike how apparently Atlas did it alone

Insofar as there is credit to be given, perhaps the WHOLE party could get it instead of making it ALL about ONE man. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025697641

I also think this statement seems a little disingenuous "When I, like many others, noted that job growth since Obamacare went into full effect has been the fastest since the 1990s — which is simply what the BLS data say ..."

The trouble is, he is implying causation there, so that is really NOT one of the "simplest factual assertions" and Krugman, of all people, as an economist, should know that.

edit - while the sound of music IS a lot of fun, that was NOT what I meant to paste there. Apparently hit 'paste' instead of 'copy' when I tried to copy the first link. I blame Maria.

[Wounded Bear]

3. I disagree that he is implying causation...

he is merely countering all of the doubters concerns that Obamacare would kill jobs. That hasn't happened.

Not causation. Simply stating the fact that job growth has not been negatively affected.

[hfojvt]

5. that isn't how he stated it though

he didn't say "job growth has not been negatively affected"

Something that would be hard to measure anyway. If, for example, the economy averages +250,000 jobs a month for three straight months, that looks good, but does that mean that the economy might have created 280,000 jobs a month if not for Obamacare? (I am not saying anything one way or the other, only that the mere fact of 250,000 per month (or whatever it actually was) does NOT mean it could not have been better - in theory.)

But he didn't state it negatively like that. He stated it LIKE "job growth has been positively affected."

As if the 250,000 jobs per month would have only been 220,000 jobs, if not for Obamacare. Which would be even harder to measure.

[Wounded Bear]

6. I think you're the one 'reading into' what he said...

When I, like many others, noted that job growth since Obamacare went into full effect has been the fastest since the 1990s — which is simply what the BLS data say

Hmmm, all I see is a statement of fact, verified by reference to BLS data. No implications necessary, unless you need a straw man to knock down.

[hfojvt]

8. no, I don't think that is SIMPLY what the data says

the data simply reports the number of jobs in a given month.

You have to do a fair amount of digging and sifting to come up with this - "the fastest since the 1990s". I know because I have spent some time with BLS data. And "the 1990s" is kinda slippery itself. I mean, that's a whole decade and some years in that decade were better than others. Why be so imprecise? And what sort of period are we talking about? It is NOT better than March of 2000 is it? The economy gained 495,000 jobs that month. What about February 2006 - 316,000 jobs!!1!! and 334,000 jobs in November 2005 to name just a few months.

You probably know that he was NOT simply stating facts, he was making an argument. It's an argument you like, but it IS an argument nonetheless, and not a "simplest factual statement". It would take me several hours to either verify or refute it, and I am a trained professional.

[KittyWampus]

4. He isn't implying causation but a correlation which proves the doomsayers wrong-

those who tried to frighten everyone on how awful Obamacare would be for business and private citizens alike were full of poo.

[hfojvt]

7. aha - but then he IS going beyond just stating facts

he's trying to prove a point.

If you make a simple factual assertion, that is one thing, to pull facts to prove some other point, is another thing.

For example, to just state the facts, I would say "it's now 33 degrees outside at my location".

A simple factual assertion.

However, if I am trying to prove - "it's a nice day today" then I am going to look for another way to "spin" the facts. Instead of just reporting the factual temperature, I will create a comparison, like "This is the warmest temperature in the last 117 hours".

In the one case, I am reporting the facts, in the other case, I am attempting to make a sales pitch, and then trying to play innocent 'but, but, but, my sales pitch was based on the facts". Well, any good salesman knows how to choose facts in order to make a sale.

Nothing wrong with trying to make a sale, necessarily, but I am not buying the sales pitch here that "all I did was make a simple factual assertion".