Where are the jobs? Perhaps they exist.

[turbo]

In 2005, my wife and I bought this small house in the country and put our big house on the market. It sold in 2006, near the top of the market. Around the same time, I was posting here about fundamental weaknesses in the market, only to get shouted down by neo-cons on this forum. My wife and I voted with our dollars. We are not economists, but we are not stupid enough to listen to the "economist" cheer-leaders for any faction when our own savings and financial security is on the line.

Please realize that when "respected" economists make learned pronouncements, they can leverage entire markets - if enough people believe them. Trust your gut, and you'll out-perform the experts.

 

[Gokul43201]

About this ...

My read is that only one month of data, Jan 2009, diverges from the 'with/without' graph before the Recovery Act was passed, and that's what, off by .2%?

The R-B report does not plot monthly unemployment numbers, it plots average quarterly unemployment numbers. The last data point on the plot before the ARRA effects are expected to come into play (i.e., "with/without" are still coincident) is for Q1 2009 at about 7.5%. However, the real average unemployment for this quarter was 8.2%. That's a difference of 0.7%, which not only provides a significant offset at the starting point, it adds a huge shift in the initial slope (unemployment growth rate) as well.

 

[Gokul43201]

Sorry, full stop. Zandi's is as near a contra-indicator as I know of in the world of forecasters, despite his status as a go-to for business reporters and the talking head circuit. If Zandi calls for the sun to rise tomorrow I'd short it, not based on who he is, but on his record of economic forecasts.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/zandi/
Especially see his housing predictions all the way through.

I can not agree or disagree with that summary (having not read the details), but in the interest of making progress I'm willing to stipulate that anything co-authored by Zandi is out.

 

[nismaratwork]

Regarding economists who "publish highly cited papers in top journals", or for that matter scientists and engineers, when the discussion centers on on a paper actually published in a peer reviewed journal it deserves the respect usually garnered here at PF. When such an economist or scientist writes as a political appointee in government, or spouts off in blogs, then they are fair game for public criticism of those in power just like everyone else, as well they should be. Because as Hume said,

“When men are most sure and arrogant they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities”,​

not

"When men, excepting of course the highly published and cited, ..."​

Well, if I remember correctly some arrogant people might have been Einstein, Dirac (in his odd way), Heisenberg, Rutherford... oh, and pretty much every other brilliant physicist I can name. Who else was arrogant? Hitler, Nixon (re watergate), Clinton (re Lewinski), Henry VIII... Axioms the musing of Hume are not useful in this context because they apply however you wish them to apply.

Gokul: Scalia I would say, has a firm, even brilliant grasp of jurisprudence which he chooses to ignore any time it fails to meet his equally firmly held ideologies. To me, that makes him a very bright and very dangerous man, and a zealot. I say this, not just to slam Scalia, although that's always a treat, but because it's important to note that qualified and brilliant people can CHOOSE to act and say things in the interest of things other than reality or the truth.

In the case of economics and politics, that seems to be the USUAL, rather than the departure from the norm... and why this debate can go on until we're all dead without any side gaining an upper hand. There will always be evidence provided by qualified individuals acting dishonestly, or in accordance with their own interests and/or prejudices.

Is it any wonder these debates go NOWHERE?

 

[Gokul43201]

Is it any wonder these debates go NOWHERE?

I don't think this debate has gone nowhere.

On the one side (though this is somewhat removed from the OP), there are claims that are predicated upon the requirement that ARRA (and other recent legislation) have killed over a million jobs. There have as yet been no supporting references provided for this, but perhaps some will be found soon. There have, however, been a couple of citations to the contrary (CEA and CBO quarterly reports), that say that the ARRA and other legislation have added anywhere from 1 to 3 million jobs.

On the other side is the proposition that the original jobs projection of 8% max unemployment was due in large part to bad employment data at the time of the report. This idea has been argued through comparisons of revised BLS stats with numbers originally used in the report, as well as through citations showing the magnitude of revisions to BLS data. The only (partial) counter-argument has been responded to.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't think this debate has gone nowhere.

On the one side (though this is somewhat removed from the OP), there are claims that are predicated upon the requirement that ARRA (and other recent legislation) have killed over a million jobs. There have as yet been no supporting references provided for this, but perhaps some will be found soon. There have, however, been a couple of citations to the contrary (CEA and CBO quarterly reports), that say that the ARRA and other legislation have added anywhere from 1 to 3 million jobs.

On the other side is the proposition that the original jobs projection of 8% max unemployment was due in large part to bad employment data at the time of the report. This idea has been argued through comparisons of revised BLS stats with numbers originally used in the report, as well as through citations showing the magnitude of revisions to BLS data. The only (partial) counter-argument has been responded to.

With the exception of the assertion that this has gone anywhere, yes I think you make good points. The response from you um... loyal opposition however is likely to continue what you've now characterized as baseless assertions. I never claimed that debate changes reality, but the debate is static... only those who share your views of this, such as myself, are swayed.

 

[Gokul43201]

I myself hold no unshakeable views on this subject - much of this debate is about stuff I'm just looking into for the first time - and I'm ready to be swayed. So far, I think I've understood the origins of some of the big problems in the Romer-Bernstein report. That's new, and it's good.

Moreover, I've only demonstrated (I hope) that some previous assertions are as yet unsupported. I do not yet hold that they are necessarily baseless.

 

[nismaratwork]

I myself hold no unshakeable views on this subject - much of this debate is about stuff I'm just looking into for the first time - and am ready to be swayed.

Moreover, I've only demonstrated (I hope) that some previous assertions are as yet unsupported. I do not yet hold that they are necessarily baseless.

I'm sorry, but I've read too much of the P&WA backlog of threads (many locked), to be so optimistic about this one. I don't hold with the 12 step program's definition of insahnity, but this seems a lot like taking the same actions over and over, and expecting a different outcome. What I've learned in my short time here, is that agendas are carried even by extremely bright people, and those agendas are often supported with rhetoric rather than reason or references. (alliteration... ba zing!).

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's something you could learn. Slow down - give a person a few minutes after they've initially posted a message, to sneak in any grammar and typo corrections, afterthoughts or revisions.

 

[nismaratwork]

Here's something you could learn. Slow down - give a person a few minutes after they've initially posted a message, to sneak in any grammar and typo corrections, afterthoughts or revisions.

Good advice, and sometimes good advice is taken and other times the mood is just not there. I'll take that time you recommend and see how this debate plays out over the next few pages. Let's see just how this pans out, OK?