Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
He Might As Well Have Said 10 Million Jobs
Harvard economist Greg Mankiw notes that President Obama's promise that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "will create or save 3.5 million jobs" is nonfalsifiable:
The expression "create or save," which has been used regularly by the President and his economic team, is an act of political genius. You can measure how many jobs are created between two points in time. But there is no way to measure how many jobs are saved. Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the stimulus.
[via South Bend Seven]
kilroy|2.19.09 @ 3:33PM|#
I seem to remember Obama catching himself and correcting his
statement from "create" to "save or create" in an interview a while
back. I had noticed the change in the rhetoric earlier and came to
the same conclusion: bullshit.
I'll see if I can find the video...
Jerry|2.19.09 @ 3:40PM|#
I hate it when politicians claim they only have to wave a magic wand in order for jobs to be created.
|2.19.09 @ 3:44PM|#
I have here a list of .... 57 jobs that will be created or saved by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act!
|2.19.09 @ 3:45PM|#
Even if things get much, much worse, the President can say
that there would have been 4 million fewer jobs without the
stimulus.
Well, duh!
Obamatarian|2.19.09 @ 3:46PM|#
It may well exceed 10 million jobs. President Obama is once again displaying the wisdom of modesty and a humble domestic policy. The precious"free market" is shedding jobs so it is up to the government to save and create them.Just as it is the Federal Reserves mision to replace the loss of wealth in credit,housing and investment markets with new money it is up to the government to replace the jobs cut by the cruelty of the "invisible hand" of market capitalism.
Gilbert Martin|2.19.09 @ 4:06PM|#
Even if Obama had only said "create" instead of "create or save" 3.5 million jobs, there is no way that can be proven either because there is no way to parse the effect of the spending bill from them the effect of whatever normal economic recovery would be occurring anyway.
Kunal|2.19.09 @ 4:09PM|#
With respect, Mr. Sullum, you are full of crap. Your assertion
that Obama's claim is non-falsifiable is just flat out wrong.
See, Obama claimed to create or save 3.5 million jobs. The civilian
labour force, according to BLS statistics, was 142 million. So if
the US economy loses more than 138.5 million jobs, Mr. Obama's
claim is falsified.
See? That wasn't so hard. Next time check your figures before
shilling for the Rethuglicans.
jrshipley|2.19.09 @ 4:16PM|#
It's a claim that, to be sure, will be hard to verify given the
relevance of counterfactual assessment, about which there will no
doubt be disagreement. However, I don't see how "save" is
fundamentally different than "create" in this regard. No doubt you
fine folks at Reason will contend that any post stimulus job
creation is "just normal market rebound" and that "even more jobs
might have been created by private rather than government
spending". That is, it will be just as difficult to adjudicate
whether new jobs have been created by the stimulus rather
than other forces as whether jobs have been saved. These
difficulties, however, are not strictly insuperable and good faith
assessments can be made, even if there's room for disagreement;
it's discouraging to read an economist of Mankiw's stature
declaring in advance that he won't be making a good faith effort to
sort through the difficulties.
Also, it's neat that everyone's read a little Karl Popper, but it's
getting a little tiresome to see "unfalsifiable" being tossed
around seemingly without any awareness of eight decades of post-LSD
developments in the philosophy of science...
|2.19.09 @ 4:16PM|#
If the US economy loses more than 138.5 million jobs there will no longer be an Obama, a BLS or a US economy.
|2.19.09 @ 4:19PM|#
See? That wasn't so hard. Next time check your figures
before shilling for the Rethuglicans.
LOL
Kunal|2.19.09 @ 4:20PM|#
On the contrary sir, we will all have jobs in Mr. Obama's spanking new National Service. There will be a chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage and three eyes on every fish.
|2.19.09 @ 4:31PM|#
However, I don't see how "save" is fundamentally different
than "create" in this regard.
Strictly speaking, its probably not.
However, if you say you are going to created 3MM jobs, people
expect the number of people actually employed to grow by 3MM.
If you say "save", then even if the economy loses 2MM jobs, you can
always say (nonfalsifiably) that it could have been worse.
And for our Parsin' President, nonfalsifiable is the Holy Grail of
political discourse.
Mike M.|2.19.09 @ 4:38PM|#
The average dumb sheeple might be falling for this stuff, but the investor class sure isn't, which is why they continue to take a giant steaming #2 right on his head.
tgb|2.19.09 @ 5:00PM|#
While it's hard to disagree with Dr. Mankiw's analysis, I'd like to see him point to some definitive, falsifiable statement about the economy that HE has made in public in the past few months. Most economists I've read have all been very circumspect, filling every statement with weasel words and loopholes.
Jeff P|2.19.09 @ 5:09PM|#
By that logic I can claim that I will rape or ignore each of
you.
Because I will, you know...
Naga Sadow|2.19.09 @ 5:11PM|#
Jeff P.,
Your last comment was a little to real for me. I insist you recant
it.
Naga Sadow|2.19.09 @ 5:16PM|#
OOOHHH! I wanna play this game. I'm about to go eat some subway. The multiplier effect on my purchase will save or create 5 million jobs. Suck it, Obama!
Naga Sadow|2.19.09 @ 5:19PM|#
Squeal like a pig, boy!!!
Jeff P.,
That movie has made me terrified of Georgia and it's
inhabitants.
alan|2.19.09 @ 5:23PM|#
Jeff P.
That come with reach-around right? (reach around, that is Obama's
definition of bipartisanship. Anyway, I like the boys to be
stretched and twisted a little, but not too much.
alan|2.19.09 @ 5:26PM|#
I mean, bipartisanship is where the Rethugs take it up the ass, but if they say nice things, Obama throws in the, er, reacharound.
Seward|2.19.09 @ 5:26PM|#
So if the US economy loses more than 138.5 million jobs, Mr.
Obama's claim is falsified.
Not if it is claimed that the number below 138.5 million jobs would
have been even lower if it had not been for this stimulus
package.
Of course the focus on jobs is a bit strange to begin with; higher
productivity is what creates more wealth to be spread around a
society, not more jobs.
|2.19.09 @ 5:30PM|#
Actually the only way its falsifiable is if employment drops to 3.4 million people total. Otherwise he can just claim it would be worse than it is.
alan|2.19.09 @ 5:36PM|#
Good point, Toxic. However, I think if you scanned above, even you would agree, Kunal said it better.
Gilbert Martin|2.19.09 @ 5:44PM|#
"Of course the focus on jobs is a bit strange to begin with;
higher productivity is what creates more wealth to be spread around
a society, not more jobs."
It's not really strange - it's all part of the "entitlement"
mentality that the Dems have been boosting for decades. The "job is
a right" crowd thinks it's the government's responsibility to make
sure they have one.
You are absolutely right about higher productivity being the source
of prosperity. Unfortunately we aren't likely to be getting that
with policies that continue to punish success and reward
failure.
Kunal|2.19.09 @ 5:51PM|#
I think if you scanned above, even you would agree, Kunal
said it better.
Thats because I don't shill for the Rethuglicans like you
Libertardians with your failed extremist ideology and your
invisible hands and what not.
Fez|2.19.09 @ 6:04PM|#
Saved jobs is not the same thing as jobs lost. If the statement
was "I will keep X number of jobs from being lost", your argument
is correct. By saying ""I will save X number of jobs and not giving
a metric by which to measure what a saved job is useless. In theory
employment could fall to only 3.5 million people working and his
statement is still true. He in fact did save 3.5 million jobs,
but138.5 million jobs could be lost and still make the statement
true.
The phrase is not an accident. It positions him to be correct and
claim victory in as many possible scenarios as possible.
Semantics are a bitch and those crafty speech writers are so damn
good with them.
fez|2.19.09 @ 6:05PM|#
Dear god I should edit before posting. Sorry for the marginally coherent post.
Chad|2.19.09 @ 6:06PM|#
Congratulations, Sullum. This is the most brilliant thing you
have ever posted.
You have finally realized that outcomes observed after relatively
minor changes to a large chaotic non-linear system cannot be
directly tied to the changes made, because you never know what
would have happened if you hadn't made the changes!
So can we all get over the "My favorite politicians implemented
policy X, and something good happened not long thereafter!
Therefore causation! Meanwhile, when my dis-favored politicians
implemented Y, something bad happened soon after! Therefore,
causation!" idea that everyone on earth seems to have. Why people
are incapable of understanding basic philosphy is beyond
me....
post hoc ergo propter hoc
|2.19.09 @ 6:13PM|#
Kunal-
This libertarian is not a shill for the republicans. Watch those
strokes, don't brush so broadly.
|2.19.09 @ 6:13PM|#
Thats because I don't shill for the Rethuglicans like you
Libertardians with your failed extremist ideology and your
invisible hands and what not.
Kunal, I am afraid you were too subtle initially. I appreciated all
of it, at least.
Kunal|2.19.09 @ 6:19PM|#
Epi,
Subtlity is only one of my weapons. Apart from ruthless efficiency
and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.
Oh yeah, and also surprise.
<span style=\"color:darkblue\"|2.19.09 @ 6:41PM|#
Chad:
There's a BIG difference between "random acts of spending stimulate
the economy" (or whatever your favorite example may be) and "my
rock keeps away tigers." If Obama jacks up spending with the
intention of creating jobs and, whaddayouknow, we create 4 million
jobs in the near term, then I'll accept that it's not all
voodoo.
People have to think. Politics may not be a science, but we can't
let that lead us into "brain in a jar" nihilism.
|2.19.09 @ 6:46PM|#
I think I remember reading that this number is actually based
oin CBO estimates. Apparently, the people over there have decided
that without the proposed stimulus, the economy will have X jobs by
some date in the future. With the stimulus, the economy will have Y
jobs on that same date. The difference between Y and X is something
like 3 million jobs.
The idea being that there will be 3 million extra jobs because we
passed this bill.
Now, it is unclear how many of those will be jobs specifically
created by the stimulus, and how many will be old jobs that were
simply carried through (saved) but otherwise would have been
lost.
Now, just because this explanation makes sense doesn't mean it's
true, of course. But that's where the number and the rhetoric come
from.
|2.19.09 @ 6:48PM|#
libertymike missed obvious sarcasm?
He wasn't the only one. A number of people did. Luckily, my sarcasm
detector is set on "Steven Wright".
Warty|2.19.09 @ 6:53PM|#
I retuned my sarcasm detector after the Neil fiasco. That one still smarts.
Naga Sadow|2.19.09 @ 8:55PM|#
I have my sarcasm set on total apathy. I am not familiar with this . . . "sarcasm detector" . . . of which Epi and Warty speak. I just naturally assume everyone is full of shit while any and all links are rickrolls.
alan|2.19.09 @ 10:24PM|#
Naga Sadow | February 19, 2009, 8:55pm | #
I have my sarcasm set on total apathy. I am not familiar with this
. . . "sarcasm detector" . . . of which Epi and Warty speak. I just
naturally assume everyone is full of shit while any and all links
are rickrolls.
I sent an email to my nephew with the tag line, 'I know what your
mum got you for Christmas', with a rickroll link attached.
He wrote me back. 'I blame all of my trust issues on you,
uncle.'
mark|2.20.09 @ 2:43PM|#
I am disappointed that the media does not simply point this out
occasionally for their less savvy readers/viewers. For instance,
this Reuters story has a short line mentioning the 3.5 millions
jobs:
"Democrats hope to save or create 3.5 million jobs."
How hard would it have been to make that line read:
"Democrats hope to save or create 3.5 million jobs, though it
is not clear what is meant by 'save or create', and thus it will be
hard to determine whether this legislation is
successful."
I mean, even Joe Biden offered real analysis on
this bill:
"If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute
certainty, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it
wrong."
Why doesn't the media explain this? They are totally useless.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245