Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (Paul Krugman Has Another Word Department)

He writes:

The New York Times: Public Editor's Web Journal (Forum/Message Board): Just one last word. Mr. Okrent has so far offered only one example that, if true, would have justified his all-out attack on my ethics. Everything else is picking nits: I could explain why 77 percent, not 64 percent, is the right number, but does it really matter? The only significant example was his claim that I blended household and establishment survey data on jobs, in an attempt to score political points. But as I showed in the previous note, I didn't and in the column itself I pointed readers to the correct data. Now Mr. Okrent claims that he was only referring to my assertion that the economy needs to add 140,000 payroll jobs per month, which for some reason he thinks comes from the household survey. (It doesn't.) Sorry, that's an unconvincing evasive maneuver. Mr. Okrent clearly accused me of playing mix and match with the job numbers themselves. In fact, in our correspondence, when I said that it was all payroll data, he declared that 'your insistence that you relied only on one set of numbers is very puzzling. I don't see how the math works any other way; maybe you could further enlighten me.' In other words, the only accusation that could have justified Mr. Okrent's attack was completely unfounded. And now he's not enough of a mensch to admit his error.

Comments

[Kate Gilbert]

Oh Professor Krugman! Professor Krugman! ( I don't know you personally, so I can't call you Paul)

Okrent isn't enough of a mensch to admit he's wrong? The guy is an absolute embarrassment to humanity. He's so far from menschlikheit that it might as well be in another galaxy.

Kate Gilbert

[ricardo]

I thank God every day for Paul Krugman...if memory serves me correctly it was before 9/11 while then editorial page editor Howell Raines of The New York Times was enabling Bush (his attacks on the Clinton administration had been particularly vicious, and his pet columnist, Maureen Dowd, had eviscerated Al Gore during the campaign), and while the rest of the press corps was simple-mindedly revelling in the glow of Bush-bestowed nicknames, that Krugman's column was one of the few voices of the mainstream media brave enough to call an end to the new administration honeymoon swoon--speaking out regularly about the implications of its radical agenda.

[Carl L.]

Dan Okrent is paid by the Republican Party to support their agenda. Otherwise, Danny-boy would be reporting on Kenny-boy and the Enron Scandal and their cozy relationship with Bush and Cheney. Don't forget Halliburton, either.

[Thom]

Krugman is still one of few MSM voices of integrity. I'm in agreement w/ Ricardo. Right now, intellectual life in America without Paul Krugman would be a mistake.

[Paul Stuart]

Hey Ricardo! Don't dis on my girl Maureen! Any attack she had on Al Gore was probably justified. It's important that the Left police themselves (a distinguishing feature from the Right). Bush likely stole the election in 2000 but Al Gore (and his successor) absolutely fumbled the election.

Back to the topic on hand.... Paul Krugman rocks. My only complaint about him is he makes me depressed by all the stupidity and insanity he points out, which we seem to be powerless to stop.

[ricardo]

LOL Paul Stuart...

I'll say one thing about Maureen Dowd--she's an equal opportunity eviscerator and seems to be rather enjoying her Dubya entree these days...

Peace...lol.

[David Rubenstein, Ph.D.]

Professor Krugman's use of the payroll survey to measure is also supported by Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Alan Greenspan and most mainstream economist. Professor Stephen Cecchetti, currently a professor of international economics at Brandeis University,agrues that the US must create jobs at a rate faster than 150,000 a month to keep the unemployment from growing. Recent research by two Federal Reserve economists, Erica Groshen and Simon Potter, indicate that job growth is likely to lag behind the previous post-1945 recoveries. In a recession, job lay-offs are temporary. Unfortuantely, Groshen and Simon, found that in the 1990-91 and 2001 recessions, temporary lay-offs played a minor role. Rather than temporarily laying off workers, employers are getting rid of them permanently. This "structural" unemployment is why Professor Krugman relies on the the payroll survey, which is a survey of over 400 large employers that covers millions of workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is widely criticized for the following reasons:

1. The BLS lists all part-time workers as fully employed. In 2000 about 18.7 million people worked as part-time, but 3.2 million want to work full-time or could not find full-time work. The two groups were partially employed and partially unemployed. By counting them as fully employed, critics say, the BLS data understates the unemployment rate.

2. An unemployment person who is not actively seeking employment is classified “not in the work force.” Many workers, who are unable to find employment, become “discouraged” and drop out of the work force. The number of discouraged workers increases during recession, but are not counted in the unemployment rate. In 1991, 1.25 million people were estimated to be “discouraged workers.” By not counting “discouraged workers” as unemployed, household survey is widely criticized because it only surveys 60,000 households.

For those of you who want to attack Krugman, I suggest you do it non-economic grounds.

David Rubenstein, Ph.D.
University of Houston