Press Ignorance of Stimulus Job-Loss Study Leads to Ridiculous Assertion in AP Coverage of Labor's Discontent
Earlier today, NB's Tim Graham noted that the establishment press has given the silent treatment to a study by Timothy Conley of the University of Western Ontario and Bill Dupor of Ohio State University showing that the stimulus plan passed in February 2009 was a major net economic loser. In the first paragraph of the study, the authors revealed their core estimate that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "created/saved 450 thousand government-sector jobs and destroyed/forestalled one million private sector jobs." That's a net loss of 550,000 jobs "destroyed/forestalled."
To test Tim's contention that "Our media only cites studies which estimate the number of jobs Team Obama 'saved or created,'" I did searches on Dupor's last name at the Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, and got back the following results:
- AP: Nothing
- NYT (advanced search): Nothing relevant
- WaPo: Nothing
- LA Times: Nothing
Finally, a Google News search on Dupor's last name at 10:30 p.m. (sorted by date, with duplicates) returned 16 results (it looks like 22, but it's really 16), none of which are establishment press outlets (I guess this post will make 17).
Ignorance of published results can have consequences. In a report on how the "AFL-CIO may reduce support to Democrats," Associated Press reported Sam Hananel relays what is apparently one of labor's objections to how the Obama administration has failed to sufficiently do its bidding:
Unions have been disappointed that Congress has not passed a more ambitious stimulus plan to create jobs, that health care reform didn't go far enough and that Democrats - when they held a majority in Congress - couldn't muster enough votes to pass a bill that would make it easier to organize unions.
So I guess the union guys would have preferred a stimulus plan twice the legislated size, so that the economy could suffer 1.1 million jobs "destroyed/forestalled."
On a more observant note, maybe someone in the union movement will figure out that by artificially preserving many of their state and local jobs for a year or two, the stimulus plan put off the day of reckoning for their governments and worsened their financial situations in the meantime. If the Obama administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress had done nothing, states would have had to face hard but somewhat more manageable choices in early 2009 instead of even tougher ones in 2011 after the stimulus money was used up.
In other words, the stimulus plan's clear intent and documented success at briefly preserving public-sector jobs led to dire situations such as those which were dumped on governors, many newly-elected, in Wisconsin, Ohio, and elsewhere. These dreadful fiscal circumstances were ripe for serious collective-bargaining reforms which may never have been undertaken by the likes of Badger State Governor Scott Walker or Buckeye State Governor John Kasich in less difficult conditions.
Put more bluntly: The Obama stimulus plan created the conditions which allowed Walker and Kasich to push through legislation altering the union-management playing field. With "friends" like Obama, who needs enemies?
Do I think the union guys will ever figure this out? Nah.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
This can't be right, Tom
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:18pm.
I'm pretty sure Paul Krugman told us that Keynesian Economics was the way to get us out of a great recession. So obviously the numbers a flawed. I'm guessing that the unemployment rate is adjusted for inflation and in real numbers, it's actually around 3.5%. Housing starts are way up as well, and this whole foreclosure crisis is a myth perpetrated by the right wing media; namely Fox. "You're not really miserable, America. This is all just a sick game being played by evil Republicans."
Hey Tom? Did you see the AP story on how it's a great time to sell your used car? Prices are at all time highs. There are several reasons for this -according to Tom Krisher (AP Auto Writer)- including the recession and the Japanese earthquake, yet no mention of C4C. How odd...
Par for ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 11:48pm.
... the course.
In light of C4C, it would be interesting to see which used car models are getting the highest premiums over the norm.
I am sure it's the models
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 10:48am.
That get the best fuel mileage. Oh, and light trucks of every make
No surprise here,
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 7:05am.
No surprise here, Tom.
Whenever a liberal plan fails, the reason is always that they didn't go far enough.
sounds like poetic justice
Submitted by ohio granny on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:49am.
Union thuggery and media's willful blindness. What a combination. MSM will see nothing, hear nothing that looks bad for the man/child in the White House. No wonder they both are becoming irrelevant.
The Great Depression Grinds On.
Submitted by Avitar on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 12:40pm.
The media does not understand the jobs number or that there is a concerted effort to throw the jobless off the rolls so they are no longer counted. I saw a collection of data from the Government that showed the lowest percentage of the population employed in the private sector ever. Since those records start in 1929 that makes this depression worse than the 1930’s depression.
Why do I say depression? The phony Inflation numbers make this a depression. Four years of negative growth is a depression by anyone’s definition. The growth calculation has an inflation number in it. If you plug a low enough inflation number a net decline in the nation’s wealth becomes an increase. On the other hand the inflation number calculated using the methods from the Carter years and before the Clinton Whitehouse changed them show and 8% inflation last year and declining national wealth since the fourth quarter of 2007. (Four years this year.)
You're putting far too much
Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:13pm.
You're putting far too much on the back of what is, in reality, a single minor paper that uses distinctly spotty methodology and that, in context, exists in a world in which every other study shows a positive effect of the stimulus, and in which economists--the real ones, not the guys who play one on TV--overwhelmingly agree that stimulus has had a positive effect. The counter-intuitive notion that it has had a negative impact has almost literally no support in the profession. That doesn't mean the entire profession is right--it just means a contrary assertion is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence. None has been forthcoming.
Spare me -- The evidence is obvious ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:13pm.
... and unlike other evidence, it comes in the form of the reality of what BLS has published over the past two-plus years and as a result of the authors studying what the states actually did with the money.
The studies "showing" that the stimulus saved jobs literally apply Okun's law (which isn't supposed to be used unless unemployment is less than 7.5%) and simply extrapolate make-believe results with NO reference to reality in any way shape or form.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 7:36pm.
Thank you Mr. Krugman.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
So, you have
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 7:46pm.
your finger on the pulse of the "real economists"? Is that what you're trying to sell here?
You may push the idea that the stimulus had a positive effect on the economy, but, where's the proof? The real unemployment rate vs the contrived one the gubermint puts out? The number of jobs destroyed in the private sector?
I would posit that CL2's assertion of the positive effect of the stimulus requires extraordinary evidence, and my bet is that you cant provide it.
Once again, Tom B. scores with facts---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 7:23pm.
and class.
I would have just pointed out that classicliberal2 is a classic liberal - full of sh*t.
MD
But....but....but...the
Submitted by lnthomp on Sun, 05/22/2011 - 9:59am.
But....but....but...the recession ended in June, 2009...the National Bureau of Economic Research said so! It's all been recovery since then! The NBER couldn't possibly publish wrong information!
Lee T / USN(ret) /Midland, TX,