Saved?
President Obama claims that his economic recovery efforts have already “created or saved” 150,000 jobs, and that they’ll create or save an additional 600,000 over the next few months. Problem is, thanks to the addition of the last two words — “or saved” — there’s no way to measure this. Not only is there no administration entity assigned to measure saved jobs, it would still be impossible to accurately measure if there were. Even the unnamed “independent analysts” called upon to verify the administration’s claims, which are reportedly “based on macroeconomic models and projections,” by the New York Times admit that the figure cannot be measured, and will only say that the numbers are, at best, “plausible.” Who needs verification, though, when you have plausibility?
I prefer to avoid blame-the-media as a narrative, but, as in the runup to the Iraq war, I think an acquiescent press corp (with some exceptions) is largely at fault for the relatively wide acceptance of this formulation. I didn’t initially think much of Michael Wolff’s Vanity Fair column on the Obama team’s carefully nonchalant manipulation of the media — his argument is that, like a high schooler fretting over his popularity but trying to play it cool, the Obama administration is obsessed with controlling media coverage, and equally determined not to look like they actually care — but the ease with which Obama has passed this obviously manipulative phrase through the press does lend it some credence. I’m sympathetic to the near-impossibility of Obama’s tasks with regard to the economic recovery, but isn’t this sort of obvious political game playing exactly what the Obama era was supposed to relegate to the dustbin? Cleverly covering your tracks is still covering your tracks.
Still, credit where credit’s due: Obama and his communications team have built a rhetorical apparatus that essentially makes it possible for the administration to claim absolutely any outcome as a success.
I don’t know, when economic conservatives make claims about the non-falsifiability of economic claims, my hair goes all bushy. An enormous amount of rhetorical water is carried in conservative argumentation by asserting economic effects that are impossible to track.
Indeed, this is a central plank of all free market argumentation: as long as their isn’t a pure free market, free market advocates can simply assert that any or all bad economic outcomes are a result of market-distorting interventions. This is the libertarian teleology problem I’ve been arguing about for a long time; there’s just a huge advantage in arguing when you can push the bounds of when prioritizing growth above all things (or whatever else preferred economic policy) farther and farther into the future. Ironically, it’s exactly the same sort of tactic regularly taken by committed Marxists.
Not that this forgives the Obama administration for shady language. But it does chafe a bit, considering just a how large a part of conservative economic argument is taken up by making conjectures about things that are inherently unknowable, and assuming that they play out in ways that are most disruptive to the liberal cause.
— Freddie · Jun 11, 04:15 AM · #
So what was that that Conor said in the comments to another post about people who respond to criticisms by criticizing someone else instead?
— John Schwenkler · Jun 11, 04:18 AM · #
Well, since we aren’t implementing free market principles we don’t have to worry about its advocates’ claims, but because we are going by what Obama is pushing, we should show some concern regarding his claims of success. Of course, we could try free market principles to see if its advocates are right. We could even say that the free market advocates can’t claim success until over a million new jobs are created. Whadaya say?
— mike farmer · Jun 11, 05:22 AM · #
I understand the annoyance at the “created or saved” terminology, but it’s actually the correct one to use, isn’t it? Some jobs are saved, and a saved job is just as valuable as a created one.
Besides, it’s impossible to measure jobs created by the stimulus package too, isn’t it? Obviously we can measure total jobs, but there’s never any way of knowing which ones are due to the stimulus spending and which ones aren’t. So the fact that “created or saved” jobs aren’t measurable seems sort of irrelevant. We’re never really going to be able to measure any of this stuff.
— Kevin Drum · Jun 11, 05:32 AM · #
Kevin,
Also, to “save” a job tells us nothing about whether the job should have been saved, or whether we’re going through a transition where some jobs which are no longer needed are lost so that more jobs in areas where employment is needed are created — in some cases, a job “saved” by government intervention is preventing the transition from taking place and diverting capital and energy from where it’s needed.
— mike farmer · Jun 11, 05:44 AM · #
Saving jobs is a key part of the stimulus. For example, the feds transfer money to states and localities; because of the new resources they can avoid laying off park workers, or teachers, or whatever. I agree that it’s impossible to quantify exactly; but what’s the man going to say? We’re spending billions on this, but I don’t want to comment on whether it’s working? If that’s an honest estimate (I don’t know whether it is or not) then I have no problems with Obama’s statement.
If there’s a problem, it’s with the press. It’s been a long, long time since more than a tiny group of reporters considered it their business to actually try to inform the public. How about if some ambitious journalist talked to half a dozen honest, respected macroeconomists and discussed the jobs situation in detail? If Obama’s estimate came in the middle of the pack, that would be useful information; if it was an outlier that would also be useful information. As Peter points out, just the fact that he said it, not so much.
— peterg · Jun 11, 07:32 AM · #
Still, credit where credit’s due: Obama and his communications team have built a rhetorical apparatus that essentially makes it possible for the administration to claim absolutely any outcome as a success.
I guess this was written with tongue in cheek, but this kind of press manipulation is simply the way Obama operates. He is a lawyer, as are most of those in his party. He speaks with a lofty air, head moving back and forth like a tennis spectator, spouting magnificently inspiring lines like “create—or save”. This is not a leader. This is a sentence tweaker. He can say anything he damn well pleases if he puts his thereofs and “ors” in the right place. The man is in the process of dismantling or destroying the US economy and we marvel at the word choice that allows him to do it. Yes, our professional journalists are paragons of integrity and tenacity.
— jd · Jun 11, 12:34 PM · #
Kevin,
If it’s impossible to measure jobs created or saved, then perhaps Obama should stop citing figures for the number of each his policies are generating? I’m not sure that saying that the entire formulation is made up out of whole cloth, as opposed to only part of it, is much of a defense of the administration.
— Alex · Jun 11, 10:47 PM · #
peterg has the right idea. If a state is facing a massive budget shortfall and doesn’t want to raise taxes in a recession, they have to cut spending. Much of state spending is on payroll. Stimulus money helps balance payroll books. So jobs are “saved” – people remain employed who, sans stimulus, would be unemployed.
And, yes, the press sucks, but this isn’t some unknowable quantity. Certainly there are second- and third-order job-savings – keeping people employed keeps them spending money keeping other businesses and institutions in the black which prevent layoffs – but you can look at stimulus money going to states, what it’s being spent on, what their budget looks like. A lot of this is accessible or discoverable by a reporter who actually wants to do some legwork.
— Max B. · Jun 11, 11:22 PM · #
“He speaks with a lofty air” – as opposed to what, a vice presidential candidate who says “That’s why John McCain tapped me to be a team of mavericks, of independents as a team member in this, on this new team promising the reform?”
— Travis Mason-Bushman · Jun 12, 08:18 AM · #