The New York Times - Motley Rainbows and Dead Unicorns

I'd like to remind Smedley that the economy went into a historic tailspin in 2020. Does he really think that news coverage was over the top in that case? 


however one wants to describe it, the inflation coverage generally lacks historical context.  For anyone old enough to remember the late 70s and early 80s, a few quarters with 6% year over year inflation (compared to a pandemic year), doesn't seem like it warrants the breathless panic reflected in the coverage. Especially when it appears to be caused by supply chain difficulties that will likely be remedied to a degree in the next few months.

Not to mention, the persistent bias in the coverage that suggests that inflation is somehow a president's fault, and a president's job to "solve."


Not to mention that they keep reporting year-over-year change without noting that a lot of things were exceptionally low last year, eg, gas, if i recall.


There's always new material for this topic - 


nohero said:

There's always new material for this topic - 

Stripped of context, sure.

(After the pandemic loss of 23 million jobs in early 2020, monthly job gains since February had been averaging 629,000.)


while, in context, 200k jobs can be seen as sluggish, 200k jobs is never robust.


drummerboy said:

while, in context, 200k jobs can be seen as sluggish, 200k jobs is never robust.

The Associated Press, in the tank for Trump.

In January 2018, 200,000 had beaten four of the previous five months and 12 of the previous 15. Not by a lot, but still on the upside.


as I said, 200k is not "robust". You need 150k, more or less, just to keep up with population growth and keep the unemployment rate from going up.


drummerboy said:

as I said, 200k is not "robust". You need 150k, more or less, just to keep up with population growth and keep the unemployment rate from going up.

Ergo, 33% better, more or less, than keeping up with population growth and a 4.1% unemployment rate falls short of strong and healthy.* As I said, sure.

* ETA: In normal times, that is, when the economy doesn’t have 23 million jobs’ worth of lost ground to make up.


DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

as I said, 200k is not "robust". You need 150k, more or less, just to keep up with population growth and keep the unemployment rate from going up.

Ergo, 33% better, more or less, than keeping up with population growth and a 4.1% unemployment rate falls short of strong and healthy.* As I said, sure.

* ETA: In normal times, that is, when the economy doesn’t have 23 million jobs’ worth of lost ground to make up.

"robust" implies a good, healthy growth. Worthy of repeating.


If we were to consistently come in at 200k jobs a month, America's economy would tank. Neither good or healthy or worthy.

as I said.


drummerboy said:

"robust" implies a good, healthy growth. Worthy of repeating.


If we were to consistently come in at 200k jobs a month, America's economy would tank. Neither good or healthy or worthy.

as I said.

As you said, "You need 150k, more or less, just to keep up with population growth and keep the unemployment rate from going up." 

Given that a 4.1% unemployment rate corresponds with what is considered "full employment" (https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/full-employment) and an additional 50k jobs are being created under your scenario, the economy would be doing quite well, not tanking. Robustly, even.

The greater danger would be inflation.


jimmurphy said:

drummerboy said:

"robust" implies a good, healthy growth. Worthy of repeating.


If we were to consistently come in at 200k jobs a month, America's economy would tank. Neither good or healthy or worthy.

as I said.

As you said, "You need 150k, more or less, just to keep up with population growth and keep the unemployment rate from going up." 

Given that a 4.1% unemployment rate corresponds with what is considered "full employment" (https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/full-employment) and an additional 50k jobs are being created under your scenario, the economy would be doing quite well, not tanking. Robustly, even.

The greater danger would be inflation.

sorry, but you're wrong. 50k jobs is anemic in a country our size.


drummerboy said:

sorry, but you're wrong. 50k jobs is anemic in a country our size.

I am, huh?

Who, pray tell, will fill all of the additional jobs, over and above the 50,000 excess, given that the country is at full employment?


who says we're at full employment?


drummerboy said:

who says we're at full employment?

Look upthread.

And:

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/november-unemployment-rate-drops-to-4.2-hits-lowest-level-since-march-of-2020

Coupled with:

https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/full-employment

Are there open jobs, particularly in the hospitality sector? Yes.

But unless the labor force participation rate increases through enticing people back into the workforce or we allow immigrant work visas (tough during a pandemic), we are are full employment.


well then, I guess the AP was still being slanted in their coverage by calling 200k jobs sluggish if we're at full employment, right?

that's the real point here - why the different characterizations of the same number?


I'll admit that I don't know why the economists had these great expectations.  

But, the AP characterized it the way the economists did, so no, the AP didn't slant the characterization.


jimmurphy said:

I'll admit that I don't know why the economists had these great expectations.  

But, the AP characterized it the way the economists did, so no, the AP didn't slant the characterization.

how do you know the "AP characterized it the way the economists did" (in both cases)?

and even if they did, it's the AP's choice about which economists they choose to listen to.

and since the same number is treated oppositely, the safe bet is that one of them is slanted. And that would be the Trump era number.


drummerboy said:

...and since the same number is treated oppositely, the safe bet is that one of them is slanted. And that would be the Trump era number.

If you are unable to put the numbers in context, as DaveSchmidt indicated, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.


jimmurphy said:

drummerboy said:

...and since the same number is treated oppositely, the safe bet is that one of them is slanted. And that would be the Trump era number.

If you are unable to put the numbers in context, as DaveSchmidt indicated, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

I did put them in context and have explained  why 200k jobs is not "robust" in any context.


I actually follow the job creation number each month.  200K probably wasn't called "robust" by a whole lot of news outlets outside of the AP in 2018.  It's a good number, but not anything to get exited about.

and beyond that, any editorializing on the number when it's first released is kind of dumb.  But that's what we do, we react to the preliminary number when it's "news", but we don't see a report when that number is revised in subsequent months -- which it almost ALWAYS is.

bottom line -- calling the current jobs number anything, either "robust" or "sluggish" is premature because it's a preliminary number.


drummerboy said:

that's the real point here - why the different characterizations of the same number?

I give up. Why?


"heaps of hyperbole'. Except, you know, one isn't actually hyperbole.

NYT's political reporting should be burned to the ground and rebuilt.


I thought of you and this thread when I read that "both sides" in the NY Times this morning.


Though I can't seem to get it, a friend posted on FB that the Washington Post is having a special offer right now:  $9.99 for a year.   Almost seems too good to be true.  Can someone in the lower 48 verify?


The best I can find is $29 for one year. Don't see a 9.99 offer.


Just checked. Apparently subscribers can gift a 9.99 subscription.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/us/san-francisco-state-of-emergency-crime.html

Reading this link, I envision the copy editor holding his nose, nasty business, but it isn’t as bad as it could be. The Times, when cornered by Ms Breed’s reality, tries to soften what’s going on in many cities across our nation.

SF is going to crack down on entrepreneurs’ selling stolen merchandise on city streets! They do not offer information on how to control the feces, however. 

What a liberal mess. 


Reminds me of this thread’s classic points: 


mtierney said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/us/san-francisco-state-of-emergency-crime.html

Reading this link, I envision the copy editor holding his nose, nasty business, but it isn’t as bad as it could be. The Times, when cornered by Ms Breed’s reality, tries to soften what’s going on in many cities across our nation.

SF is going to crack down on entrepreneurs’ selling stolen merchandise on city streets! They do not offer information on how to control the feces, however. 

What a liberal mess. 

I guess you’ve never been to the rough parts of some of the conservative enclaves in this country…take a trip to Sarasota and do a drive by the parks so you can witness the  ‘all American’ people both young and old sleeping in the parks and standing on the corner with the cardboard…



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.