Bewitched by the Numbers
 |
| "I mean, there are two Darrin Stevenses, right? Dick York and Dick Sargent. Yeah, right, as if we wouldn't notice. Oh hold on: Dick York, Dick Sargent, Sergeant York...' -Mike Myers, Wayne's World |
Not even the delightful Elizabeth Montgomery could make Bob Herbert's inanities enjoyable. Brace yourself. Put on some happy music. I’m throwing down some 80’s one hit wonder-ific repeat-one action with Katrina and the Waves Walking on Sunshine. I suggest you do likewise. May I recommend Brett Dennen’s new single Sydney (I’ll Come Running)?
By BOB HERBERT
Published: February 4, 2011
They
Who are "they?"
were expecting something on the order of 150,000 new jobs to have been created in January.
This has been going on for two years. “Weaker than expected” jobs numbers are the only thing that we actually do expect with any regularity.
That would have been a lousy number,
 |
| I haven't seen you in forever. Yeah. the nineties were crazy. Sorry you missed them. |
True dat. You can’t pull that off. I’m inclined to agree. It felt very wrong.
but they were fully prepared to spin it as being pretty good.
So “they” is the Obama Administration?
They thought the official jobless rate might hop up a tick to 9.5 percent.
Two factors are in play here. First, the new jobs number is only one of many forces tied to the unemployment rate. It is offset by those who quit, are fired, or leave their jobs for new jobs. Secondly, that the unemployment rate does not include the jobless who have quit looking. I would think that literally everyone in the country knew this by now. These poor sods are labeled “discouraged workers” and cease to be represented by the data. This is why we have massive disparity between the unemployment rate and the underemployment rate, which is a much true representation of how truly bojanked (now that you can pull off) we really are.
Instead, the economy created just 36,000 jobs in January, an absolutely dreadful number.
True dat. We’ve talked about this. I know. I feel dirty all over.
But the unemployment rate fell like a stone from 9.4 percent to 9.0 percent.
Which means a) no one quit their jobs in January and/or b) a lot of people quit looking for jobs.
What is this, amateur hour?
The crunchers stared at the numbers in disbelief.
I explained it in 97 characters. That’s not even a full tweet.
They moved them this way and that. No matter how they arranged them, they made no sense. Nothing even close to enough jobs were being created
Please stop using the past perfect. It’s not working for you…or really anyone else that understands verbs.
to bring the unemployment rate down, but for two successive months it had dropped sharply. (It dived from 9.8 percent to 9.4 in December.)
Is it too late to offer a secondary explanation? Fraud. Precisely 1/28th of a tweet. See?
 |
| Actually, the soul of wit is context, because this is decidedly un-witty as a stand-alone tweet. |
A baffled commentator on CNBC said, “I think there is an improvement in the economy, though you can’t see it in today’s payroll survey.”
This commentator is also known as “the fucking idiot CNBC hired to warm the seat." I'm not a talented enough Googler (20 years ago, that was a euphamism for prostitute) to find out who that actually was, but i'm pretty sure he's fucktarded.
Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics, who is frequently very good at this stuff, said: “I think these numbers are meaningless. I don’t think they mean anything.”
Which is undoubtedly true. Statistical analysis demands that the analyst cautiously handle poorly-constructed data and extreme outliers.
What data zealots need to do
Careful. Given Bob Herbert’s proclivities, this may be a government-mandated activity within the next six months.
 |
| Can we all agree that I don't get enough traffic to worry about narc-ing me out to the Chicago Tribune for re-posting this picture? |
is leave their hermetically sealed rooms
It’s fucking cold out. No sale.
and step outside, take a walk among the millions of Americans who are hurting to the bone.
Most of whom are actually inside their own hermetically sealed abodes. Seriously, it’s called insulation, and I highly recommend it.
They should talk with families that are suffering,
Snore. They don’t have any insight on the unemployment rate. I asked "Rusty the Vagrant." He stands outside the Walgreens down the street and grunts. I asked him about Fed policy a little while back. Big mistake. He believed that the Fed should rely less on Open Market Operations and focus instead on adjusting reserve requirements. Crackpot.
losing their homes, doubling up,
These cost-cutting mechanisms are how the economy purges itself of its own excesses during recessions. The faster these mechanisms are allowed to work, the faster we can actually recover.
checking into homeless shelters.
 |
| Befriending a vagrant doesn't mean he won't try to eat your hand. I learned that from Joaquin Phoenix. Twice. |
The homeless don’t tend to be “family men.” Based on my own extensive research ignoring the inarticulate ramblings of Rusty the Vagrant and the shifty-eyed lady in the entrance to the vacant store, I can say with a high degree of confidence that the homeless are absolutely batshit-crazy, and have taken concerted steps to eschew social safety net programs.
We behave as though the numbers are an end in themselves
Numbers and statistical analysis are a way of reflecting reality that is vastly more accurate than the infinitely skewed sample observed by “talking to families that are suffering.” GDP and the unemployment rate are effective metrics because all of us not named Bob Herbert understand exactly what they represent.
— just get the G.D.P. up or the jobless rate down —
It’s not an either-or proposition, champ.
and we’ll be on our way to fat city.
It’s astounding that he only stumbles upon an accurate conclusion when he’s trying to point out a perceived fallacy. Talk about a broken clock.
But the numbers are just tools,
No, the tools are things like database programs or Excel.
Abstractions
Abstractions are theoretical constructs like the CAPM or the Keynesian Cross.
to help guide us,
Sherpas.
orient us.
Compasses.
They aren’t the be-all and end-all.
Keep in mind that my last post was Katrina vanden Heuvel claiming that Liberals were the true believers in science. Granted, she then went on to show that she had no idea what science was, but the point is still valid.
They don’t tell us squat about the flesh-and-blood reality of the mom or dad lying awake in the dark of night, worrying about the repo man coming for the family van or the foreclosure notice that’s sure to materialize any day now.
 |
| Great. Now I want food. |
Actually it does. We have data for family composition, size, and ages. We have data for incomes, unemployment, overall debt, and vehicle repossessions. We have data for foreclosures. What actually bothers Bob Herbert is that this family represents a mere one data point.
Also, what the hell is this family doing driving a “family van?” Anyone who drives a van is either a plumber or shouldn’t be allowed within 100 feet of a school.
The policy makers who rely on the data zealots are just as detached from the real world of real people.
Jesus, national “Hug a Vagrant” day is right around the bend.
They’re always promising in the most earnest tones imaginable to do something about employment,
Lower taxes. Lower interest rates. Remove obstructions to business growth. This is as simple as looking at a rejected capital budgeting analysis for business expansion. (FYI, Bob Herbert, this is all about the numbers.)
to ease the awful squeeze on the middle class
This is precisely equivalent to economic growth.
(policy makers never talk about the poor),
That’s because “middle class” is a euphemism for poor; not a replacement topic.
to reform education, and so on.
That’s what you’re looking for from a politician to improve the economy? Education? How about lowering taxes? Fed policy? Restructuring the tax code? Deregulating? Even for a liberal, what about things like targeted subsidies? Infrastructure expansions and updates? Leadership in the Green Economy?
They say those things because they have to. But they are far more obsessed with the numbers than they are with the struggles and suffering of real people.
You want to know what happens when policy-makers actually believe that numbers are mere abstractions? Policies based on the absurdity of whims.
You won’t hear policy makers acknowledging that the unemployment numbers would be much worse if not for the millions of people who have left the work force over the past few years.
Yes. You will. Regularly.
What happened to those folks? How are they and their families faring?
Probably pretty poorly. There’s a good indication that they shouldn’t have left the work force.
The policy makers don’t tell us that most of the new jobs being created in such meager numbers are, in fact, poor ones, with lousy pay and few or no benefits.
Yes. They do. Regularly. This is why we have opposition parties instead of propaganda.
What we hear is what the data zealots pump out week after week, that the market is up, retail sales are strong, Wall Street salaries and bonuses are streaking, as always, to the moon,
That would appear to have something to do with the markets being up. Most of these guys work on a pay-for-performance scale, and they’ve knocked it out of the park this last year. Why? Because idiots like Herbert thought the Dow would actually languish at 7,000.
and that businesses are sitting on mountains of cash.
Instead of accusing businesses of hoarding, why not ask why investors aren’t demanding dividend distributions for that cash? Is it perhaps because they would prefer that money reinvested?
So all must be right with the world.
Actually the take-away from this year is that if you pulled your money out of equities in early 2009, you have the financial acumen of a dimwitted peasant. The stock market has violent swings like this because it is risky. That’s also precisely why it offers long-term returns in excess of any other investment vehicle.
Jobs? Well, the less said the better.
Except that the release of employment figures still dominates the news cycle.
What’s really happening, of course, is the same thing that’s been happening in this country for the longest time — the folks at the top are doing fabulously well and they are not interested in the least in spreading the wealth around.
Wealth is not a collective attribute. It is an individual attribute. Overwhelmingly—with the exceptions of lottery winners, inheritants, and public pensioners (See what I did there?)—massive wealth reflects the merit of competence and the intrepid risk-tolerant behavior that makes America great.
The people running the country — the ones with the real clout, whether Democrats or Republicans — are all part of this power elite.
 |
| If Bob Herbert knew anything about statistics, he'd know that 1919-1991 was not an outlier. |
Seriously, it sounds like he’s going to call for a people’s revolution.
Ordinary people may be struggling, but both the Obama administration and the Republican Party leadership are down on their knees slavishly kissing the rings of the financial and corporate kingpins.
So…Obama is working for Jeff Immelt?
I love when the wackos call President Obama a socialist.
He is. So are you.
Wasn’t it his budget director, Peter Orszag, who moved effortlessly from his job in the administration to a hotshot post at Citigroup, beneficiary of tons of government largess?
He moved to Citi because Citi wanted to ensure that they still had a direct line into the White House for more government largess if the need arose. This is precisely the opposite of capitalism. Actually the melding of government and business is more a feature of fascism, but I assume Bobby would find that comparison even less favorable than socialism.
And didn’t the president’s new chief of staff, William Daley, arrive in his powerful new post fresh from the executive suite of JPMorgan Chase?
Same role, except more local. JPMorgan wanted an in with Richard Daley, mayor of Chicago.
And isn’t the incoming chairman of Mr. Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness
My God, doesn't this type of dipstick-ery sound like Madison Avenue trying to govern?
very conveniently the chairman and chief executive of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt?
GE is the very same company whose green initiatives have come to represent the company’s public image. Far from the days of Jack Welsh, GE is now all about towing the line for the government and maximizing the federal subsidies it can snake away from the budget.
You might ask: Who represents working people?
Why would the poor not be represented by their elected officials?
The answer, as Tevye would say with grave emphasis in “Fiddler on the Roof,” is, “I don’t know.”
I don’t listen to classical music.
Maybe the data zealots have stumbled on a solution. They’ve created a model in which a radically insufficient number of jobs has resulted in a sharp decline in the official gauge of unemployment.
Seriously, don’t discount fraud. http://www.gallup.com/poll/125639/Gallup-Daily-Workforce.aspx This poll has unemployment at 9.9%.
If that trend can be sustained,
 |
| Visit www.xkcd.com/ Seriously. Do it. |
Two data points is not a trend, jackass.
we’ll eventually get the jobless rate down to zero. People will still be suffering, but full employment will have finally been achieved.
This is why we have large data sets: to discourage overzealous extrapolation. Of course, Bob Herbert would understand literally all of this if he had the benefit of a junior high school statistics course. No wonder liberals say we need more math education. They suck at it.
No comments:
Post a Comment