The economy
Economist Brad DeLong is stumped:
If Brad can't figure it out, I'm sure I can't.
But, I keep wondering whether they might be cooking the numbers' books a bit. They certainly feel free to cook all the other information they disseminate.
Another near-five percent output growth quarter, accompanied by a growth of labor input that I measure as about 1.6 percent at an annual rate. That means productivity growth at more than three percent per year.
So why aren't real wages rising faster? Why does labor demand growth appear so weak?
If Brad can't figure it out, I'm sure I can't.
But, I keep wondering whether they might be cooking the numbers' books a bit. They certainly feel free to cook all the other information they disseminate.
posted by walldon | 5:05 PM
1 Comments:
I suspect this period is unique in post-war period -- since they really started collecting these statistics. Job growth is abysmal -- actually in decline relative to working age population growth -- and yet unemployment is below 5%? The idea that more people want to say home is absurd -- hey, buddy, want to buy a bridge? -- so I can only conclude that some funny business is going on. Meanwhile, as Marketingace showed, quality jobs are declining horribly since Clinton left office. All of this, plus administration anti-labor policies, would point to wage depression. Seems to me that the official unmployment rate is the outlier here, and Republicans certainly know that the simpleminded mainstream press is incapable of daling with anythng more complex than that iconic number. I've wondered, too, if economists could be in denial that the integrity of the BLS has been compromised. The implications for practicing the profession are horrendous.
Post a Comment
<< Home