Andy B

I just finished a maddening, circular discussion with my friend Drew regarding the Bureau of Labor Statistics employment numbers. Regular readers know that I take issue with the way my friend argues a point. For one, he posts on a personal journal page that provides no avenue for rebuttal, and that I think he is intellectually dishonest in his arguments, relentlessly panning for the anti-American, anti-Bush-Rove-Ashcroft nugget. Regarding unemployment, he posits that since the BLS changed its methodology 8 months ago, something he calls the CNES Birth-Death model, the vast majority of new jobs being created are not comparable to past, pre-change numbers. Effectively, he believes that the recent positive jobs numbers are an anomaly. I think that argument is without merit, because we should have seen an immediate aberration 8 months ago if the model alone was responsible for the numbers. He claims that the BLS phased in the implementation of the model. I am throwing this out to you, since I am sure there is a labor statistician out there somewhere. Is it at all plausible that this change in calculation method could have been:

1. Implemented by a phased in approach?

2. Solely responsible for the improving employment numbers?

3. Not picked and drilled by the Democrats and Kerry’s economic advisor as a sham?

I may be completely off-base here, but I am willing to take my lumps if that is so. I await your responses.

Update: Upon further research, I found it’s the CES Birth/Death model.

Good editorial in the Wall Street Journal today regarding Greg Mankiw, the White House economist who was pilloried for claiming 2.6 million new jobs would be created this year. The statistical highlights here:

Friday’s May job report shows that the U.S. economy has created 947,000 new jobs in the last three months…a faster rate than Senator Kerry’s campaign promise to create 10 million jobs in his first term…..the Institute for Supply Management’s manufacturing index, a leading indicator, is near the two-decade high hit in January

The article proceeds to touch on outsourcing, where a subtle but important point is made:

because “our schools have to do a better job of preparing Americans for higher-paid jobs that require more skills……..The politicians and union officials who tolerate dropout rates of 50% in big city public schools are the real outsourcing villians”

Interesting piece on George Soros sent to me. An excerpt:

That he is anti-Bush is unremarkable, but Soros’ statement last December that the defeat of the President is “a matter of life and death” was silly. His largesse to Bush’s foes-although substantial-does not reflect the stated urgency of the moment: $15 million for America Coming Together; $3 million for John Podesta’s new think tank; and $2.5 million for MoveOn.org falls far short of a month’s cost of running his many foundations around the world.

I have to read it over again, do not agree with everything the author says, but he raises some good points.

My friend Drew is at it again. I love him like a brother, which is probably why he can get me so agitated. Drew’s web journal is a daily dose of “useless market insights” (his words not mine), mixed with a dollop of anti-U.S., anti-Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld/Wolf/Rice/Etc. diatribe. Today’s topic is the Lt. Cl. Charles Dunlap essay and Sidney Blumenthal’s column insinuating that this essay is currently circulating among top US military strategists. I trust that most of you are familiar with the Dunlap piece, a fairly fantastic work of fiction. Reading it today, I was struck by how dated the work seems despite having been written only 12 years ago.
However, there are some nuggets, one of which is particularly paradoxical:

advocates of “political correctness” succeeded in driving ROTC from the campuses of some of our best universities.{117} In many instances they also prevailed in barring military recruiters from campus.{118} Little thought was given the long-term consequences of limiting the pool from which military leadership is drawn.{119} The end result was much more homogeneous military elite whose outlook was progressively dissimilar to that of the nation’s more broadly-based civilian leadership.

In sum, an entertaining read, though in my opinion, not all that long on foresight.

An unvarnished example of a quid pro quo . Either do what we want you to do, or we are going to “scrutinize” your budget. Should not the legislature be “scrutinizing” the budget of the state-run university as a matter of course? I’ve got to get out of Illinois, always feel like I need a shower.