Brooks falsely claimed that under Reagan "unemployment went from 13 percent to 5 percent"
SUMMARY: On PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, New York Times columnist David Brooks falsely claimed that "in the Reagan years, unemployment went from 13 percent to 5 percent."
On the March 17 broadcast of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, New York Times columnist David Brooks falsely claimed that "in the Reagan years, unemployment went from 13 percent to 5 percent."
In fact, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1981, Ronald Reagan's first year in office, the U.S. average unemployment rate stood at 7.6 percent. During Reagan's presidency, it reached a high of 9.7 percent, and had declined to a level of 5.5 percent when Reagan left office. The rate from when Reagan entered office through his last year declined by 2.1 points, far less than the eight-point drop for which Brooks credited Reagan.
From the March 17 broadcast of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:
BROOKS: I disagree a little. I think most people who call themselves independent are really partisan. They're just lying.
And -- and I think partisanship -- one of the things political science shows is that partisan shapes the reality you choose to see.
People choose the reality that -- that flatters their partisanship. For example, in the Reagan years, unemployment went from 13 percent to 5 percent. If you asked Democrats, at the end of that, did unemployment go up or down under Reagan, 60 percent said it went up. Republicans said down.
You choose the reality you want to see. And, then, the Clinton years, when you had the reverse, this time, it was the Republicans' turn to be more pessimistic and wrong. People choose the reality that flatters themselves.
Brooks has an entire category dedicated to his errors and nonsequiturs over at The NonSequitur:
[link to thenonsequitur.com]
Here is a recent goody:
"...he employs a literary device that ultimately undermines the argument that he is trying to make about immigration reform."
Brooks shares is infamy there along with Will, Safire and Krauthammer.
Spend an afternoon reading The NonSequitur -- it will blow your mind wide open.
Let's get the FACTS out there right now - even the drop from 9.7 to 5.5 is a greatly flawed number, and the law changes that went into effect during Reagan is actually helping Bush. UNDER REAGAN - the way unemployment numbers are calculated by the Dept of Labor Statistics was changed - if you run out your unemployment without actually finding a new job, you are no longer counted, so Reagan's "improvement" of unemployment numbers were mostly due to attrition from the unemployment rolls. How was it that under Bush I, the economy was such a problem that he was not re-elected if unemployment was improving when he took office? ALSO - how has our unemployment rate in this country been DROPPING when we have a NET LOSS of 3 million jobs over the last 5 years? DO THE MATH.
I doubt if the majority of Americans understand this slanting of the USA Unemployment Rate. Leave it to another Neocon, Regan, to come up with a scam like this. It goes along with the "Supply Side", "Trickle Down", Economic BS.
Thanks for the props - There's no "I don't think" about it, though - when only 1 of 5 people can even name one protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution, you can be rest assured that they haven't a clue as to how labor statistics are compiled. But, to go along with that 1 in 5 number, it's very, very easy to MISlead the MIS- or UN-informed. The true unemployment rate in this country is probably closer to 12%, with probably another 15-20% considered UNDER-employed. I was at a Lowe's on Monday, and got into a conversation with the salesman helping me in the lumber department. He was retired Navy, and had recently lost his job as a network engineer when his employer moved the work to a company in India. He was in his mid 50s, and had to take the job at Lowe's to make ends meet. The labor statistics don't take these folks into account. Unfortunately for the conservatives, the facts don't help them. If you go directly to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it becomes readily apparent that things aren't as rosy as the unemployment numbers would suggest. Real wages in this country have declined over the last 5 years when adjusted for inflation, and the number of those living in poverty has increased by over 7 million. I didn't wish for a failure of this administration - as the saying goes, "I don't have a dog in this hunt" - I wish to see a better life for everyone in this country for every one of us. In my opinion, they have failed the American People, particularly the working/middle class. I'm saying this as an individual who makes a good living (our family income is over $120K/yr), owns a rental house and 1/3 of an airplane, is married, and has a Bachelor's degree in Political Science/Constitutional Law with a minor in Economics. SUPPOSEDLY the GOPers were supposed to be helping us with taxes - BULLS**T. We get KILLED with taxes. I'm self employed, so I get KILLED with healthcare expenses. How are these people helping me? I sure didn't see any kind of a noticeable tax break - but now have $60K of government debt over mine and my wife's head thanks to this godforsaken war and the tax cuts to those who make one HELL of a lot more than I do. My healthcare costs have skyrocketed over the last 4 years. I'm not a religious person, nor is my wife, yet I find their "Christian values" BS being shoved down my throat at every turn by the government that should be free from that influence as guaranteed under the First Amendment (the aforementioned document that only 1 in 5 have a clue about - the other 4 say "the what??"). I drive a lot for work - approximately 40K miles a year - and fuel prices have doubled. So, although I would have preferred that the Bushies had been successful in making my world a better place - they haven't - so I cannot and will not support them or their cronies. I really could care less the name of the party - I expect- at the very least, competence. And these guys have shown none.
A great post, and hopefully a lot of people are realizing that when Bush says the Economy is great, he is talking for the few percent of Ultra-Rich in America. Your post should be read by all the Bushies who are being scammed by the Present Leaders in America.
I think your post demonstrates that the middle class has been screwed by Puddinhead, just like the working poor. I don't make as much as you, but I make a comfortable living. However, my health insurance costs more than my house payment every month. The rich will have to forgive me if I can't drum up any sympathy for their "tax burden".
I've been begging my Congressman to use his Newsletter to tell his constituents the truth about the demise of the estate tax in terms of the number and percentage of the East Tennesseans he represents would actually be exposed to the tax if they or a family member should die ... he won't, nor will he say whether his family will benefit by its demise. Instead he claims he is against double taxation, which as you know is not double taxation on most of the big estates, but the first instance of being taxed on increased value over several generations, making that a lie, making him one of the lying liars that tell them. He and I are no longer on speaking terms, and he doesn't respond any longer when I ask how he intends to vote on upcoming legislation, or to explain how I am supposed to qualify for health savings plans when insurance companies treat them as new insurance policies and exclude all the things that happened to you in the last decade while you reached sixty without using a tenth of the premiums you paid them as you watched your deductible climb from $500 to $5,000 while premiums still increased tenfold or more. Amen, brother.
as an employment litigator, I am gladd to see you telling the folks the same thing I have to tell them when they come into my office after being laid off in a system that is increasingly devoid of a remedy for the unemployed.
of how the system is creating a larger and larger gap between the very rich and everyone else. If you have $100mm, you don't pay health insurance - you don't need to. You don't pay car insurance - you purchase a bond to show financial responsibility (remember - you have to show proof of "financial responsibility" NOT insurance) - you purchase a ranch, and take an agriculture exemption to shield yourself from taxes by farming just enough to qualify for the exemption - which, incidentally, in most states ALSO nets a reduction in property and state income taxes. So, we reward wealth, we penalize work. If you get rich or are rich - then you have avenues available to keep more of what you make, which shifts the tax burden to those who make much less, keeping them out of your exclusive little club. By the way - the >$120K+/- I mentioned is household income - both my wife and I combined. We're definitely not starving, but it would be nice to keep more than half of what we earn - and that's gross income, before business expenses. And, for anyone out there who doubts it's half - start calculating all the taxes you pay - income, SSI/self employment taxes(15.3%!!!), Medicare, sales tax, gasoline tax, property(school, local, and county in most states), and I guarantee you it's close to or even >50%. Then, top it off with insurance out the wazoo - we pay $400/month for homeowners and auto, $216/mo for health (with a $5k deductible), so, of $120K, so fully 6-7% goes just to insurance. At 40K a year mileage, my annual fuel cost averaging $2.40/gallon at 23mpg average is over $4k - there goes another 3%. Admittedly, it's a write off, but you only save the tax, not the full expense - you have to spend $10K to save $3K. If anyone really, really thinks these guys are pro small business, you've got your heads stuck in a very dark place.
That the whole "Death tax" campaign was artificial to begin with? NPR did a story about it a few months ago. A wealthy lawyer actually hired a think tank (I believe it was the Heritage Foundation) to come up with a way to repeal the estate tax. They knew that only about 2% of the population was actually affected so the bogus "death tax" argument was born to sell it to Joe Red-State. All this talk about family farms and family businesses being sold to pay the tax were what Puddinhead George would call an "exaggeration".
Perhaps the time is here for National Health Care, like all the rest of the Western Countries in the World. The only losers will be the Pharmaceuticals and Hospitals. With no added health care costs, Companies could hire more employes and afford higher wages.
How can you afford a rental house and 1/3rd of an airplane on $120k per year.
Housing prices where I live are fairly reasonable - I live N of Dallas, TX. My first house was small - about 1100sf, I paid less than $100K for it - and it rents out for $1K/month. My second home is larger, I paid $144K, and put a whole lot of sweat into fixing it up. My work is such that I typically make a lot of money in a short period of time, and then have a lot of time off - I might make $25 or $30K a month for 3 or 4 months, and then have a lot of time on my hands. My plane is about $100k, it's split 3 ways, and on a 20yr note, so that's how I do it. The plane also gets used for some business travel, so it's a tax write off - so, that's how I do it. Now, if I lived in CA, where my family is? not a chance I could afford to do it. I will say, cost of living vs. income, quality of life here is pretty good. Oh, one more thing - my wife and I have no children - children cost way, way, more than an airplane!
I gotta get out of new jersey.
Reagan also changed the measurement of unemployment during his administration to include the military. As I recall, this was an immediate improvement of .5 % in the unemployment rate.
"if you run out your unemployment without actually finding a new job, you are no longer counted, so Reagan's "improvement" of unemployment numbers were mostly due to attrition from the unemployment rolls."
That is why many people don't believe the unemployment numbers that are out there now.
You could also make the case that people are also finding jobs, but at a reduced salary from the one they had before, which isn't counted either.
In my opinion to get a true accounting of what is going on you would need to know many more issues than just how many jobs were added by month which is all I seem to hear about. Never any mention of average salary, benefits that may or may not be with the job etc.
You need to go read the BLS FAQ that describes how the unemployment rate is measured. The number of people claiming or drawing unemployment benefits is not used to measure the unemployment rate. It is measured by conducting a statistical survey that asks people whether they are unemployed and looking for work.
I'd recommend people reading the BLS link. You'll see, spelled out plainly, their narrow definition of unemployed. For instance, if I peruse the want ads but don't find anything to apply for, they don't count that as actively looking for a job. Disgraceful.
Thanks Ichbin for clearing this up. You're a peach.
Interesting site! This does seem to refute the truism that unemployment statistics are derived from unemployment insurance.
But you do raise an interesting point. It does seem that BLS too narrowly defines unemployment status. What does "actively seeking employment" mean? If there are no jobs to apply for it seems that you are not unemployed. I think it means that you are sending out resume's and interviewing. But then again, I could be misinterpreting.
ALSO - how has our unemployment rate in this country been DROPPING when we have a NET LOSS of 3 million jobs over the last 5 years?
I don't know where you are getting your data, but it isn't from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They say that the total nonfarm payroll (the traditional measure of the size of the labor force) was 131.8M in 2000, and 133.5M in 2005. That's a net increase of 1.7M jobs.
How many people did we add in the same time? Hmm?
That's easy to find. The census bureau estimates that the age 16-64 population went from 180.0M in 2001 to 188.0M in 2005, an increase of 8.0M.
I think you have me wrongly pidgeonholed. I'm not trying to argue that the jobs picture has been rosy over the last 5 years. It hasn't. I am merely correcting a grossly innacurate statistics that was being thrown around here. The U.S. did not loose 3M jobs in the last five years, so one should not say that it did.
I went to the Census bureau - the number is currently 295MM population. The work force has increased from 142.267MM to 150.114MM - an increase of 8MM =/-. That's just workforce numbers, not total population. So, we've added 8MM workers and 1.7MM jobs. That means that of the additional 8MM workers, 6.3MM are unemployed based on these numbers - that alone is approximately 4% unemployment based on a workforce of 150MM. Now, if you take THAT 6.3MM, and add it to the 4% that were already unemployed at a workforce of 142MM? The true unemployment rate actually is doubled. If my reasoning is faulty, tell me how? Unemployment in 2000 was 4% of 142MM workers, or 5.68MM. We've added 8MM workers and 1.7MM jobs, so the number should be roughly 12MM unemployed of a workforce of 150MM in 2005, or, 8%. I don't care necessarily how the BLS survey calculates it - that's the math based on their workforce numbers.
with population growth, you need to add about 1.25 million jobs a year. we haven't even kept up with that.
Republicans realize that Bush is a damaged puppet, and is about to outlive his usefulness. In fact, he's becoming a liability. Fear of terrorists only goes so far, so they have to trot out the Reagan mythology again to bolster their chances of hanging on to absolute power. I expect to hear more and more about the "Reagan Legacy" in the months to come.
True. So much so that they no longer call themselves "compassionate conservatives." They are now Reagan Republicans. Now if they turned to "Roosevelt Republicans," I might not be so afraid.
The unemployment numbers were also reduced by the huge defense budgets that created temporary wealth to fight an enemy that was already imploding. Bush Sr. got screwed by Reagan once the Cold War ended and the people excpected their Peace Dividend. Just look at what happened in California or other states that depended heavily on defense jobs.
How are the numbers arrived at? Isn't the unemployment rate the unemploment roles? I.e. the number of unemployed can go down simply as people no longer collect unemployment compensation checks when their time has run out. (Might not be that much of a percentage, but it is there nonetheless.)
Also, aren't real wages declining? I.e. there are more less paying jobs; think Walmart.
Ever hear the phrase "U.S. workers are more and more productive"? Gee, doesn't that mean manufacturers are simply producing more with less people (employed in mfg jobs)?
Yeah, okay, unemployment rates are low. But wages are not up as the economay changes into a more service job centic economy.
Do you want fries with that?
And the first thing that "Economists" worry about when there is any hint of inflation, is that wages are increasing too fast. This is a joke. CEO wages maybe, but not wages of people who work for a living.
There are a number of mistakes and misconceptions in your post.
...the number of unemployed can go down simply as people no longer collect unemployment compensation checks when their time has run out...
This is not how unemployment is measured. The unemployment rate comes from a survey done by the BLS, where they ask a statistical sample of working-age people: are you employed? are you seeking employment? would you like to work more hours? The percentage that answer that they are not employed and seeking employment is the unemployment rate.
The unemployment rate will go down if a unemployed person stop seeking work, but not because his unemployment benefits run out or because he didn't claim unemployment benefits.
Also, aren't real wages declining?
The answer to this question is suprisingly subtle. It depends on whether you track median or mean wages, and whether you include the cost of benefits. If you look at the median and exclude the cost of benefits, real wages have fallen slightly for about the last five years. If you look at the mean and include the cost of benefits, real wages are increasing in line with historical trends.
Ever hear the phrase "U.S. workers are more and more productive"? Gee, doesn't that mean manufacturers are simply producing more with less people?
That is precisely what it means, but you might want to be careful in assessing whether you really think that's a bad thing. Both left-wing and right-wing economists regard increased productivity as desirable. Think about it: if all the people in the U.S. had to work 12 hour days just to feed themselves, we would all be "employed" but a lot less better off. Suppose, on the other hand, a single person could, at the touch of a button produce everything we produce today. In the short run, that would make all but one of us "unemployed". But we would still be better off, and could either sit back and enjoy our leisure, or spend some of our extra time making even more goods and services to enjoy.
you seem fairly on top of your figures - I was going off of a news report on net jobs, but out of curiousity, ran another query of the US Census bureau. Population in this country is currently at 295MM as of 2005, and was 280MM in 2000. An increase of 15MM. The data shows that approximately 14% of the population is under 20, so we'll rule them out, and assume that we have had an increase of 12.9MM population of working age. You can figure that those under 24 MIGHT be in school, but approximately 85% do NOT go on to higher education in the US. So, from the figures you have quoted, even assuming my job loss data is inaccurate - with a working population age increase of 12.9MM, does 1.7MM new jobs - mostly service jobs that are low paying - really cut it for you?? And, if you look ONLY at the 1.7MM vs. 12.9MM, that leaves almost 67% of that additional population unemployed? I'm sorry, but that, to use a technical term, STILL sucks - even if you're right and I'm wrong about the actual numbers.
I entirely agree that the job market over the last 5 years hasn't been good for workers, and I certainly did not mean to imply otherwise by correcting your statistic.
"The unemployment rate comes from a survey done by the BLS, where they ask a statistical sample of working-age people: are you employed? are you seeking employment?"
That's a lie. They explicitly say in your link that they don't ask a person if they are employed at all. Instead, they ask a series of questions that are fed into a computer which in turn determines if the person is employed or not.
"Lie" is an awfully strong word to use here. I was attempting to characterize the fact that the BLS uses survey questions to find out what percentage of people are unemployed and actively seeking work, not just tracking unemployment claims, which was what the post I was responding to claimed. I apologize if I implied that I was quoting the exact wording of the exact questions asked.
Ichbin is right here - I was wrong at the way the numbers are determined, and was right to correct me. He also does not argue my point that whatever the numbers are, they suck - period. I have no problem with being corrected when I am wrong. I also did not get the feeling that the correction was intended to necessarily push a political point of view - it was very neutral. I think every one of us talks out of our butt sometimes, so I appreciate being kept honest. However, we all admit, there are a lot of flaws in how the numbers are arrived at, and I think we all agree on that.
But it was an important distinction. They don't just call people up and ask, "Are you employed?" Instead, they have narrow rules that determine the status.
Brooks is really full of it as usual.
Next your going to hear him say that under Reagan the defecit actually got smaller not larger.
Oh and pigs can fly too.
Regan's Budget Deficit was the record, until George W. took over. The problem will be that when the Dems take over, it will take a miracle to get the Country back to where it was when Clinton left.
Why oh why do they lie about facts that a 10 year old could check? And a big thumbs-up to those previous posters who pointed out the bump Reagan received from changing how we calculate unemployment. In reality, the rate under Reagan, with the inclusion of unemployed regardless of whether or not they receive a government check, would probably prove out to be, at best, 8 years of stagnation.
The point this guy is making is somewhat valid, in that partisan people skew facts to bolster their argument, but then when he uses bogus statistics himself he loses all credibility. The point about unemployment calculation by other posters is right on target as well. Here is another Reagan statistic for those Republicans that want to follow in his footsteps:
National Debt Summary President Party Years Increase in Debt Annual Increase Debt
Jimmy Carter: Increase in debt over 4 years: 49.1%
Ronald Reagan: Increase in debt over 8 years: 188.2%
George H. W. Bush: Increase in debt over 4 years: 46.2%
Bill Clinton: Increase in debt over 8 years: 13.7%
George W. Bush to 2004 Increase in debt (4 years): 26.0%
for 2005 and the projections for 2006. My guess is that Puddinhead's percentage would climb considerably.
bush's 26% increase for 4 years is on top of the mountain of debt run up in the reagan bush 1 years. and he is hardly done, as you note.
Hah. I was way ahead of you guys on this one. I posted on this Saturday morning:
[link to www.dailykos.com]
believing what should be straight-up facts, you must consider the source.
A pundit is a pundit is a pundit. However, brooks is not a pundit - he is a bald-faced stooge for the misadministration.
His words are full of appeasement to the current regime. Any disagreements he writes or mouths with the current chimp clan in command are for relatively petty items.
brooks is certainly entitled to his opinion and he is certainly entitled to be a mouthpiece for the insane clown posse called the repub party. Sadly, one would think that a supposedly intelligent man need not lie in order to show his adoration to clay-footed idols.
Sad indeed.
okay, MMFA I know you're not the best at researching
[link to mediamatters.org] (Cavuto claimed real wages have risen "3.3 percent." Although it is unclear where Cavuto derived this figure,....
1. Go to BLS website 2. Look for Real Earnings 3. Click on Table 1 4. Look at row in table
Industry | | | | Percent | Jan. | Dec. | Jan. | change: | 2005 | 2005p | 2006p | Jan. 2005- | | | | Jan. 2006 Total private:(2) Current dollars..........| $15.99 | $16.36 | $16.52 | 3.3 )
but this was an easy one to crack. Brooks was talking about inflaton, NOT unemployment. He meant inflation had gone from 13% to 5%.
[link to www.bls.gov]
"Reducing inflation was the major economic problem facing U. S. policymakers at the start of the 1980's. With consumer prices at the highest peacetime rate on record-up 13.3 percent in 1979- the focus of economic policymakers was on "reducing inflation, while achieving satisfactory growth in employment, output and productivity."1 Three years later, the rate of inflation had slowed considerably, with the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U) advancing only 3.8 percent during the year. "
Funny, he said "unemployment," not "inflation." In fact, he said "unemployment" twice.
It may very well be that he didn't know what he was talking about -- he is David Brooks, after all -- but considering that the reason he brought the figure up at all was to introduce it into a discussion about how partisanship affects a person's reality, it's pretty ironic that he screwed up a figure on an issue he introduced into the conversation, don't ya think?
it's impossible to say whether he intentionally took the inflation numbers and then said "unemployment" or whether he just happened to say the wrong word (unemployment instead of inflation). Yes, normally I would expect a person like him or even myself to use the right word (or statistics if he really meant to be describing unemployment), but everyone misspeaks or has brain farts.
Again, impossible to say it was intentional or an honest mistake, but I just wanted to point this out to the MMFA lemmings that the statistics he used refer to inflation. So he either looked at wrong stats (if he really meant to talk about unemployment) or used wrong word (if he really meant to talk about inflation.)
Ah...it was nice of you to bolster's MMFA's case. You see, MMFA doesn't care WHY someone misstates facts. They are just concerned with correcting such misstatements. Your ESP regarding the source of Brooks' number is immaterial.
brooks said "unemployment went from 13% to 5%". unemployment, not inflation.
Right. I think Brooks is a fine fellow,but here he made a goof.