The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in its attempt to educate every voter everywhere about the upcoming election, has an article title "Job creation or political persuasion?" and subtitled "Economists say office-holders rarely influence labor market, but that hasn't stopped rhetoric." It goes on to explain the numbers game in talking about job growth, and how different statistics can lead to different pictures of the job market. For instance, Mark Green's campaign likes to point to a statistic showing a loss of 8,800 jobs in Milwaukee, but using some analytical math to smooth out for fluctuations in seasonal labor supply and demand paints a different picture.
While 91,300 isn't as impressive as 170,000, and while both numbers are technically accurate, the smaller number is much more politically defensible. Perhaps the gubernatorial campaigns should have tried to stick to the best picture of the state of the state instead of going for the most shocking number possible (and I realize shock if the name of the game this election cycle). But if the goal is to reach out to voters, why not avoid confusing them and give them the most useful numbers right off the bat?
Back off my soap box...
The article continues on to talk about the economic implications of one elected official versus another. If you're interested, check it out.
Government corrections in the numbers a few weeks later reduced the year-to-year loss in the Milwaukee area to 5,000 jobs. And the most recent data - preliminary figures from August - suggest a 12-month net increase of 10,000 jobs. Seasonally adjusted data are not available for the local level, but the year-to-year comparison avoids seasonal fluctuations.Furthermore, the article points out that Governor Doyle's campaign likes to claim 170,000 new jobs were introduced under his watch. January, the month in which he took office, usually has the year's lowest employment rate. By measuring from the lowest point of the year to one of the higher points of the year, the number is artificially high. The Journal Sentinel points out that using seasonally adjusted numbers, 91,300 jobs have been added for a "3.3% gain [that] puts Wisconsin third highest among nearby states, following 4.7% in Iowa and 4.3% in Minnesota."
While 91,300 isn't as impressive as 170,000, and while both numbers are technically accurate, the smaller number is much more politically defensible. Perhaps the gubernatorial campaigns should have tried to stick to the best picture of the state of the state instead of going for the most shocking number possible (and I realize shock if the name of the game this election cycle). But if the goal is to reach out to voters, why not avoid confusing them and give them the most useful numbers right off the bat?
Back off my soap box...
The article continues on to talk about the economic implications of one elected official versus another. If you're interested, check it out.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home