Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="moreluck" data-source="post: 888995" data-attributes="member: 1246">Old And Busted: Obama Regime Touts “Jobs Saved And Created” — New And Hot: “Jobs Supported”…Next up: Jobs envisioned?(e21 Economics) — The White House has circulated materials asserting that the President’s proposed American Jobs Act (AJA) would “support” nearly 400,000 education jobs. A former colleague of mine has noted that the validity of this claim rests on the definition of the word “support,” prompting a dissection of what exactly the Administration means by this terminology. Similar claims were made earlier in the Administration with respect to jobs “created or saved” by the 2009 stimulus package. The many problems with those claims have been amply discussed elsewhere and will not be reviewed here in detail. Suffice it to say that one big problem was that the claims were based primarily on modeling assumptions and could neither be verified nor refuted after the fact, thereby leaving little to no informational value. (Moreover, to the extent that rigorous empirical assessments were subsequently conducted, they have undercut the claims). Of perhaps even greater concern, however, is that the concept of “jobs created or saved” appeared deliberately designed to produce more favorable numbers than the neutral standard of “job creation” commonly applied throughout previous presidencies. If numerical claims do not reliably measure the effects of government policies, that alone is a reason not to make them. But inappropriate use can also boomerang on the authors of the policies if they create a tangible disconnect between advocacy rhetoric and economic reality. To be claiming a powerful positive effect on millions of jobs at a time when so many Americans were losing theirs inevitably introduces skeptical questions, especially in an environment where many Americans are already inclined to be skeptical. Far better to make more prudent, verifiable claims that resonate with Americans’ actual economic experience. The terminology of “supporting” nearly 400,000 jobs, as it turns out, is even more problematic. It, too, reflects an assumption rather than a metric that can be objectively tested and verified. And it similarly has the problem of being seemingly designed to allow the citation of significant positive numbers. But the “support” metric (also used by DoE to praise similar education funding in last year’s Medicaid law) contains a more glaring problem: it has nearly nothing to do with the policy that it advertises. It does not illuminate the policy’s efficacy, barely reflecting even on its content. </blockquote>

Verification