Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Piling On -- But Why Not?
by Ken Houghton
Which would lead you to believe that people became better-employed in 2003-2004. As John Clute once said, let's look at the evidence.
Via Legal Fiction (out of Duncan via Ezra), we find the U.S. Census's Historical Poverty Tables. And we would expect a decline in real terms--or at least percentage--in people around the poverty level (as the marginal effect of the "recovery" should elevate people out of poverty). Instead, we have:
There are enough economists and others in the blogsphere, both directly and indirectly, who have pointed out the lunacy of Larry Kudlow's latest declaration, but I particularly want to address this gem:
When this last happened in 2003-04 (remember the "jobless recovery" election-year rant of Democrats?)
Which would lead you to believe that people became better-employed in 2003-2004. As John Clute once said, let's look at the evidence.
Via Legal Fiction (out of Duncan via Ezra), we find the U.S. Census's Historical Poverty Tables. And we would expect a decline in real terms--or at least percentage--in people around the poverty level (as the marginal effect of the "recovery" should elevate people out of poverty). Instead, we have:
In simple terms:
1) Over 1,000,000 more people below 125% of the poverty line.
2) Over 150,000 less people (from a larger sample) above the line itself.
In short, at the margins, the percentage of people at or below the poverty line went from 15.4% to 15.7% (an increase of 0.3%) during Kudlow's "recovery."
Does anyone still wonder why the "recovery" bears the adjective "jobless"?
Cross-posted at Economics Question of the Day
