« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

“What liberal media?” (Texas edition.)

Here’s a cautionary tale for you from the states — and specifically the state of Texas. By way of full disclosure, I serve as the VP for Communications at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

From April 25th through May 20th, the Texas Public Policy Foundation ran a series of television advertisements — all available on the TPPF YouTube Channel — urging Texans to head to ConservativeBudget.com and let the 82nd Legislature know that they wanted a fiscally responsible Texas state budget. One of those commercials, featuring TPPF President Brooke Rollins, attracted the attention of PolitiFact:

What specifically seized PolitiFact’s attention was this line of Rollins’s:

“In the last five years, we’ve created more jobs than all other states combined.”

This is, in fact, objectively true, and you may verify it yourself at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data page. (We posted the graph and numbers here.) Suffice it to say that when the commercial was filmed, the latest confirmed BLS employment data was January 2011′s. Going back five years through January 2006 revealed that only ten states saw a net increase in jobs in that period — Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Montana. Texas’s total was 545,900 new jobs. The other nine states combined came to 183,700 new jobs. Call this what you will — we call it a resounding vindication of the Texas model of low taxes and small government — but don’t call it inaccurate.

PolitiFact, despite receiving updated and concurring data from the Texas Workforce Commission, apparently found this disagreeable. In its assessment, it wrote:

So, the foundation’s figures stand up — in the way that such figures are often analyzed, including by PolitiFact.

One may only say to this: quite so. The dataset we used is universally accepted, the rhetoric we used is widely understood, and the methodology we used is transparent and simple. Of course the figures stand up.

But PolitiFact was unsatisfied, and here came the astonishing bit:

Unsaid is that this gauge defines job creation as a net increase in employment. That means the foundation’s analysis only takes into account the number of jobs created in excess of the number lost over a five-year period.

PolitiFact then engaged in a series of exercises, over the course of a thousand words, in which it sought to construct alternative jobs-creation metrics, finally settling on a jaw-dropping declaration that full accuracy would demand noting gross jobs created as well as net. If it occurred to anyone at PolitiFact that this methodology would enable a state to rack up its employment figures simply by firing the entire population each Friday, and re-hiring them all each Monday, there is no sign of it. PolitiFact closed on a sorrowful note:

The foundation’s claim that Texas “created more jobs than all other states combined” stands up — considering only those states that had net job gains over five years. That’s the methodology usually used to define job creation in public discourse.

But the foundation’s analysis disregards the 40 states where millions of jobs were created but were outnumbered by losses.

Then the intended denouement:

We rate the foundation’s statement as Half True.

Well.

Let’s review something for a moment. To use “created more jobs,” or any of its variants — “job creation,” “created jobs,” et al. — to signify a net increase in jobs is a de facto universal rhetorical standard. It’s so common as to be assumed, and no reasonable person reads or hears otherwise. To pick just a few examples: Here’s President Barack Obama doing it. Here’s Gallup doing it. Here’s Michael Powell of the New York Times doing it. Here’s Dennis Cauchon of USA Today doing it. Here’s Pietro Garibaldi and Paolo Mauro of the International Monetary Fund doing it. Here’s Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke doing it. Here’s Peter Cohan of Forbes doing it. Here’s Reuters and CNBC doing it. Here’s Peter Boyer of Newsweek doing it.

The idea that Brooke Rollins would mean anything but net jobs created in her quote defies credulity. News-savvy readers may recall the White House’s own rhetorical dodge on this count from late 2009, when the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors invoked the phrase “jobs saved or created” to concoct a net-positive figure on employment resulting from the federal stimulus. The widely derided lexical formulation was swiftly discarded, and with good reason: touting job creation in the absence of net job creation is rightly regarded as insulting or deceptive.

All of this is to say that out of the hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of Texans who saw TPPF’s statewide advertising campaign, it is apparently only PolitiFact that does not understand this.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time PolitiFact has decided that the concept of net job creation, utilized by every thinking person from every corner of the political spectrum who discusses the economy, is somehow invalid. Back in early 2009, PolitiFact rated as “False” this statement from a Governor Rick Perry press release: “Approximately 70 percent of the jobs created in the U.S. from November 2007-2008 were in Texas.” You can read the PolitiFact logic, such as it is, here; suffice it to say that it’s a strikingly similar situation, with PolitiFact insisting that gross jobs created are the proper metric. (PolitiFact further penalized the Governor’s press release for using “[a]pproximately 70 percent” rather than the 67.2 percent figure given them by the Texas Workforce Commission.) To administer the coup de grace, PolitiFact brought in one Michael Brandl of UT-Austin’s McCombs School of Business:

“To say it’s misleading is to be kind,” Brandi said. “It’s just not true.”

Interestingly, Brandl was also consulted on the piece attacking us. Here’s what he had to say this time:

“To say it’s misleading is to be kind,” Brandi said. “It’s just not true.”

Hmm.

So what’s the bottom line on PolitiFact’s assessment that TPPF has promulgated a “half truth”? On the negative side, PolitiFact engaged in tendentious interpretive exercises in an effort to promulgate a jobs-creation metric that absolutely no one uses — and then penalized us for not using it. On the positive side, PolitiFact did acknowledge that TPPF’s Rollins is objectively correct by every reasonable standard, and they spelled our name right.

We rate PolitiFact’s statement as Half True.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.WILLisms.com WILLisms

    Awesome run-down.

    Gross jobs numbers are completely worthless in this particular discussion. Technically, I have both lost and gained a ton of jobs in the past few years, looking at gross figures. I’ve grossed a few political jobs created and a few jobs lost, as campaigns, inaugural committees, and legislative sessions begin and end and jobs simply pop up and dissolve, etc. Realistically, I’ve just transitioned from one to the next, though, as is typically the case in my field. So my net is unchanged. I am not unusual in this regard, either.

    It would be asinine to use that gross number in any sort of reasonable discussion about which states are creating jobs and losing jobs.

    PolitifactTexas has a special penchant for getting it wrong– and doing so in a spectacular, make-fools-of-themselves kind of way.

  • Finrod

    .

  • earlgrey

    Created in the Bush administration vs. Other Presidents?

  • johnt

    any liberal bias or slanting, they are all dedicated,” etc. Used to see or hear that gibberish fairly often, the product of either ugly dishonesty or the combo plate of stupidity and political solipsism.
    Are these professional second guessers doing their job on O’s parbroiled numbers?

  • jeffreywturner

    PolitiFact is obviously running a hit piece here and is going through ridiculous contortions to avoid admitting that the TPPF is right on the money here.

    Incidentally, as to WHY Texas has been so prosperous in recent years, the Wall Street Journal had a nice piece on just that subject a couple of weeks ago and they chalked it up to the fact that Texas was one of only a tiny handful of states (3 iirc) which combines “right to work” with no state income tax.

  • http://www.WILLisms.com WILLisms

    http://www.willisms.com/archives/2010/12/trivia_tidbit_o_907.html

    http://www.willisms.com/archives/2010/11/trivia_tidbit_o_885.html

    http://www.willisms.com/archives/2010/09/trivia_tidbit_o_870.html

    Again, Texas just owns it in private sector job creation.

  • cja99

    What was that we’ve heard many, many, many times in the past two years? Obama and the Dems were going to be “like a laser beam on jobs”. Biggest…Joke…Ever!

  • msctex

    . . .so it isn’t. Redneck cowboys simply cannot be privy to a more efficacious system of Economics and Government than Ivy educated Eastern Elites.

    Because were that the case, a house of cards already trembling in the wind would be that much closer to finally coming down, quite possibly for the last time. So, it isn’t true. And they will say anything, ignore anything, do anything, to enforce the perception.

  • stormbringer

    PolitiFICTION.

  • spinoneone

    “It’s better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt!”

  • http://www.barrypopik.com barrypopik

    I’ve discussed Politifact several times here. See the archives.

    Recently, I wrote to Politifact to rate President Obama’s statement in El Paso that the border fence was almost complete. Politifact rated it as “barely true,” but it should have been rated “false” or “pants on fire.”

    Can I help you guys out at the Texas Public Policy Foundation? I live in Austin.(See my website, with Texas history at the bottom.)

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    since as it turns out that 450,000 of the 594,000 jobs that Texas created over this period were either government jobs or education/health care jobs. Not really the resounding small government/low taxes victory you make it out to be.

  • gmscan

    Politifacts could go to work for the Las Vegas casinos where they brag on how much was won by customers without mentioning how much more was lost.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    to create those jobs, unlike ALL of the Democrat led states.

    Besides which, we could have had a lot more jobs if Obama would not have stopped all drilling permits.

  • romeg

    amounts to a transfer of employment from the private sector to the public sector is valid then the net increase in TX would be more accurately stated as 144,000 jobs created. It would be helpful to know how many of the jobs in the other states listed are public sector vs private sector. It may well be that TX still outperformed the other 9 states combined. Of the 450,000 increase in public sector employment, how much of that is NET public sector increase?

    Each public sector job requires about 7 private sector jobs to support it. Even if TX has the revenues at the moment, the 450,000 increase is an undesirable and unsustainable rate of growth in public sector employment. At that rate, future job growth in the private sector in TX is imperiled.

    If the bulk of the increase in public sector employment is in education, perhaps TX should look more closely at developing a private sector education solution rather than growing the public sector education system.

  • http://www.WILLisms.com WILLisms

    Where are you getting your figures? Texas leads the nation in private sector jobs created over the past five years. I see your argument from time to time, but I never see any legitimate backing for it.

  • jeffreywturner

    “Healthcare” jobs are actually some of the best jobs out there. Also, there is nothing wrong with education jobs, particularly if they are not on the government payroll.

    So what is the breakout of that 450,000 between government, healthcare and education?

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    Because the Texas Workforce Commission would like a word with them:

    http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/commrs/012510chr.pdf

    Oh, and protip: health care jobs aren’t government jobs — not yet — nor are, necessarily, education jobs.

  • http://www.WILLisms.com WILLisms

    I think Josh linked to something similar already, but the line about Texas only creating government jobs reminds me of the widely debunked Debra Medina argument during the 2010 Texas Republican primary. She wanted that to be true, and her people wanted it to be true, but it wasn’t true.

    http://www.empowertexans.com/node/1153

    “Texas Workforce Commission Chairman Tom Pauken today released figures showing that Texas created more private sector jobs than any other state in the nation over the last 10 years and has the lowest unemployment rate among the 10 largest states in the nation. Pauken cited the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics January 22, 2010 release of Current Employment Statistics for December 2009 showing Texas created 724,300 more net private sector jobs as compared to December 1999, the largest private sector job gain nationwide over the last decade.

    Pauken also noted that among the 10 largest states as ranked by civilian labor force size, Texas was well ahead of all other large states in private sector job growth with a percentage net gain of 9.30 percent as compared to December 1999. Florida was the only other large state to realize a net gain in private sector employment over the same period with 259,500 net jobs gained for a percentage net gain of 4.31 percent from December 1999 to December 2009. The other 8 large states showed a net loss of private sector jobs over the same period.

    Nationally, over the last decade, the private sector experienced a net employment loss of 1.408 percent or 1,549,000 jobs lost.”

    I don’t get how you could be conservative and not root for Texas, which is certainly not perfect but clearly is the closest thing to true conservative governance we may ever see. It’s definitely better than anything we’ll ever get at the national level.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    The supposedly repeated Brandl quote above was not actually given twice — I misread the original text.

    However, now that we know this, we are left with something rather interesting about PolitiFact’s hit on us: there are now precisely zero on-the-record sources directly cited as criticizing us, and agreeing with them.

    Why would that be?

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    which accumulated the data from the BLS Current Population Survey (ie the jobs report that comes out the first Friday of each month). And while you are correct that not all education jobs are public (the majority are though) and that health care jobs are private (but they are reliant more on demographics than any tax policy), the fact is the numbers aren’t nearly as good as you made them sound (although, my guess is that the other nine states Texas was compared to also had government jobs in their tallies as well).

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    You’ve obviously looked up the numbers, right? So present them. Figures and references, please. Will and I gave you ours. Waving your hand toward the BLS and St Louis Fed website doesn’t cut it.

    You’ve got a tall order ahead of you.

    By the way, asserting that demography overpowers policy on healthcare is simply ignorant. The mere declaration is a giant flag emblazoned with the phrase, “I’m totally unfamiliar with this field, and with markets in general.”

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    texas employment

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    There’s two big ones.

    First, those aren’t mutually exclusive datasets. There’s a huge overlap between them, and you need to discern how much — not just add the increases together. You’ve already produced a substantive overestimate, right there.

    Second, you’re pitting the net increase in a set against a net increase in a subset. Compare with the gross of the set to put it in proper context.

    The data continues to support Texas just fine, it seems.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    those are in FACT mutually exclusive datasets. They come from the BLS Household Survey and people are only placed in one subset (government, education/healthcare, manufacturing, professional services, etc). So, sorry, no overestimate.

    Um, the set would be comprised of the subsets and thus it is very instructive to show what the breakdown of said set is by subset to determine exactly what kinds of jobs are being created.

    None of this should be construed as taking a shot at Texas, as regardless of the composition of jobs created, the fact is Texas has in fact created jobs and more than any other state over the given time frame.

  • http://joshuatrevino.com Joshua Trevino

    If they’re mutually exclusive, then that’s not good news for your case: that means the education/healthcare segment is private-sector, no?

    I think that’s an adequate last word.

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    The government category only applies to those directly employed by the federal, state, or local government and not in education (which has its own heading as I showed previously).

  • http://www.WILLisms.com WILLisms

    Try again.

  • http://www.WILLisms.com WILLisms

    http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/05/texas-adds-732800-jobs-in-10-years.html

    Texas has enjoyed an unequaled economic boom the past 10 years.

    The inventory of private-sector jobs in Texas increased by 732,800 between April 2001 and the same month this year, according to an On Numbers analysis of new federal employment data.

    No other state registered an increase of more than 100,000 private-sector jobs during the decade. Only 19 states and the District of Columbia posted any gains at all.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine