Trashing or Defending Texas

Liberals tend not to like Texas. It stands as a repudiation of many of their treasured beliefs and since Rick Perry has entered the presidential race, they are attacking the Lone Star state with renewed enthusiasm. But it is hard to argue with robust job growth and increasing income in Texas since the recession. Something is working better in Texas than in Obama’s more favored places.

Let's just go through a few of the facts drawn from this article, which I have put into bullet form.

• The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas reported this summer that Texas created 37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began in June 2009.
• Texas is also among the three states and the District of Columbia that are home to more jobs today than when the recession began.
• Without the Texas gains, according to the Dallas Fed, annual U.S. job growth would have been 0.97% instead of 1.17%.
• Over the past five years, Texas has added more net new jobs than all other states combined.
• Some of this Texas growth is due to high birth rates, some to immigration. But it also reflects the flight of people from other states. People and capital are mobile and move where the opportunities are greatest. Texas is attractive to workers and employers alike because of its low costs of living and doing business.
• The government in Austin is small, taxes are low, regulation is stable, and the litigation system is more predictable after Mr. Perry's tort reforms--all of which is a magnet for private investment and hiring.
• BLS pegs the median hourly wage in Texas at $15.14, 93% of the national average, and wages have increased at a good clip: in fact, the 10th fastest state in 2010 at 3.4%.
• Mr. Perry's 2003 malpractice caps have led to an influx of doctors, especially high-risk specialists. The Texas Public Policy Foundation estimates that the state has netted 26,000 new physicians in the wake of reform, most from out of state.
• Liberals do have a point that Texas avoided the worst of the housing boom and bust, in part because of regulations imposed in the S&L backwash that limit mortgage borrowing to 80% of the appraised value of a home. But isn't this smart regulation
• Mr. Perry inherited a well-functioning economy and has managed it well, mainly by avoiding the kind of policy disruptions that his liberal critics favor in the name of this or that social or political goal. This achievement may not earn a Nobel Prize in economics, but it does help explain why Texas is outperforming the nation.

The last point is a good one. It sort of depends on your priorities. If you want more jobs, it might be good to be more like Texas. If you feel that America is somehow an unjust place that needs lots of government intervention to rectify, maybe you want something else.

H.L. Mencken wrote that the New Deal had divided Americans into those who work for a living and those who vote for a living. It looks like working is beating voting for a living.

Posted by Christine & John at August 19, 2011 10:30 PM
Comments
Comment #327917

You don’t live in Texas do you?

Posted by: Tom Jefferson at August 19, 2011 10:56 PM
Comment #327918

Tom

I don’t currently live in the United States, which gives me a more general perception. But I have visited all the states except Alaska and Hawaii, including Texas on several occasions, most recently about nine months ago. And I have many friends there. It seems many people like Texas enough to move there. Something is drawing people, and it is probably not the 108 degree summer weather or the dust.

Posted by: C&J at August 19, 2011 11:22 PM
Comment #327919

I’m not surprised to see that Jack is seriously spinning.
Here’s a link where you can get some far more pertinent facts (and don’t forget to click on all the links on that page, because they back up everything they’re saying in that article.):
Perry ignores public data to insist stimulus did not create jobs

Posted by: Adrienne at August 20, 2011 12:06 AM
Comment #327921

See also:
Texas Rep. on Perry’s job creation: A ‘Texas tale’

Posted by: Adrienne at August 20, 2011 12:12 AM
Comment #327926

C&J, it is a continued liberal policy of attacking the messenger and not the message. The attacks on Texas are simply an extended attack on Perry, because Perry scares liberals. In fact, Perry also scares the DC establish republican blue bloods.

Posted by: TomT at August 20, 2011 8:35 AM
Comment #327928

Texas’ success is due in large part to population growth; population growth that is mainly driven by illegal immigration (although internal migration does play a part). If Perry is using his success in Texas to push for looser immigration standards, then he is on firm ground, but I don’t think this is the case.

Another factor fueling Texas’ population growth is the lack of restrictions on new housing (coupled with the aforementioned regulations that kept the housing sector from bubbling up). This makes housing in Texas cheap. Easing restrictions on increased housing density would probably go a long way towards helping the economies of states with expensive housing such as MA & NY. Currently, there is high demand for people to move into MA & NY (hence the high prices), but there aren’t enough units to house everyone so the population of these states is pretty much stagnant.

Also, we can’t ignore the warm climate of Texas enticing internal migration.

BTW, Texas’ unemployment rate isn’t that great. MA & NY are better in that regard.

Here’s a nice breakdown of what happened in Texas from Ezra Klein.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 20, 2011 9:00 AM
Comment #327931

All

Re Perry being responsible for the success of Texas, who can say how much. Leaders get too much praise and blame for what they economy does in the short run. But in the longer run, Texas is doing something right.

As Tom says, many liberals and pundits are going on a general attack on Texas to get at the current governor. It is kind of a “kill em all and let the lord sort them out,” idea.

Warped

Your point re housing is very good. Lots of regulations drive up the price of housing. Some are good and needed; others not so much.

When you buy a house, you are always surprised by all the little costs included. There is a whole industry of ripping off home buyers with regulations.

The other thing you did not mention is tort reform. Texas has a less suing friendly environment.

Adrienne

Ask a few questions.

1. If the stimulus helped Texas as much as your first article implies, why didn’t it work like this elsewhere? Something worked better in Texas than it did in other big states, like NY, California or Pennsylvania. Since all those places got stimulus money, what happened?

2. Your second article, which in many ways contradicts the first re the power of the stimulus, just does not account for the actual data. The median wage in Texas $15.14 (which is 93% of the U.S. median and has greater buying power considering the lower Texas cost of living. It is worth $26 in California, where you are http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.html) and incomes in Texas are GROWING at 3.4%, which could not be the case if all the new jobs were low wage or even below median wage.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D)evidently has trouble understanding statistics. It is a common problem, especially among those who like to put their opinions before their facts.

BTW - don’t you ever read any actual news. Your links are always these advocacy sites. On a blog like this, we sometimes try to advocate or spin. You cannot use spin as evidence, however.

A good idea on advocacy sites is to trust, but verify and then use the results of the search IF they actually bolster your argument. If not, consider changing your mind

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2011 9:49 AM
Comment #327934

Jack,
No, it actually makes perfect sense if one chooses to be honest. Texas got the second most stimulus money out of all the fifty states. An enormous wad of dough — a lot of infrastructure money. This accounts for many well paying jobs that have been created, despite what Perry is now trying to claim in order to attack Obama.
A great many other jobs that have been created are in reality low wage and/or part time jobs (Btw, Perry is far from being the only politician who touts these kinds of jobs in order to look good), and as Warped mentioned, despite all of this the unemployment rate in Texas is still fairly high.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 20, 2011 11:34 AM
Comment #327935
BTW - don’t you ever read any actual news. Your links are always these advocacy sites. On a blog like this, we sometimes try to advocate or spin. You cannot use spin as evidence, however.

As I said previously, LOOK AT THE LINKS on that page. It’s all backed up by the facts, not spin.
But nice try.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 20, 2011 11:37 AM
Comment #327936
The attacks on Texas are simply an extended attack on Perry, because Perry scares liberals.

I think the Left has started to focus on Perry for several reasons. One is that Perry was created by the dark magic of Turd Blossom/Karl Rove; a fact which (believe it or not) still seems to carry a lot of weight with the GOP. Secondly, the media began treating Perry like the only serious contender in the GOP field from the very second he entered the race — despite all his cRaZy talk. And third, the crony capitalist banksters are already swarming around Perry:
Open mic catches Bank of America official vowing to ‘help’ Perry

Posted by: Adrienne at August 20, 2011 11:55 AM
Comment #327937

Adrienne

Simple math. The median is the mid-point. It is unaffected by a few high paying jobs It can only go up if the bottom half goes up. If Texas median wages are rising, it has to mean that more above median jobs have been created than below. So the new Texas jobs are mostly good ones. Of course, any job is a good one if you don’t have one.


And Texas got a lot of money, because it is a state that is big in both population and geographical size. It is second largest state in population and the largest except Alaska in area. (look at per capita spending - http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/where-will-the-stimulus-money-go-a-state-by-state-breakdown/) California got more and New York about as much. If Texas created 37% of the U.S. jobs, what did California and New York do wrong. If the other two had created jobs at the Texas rate, the jobless recovery would have not been jobless. And if all the other states were doing as well, we would be in a boom already.

No matter how we look at it, Texas’ job creation has been remarkable. If stimulus funds

So this is the dilemma for Texas bashers. Whether or not you want to credit Perry, it is clear that Texas is a better job creator than other states. Maybe others should do more of whatever it is Texas is doing.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2011 11:55 AM
Comment #327938

Adrienne

I followed the links and they often reached other similar sites. Besides, YOU are making the argument. If I link to a site on Heritage, for example, I should also explore the links, since they are making an argument based on that which may or may not be right.

When you link to an advocate and then ask others to follow down the links, you are essentially saying that the advocate has done your thinking for you. When we debunk your site, based on its faults, as I have done with you many times, you cannot then refer again to the article. But we don’t usually have time to do your research for you, so we are left with addressing the sources your provide, which I did and found their mistakes.

The sites were NOT talking facts. They were already spin. So they spin, you spin. It is bad enough to have to counter first generation spin, but then to have you use spin to support spin and ask us to research is a bit too much

If the author of those articles writes in, we can address him/her.If you write in, you might want to think for yourself.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2011 12:02 PM
Comment #327939

One more simple thing. When you do research, it is best to go as far as possible toward the primary source. That is why you should link to facts to make your case and not people who are already removed from the facts and making the case.

As a former historian, I have always found that very useful. Sometimes when you track down the original source, you find it doesn’t say what they interpreters said it did. Sometimes there is no source at all, simply an assumption. Often somebody took a valid fact and spun it into something “more interesting”. This can be an honest attempt to make it more relevant, but it now has become an interpretation and has to be handled as that.

Finally, there are people who think they are telling the truth but do not have the opportunity or capacity to understand what they are reporting. These are the hardest to deal with. It is the eye-witness who is sure that he saw somethings that didn’t and maybe could not possibly have happened. But he is sure and we sometimes mistake his certainty and passion for truth.

That is why we have to ask questions about all these things.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2011 12:11 PM
Comment #327940

Jack,
Go ahead and spin, spin, spin. Go ahead and attempt to attack me personally. The fact is, you’ve got NOTHING. The link to the Texas Comptroller and to the CNN article tell the whole tale: Perry may have acted like he was against the stimulus, but that was just posturing — he knew damn well he would have been SUNK without the windfall of the stimulus money. And so do you.

As the CNN link stated:

Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Even budget deficits are bigger in Texas

Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.

The facts are: Texas used $14 billion of Washington stimulus money in its 2009 and 2010 budgets in total. Not having to touch the rainy day fund meant Perry didn’t have to make massive cuts. But next year? AFTER the election? Texas is going to be in a boatload of serious economic trouble.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 20, 2011 1:04 PM
Comment #327942

Adrienne

“But next year? AFTER the election? Texas is going to be in a boatload of serious economic trouble.”

as opposed to what? calif. which has been in a boatload of economic trouble for over 10 years now, and still is despite getting more stimulus money than texas. like C&J said, what did texas do right, that calif. did wrong? remember calif. troubles started with gray davis, and have continued to go down hill ever since.

Posted by: dbs at August 20, 2011 3:07 PM
Comment #327945

I often hear criticism from some folks that Republican states accepted government stimulus money and by doing so, proved themselves to be hypocrites.

Let’s examine that illogical view. From where did the government get the money to fund the stimulus? From taxpayers eventually, even if the money is borrowed. Which taxpayers? The answer is from all taxpayers who actually pay income taxes.

Are any of those taxpayers living in Texas. Why yes, quite a few. Did Texas get more than its share using the government formula for deciding such things? Well…no!

Should taxpayers who pay the bill for the stimulus accept the stimulus money? I believe it is only logical that since they are the ones expected to pay it back, they should accept their own tax dollars before the fact.

I would ask those who believe Republican controlled states are hypocrites for doing so a simple question.

Suppose you work for a company that is carrying a heavy debt load. The company needs money for payroll and doesn’t have enough business to generate the money it needs. The banks won’t loan the company any money. The company announces that it is going to borrow from the employee pension fund to meet its payroll.

You disagree with this decision and decide to…

1) Refuse your next paycheck even though the other employees accepting a paycheck will be receiving some of the funds you paid into the pension fund.

2) Accept your paycheck with the realization that it is your own money to begin with. And, even if you don’t accept your pay check, you will be expected to repay the pension fund the dollars you didn’t accept.

In my opinion, option one is not a hypocrite, but a fool. Option two is being a realist. His pension money is going to be spent. He will pay back dollars he never received or pay back dollars he did receive.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2011 3:52 PM
Comment #327947

Royal the many repub governors railed against the stimulus yet took the money against their “principles”. The stimulus worked for them as it benefited their state. The stimulus worked to a certain degree yet the repubs have labelled it a failure. To complain about the stimulus and then take the money is hypocritical. Unless of course they made a public apology to Obama for railing against it wrongly.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 20, 2011 4:16 PM
Comment #327948
as opposed to what? calif. which has been in a boatload of economic trouble for over 10 years now, and still is despite getting more stimulus money than texas. like C&J said, what did texas do right, that calif. did wrong? remember calif. troubles started with gray davis, and have continued to go down hill ever since.

No, you’ve got it all wrong. California’s economic problems did not start with Grey Davis, although he definitely ended up taking the fall as a result. California’s economic troubles actually started with Gov. Pete Wilson back in 1996. That’s when Wilson pushed through the type of state deregulation legislation that was necessary for Enron to eventually bring us our fake “energy crisis” which stole approximately 45 million dollars from this state.
We still haven’t recovered even though it’s been a decade since the Enron rip off took place.
Indeed, this state didn’t even get back the measly 9 billion we might possibly have gotten back had Davis not been recalled, but instead Arnold became the governor. Right before Arnold took office, he and the Republican mayor of LA, Richard Riordan met with Ken Lay at the Beverly Hills Hotel. At their meeting, Lay presented Arnold with Enron’s “Comprehensive Solution for California” which called for an immediate end to all of the Federal and state investigations into Enron’s role in ripping off the state — and Arnold of course complied, promising that there would be no forthcoming lawsuits to try to recover any of the state’s money. Not long after that meeting many of Enron’s corporate officers were arrested, tried, and convicted — and part of what put them away were tape recordings where Enron employees were gloating and praising the company for manipulating the energy market and ripping off everyone in this state by deliberately driving up prices and ordering plants shut down.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 20, 2011 4:19 PM
Comment #327951

j2t2 wrote; “Royal the many repub governors railed against the stimulus yet took the money against their “principles”.

I guess you didn’t read any of what I wrote. Is it really unprincipled to accept your own money? That the stimulus failed makes no difference in the argument. The money that Texas received will be paid back by the taxpayers in Texas. If they had not taken the money, they would be paying it back anyhow.

You have mixed up “principles” with “realism”. Please write a comment with some “meat” on its bones.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2011 4:52 PM
Comment #327956

Adrienne

Texas used stimulus money commensurate with its population and geographic size. You can call Perry a hypocrite if you want. I got no dog in that fight. If money is offered, I would take it.

The point is that ALL the states got money. Texas got less per capita than many others. Yet it created 37% of ALL the jobs in the U.S. What did Texas do that others did not?

That is the question. Your desire to trash Texas or Perry is your business, but the question is not answered by that.

Re attacking you - I did not. I simply point out the rules of research.

J2t2, Royal and Adrienne

Royal is right.

Let me ask a different question. It is an absurd one, but no more absurd than the one about Republicans not taking money. Liberals often complain about defense budgets. If there is a security problem, should they not get protection?

What the liberal line on taxes etc seems to be is that if you are against higher taxes, you should still pay them but not get any benefits.

It looks like the TARP worked and the stimulus did not do much good. If Obama’s idea was to give gifts to other politicians, he succeed. If his goal was to simulate the economy … well is it working?

Re California and ENRON - It is hard to know. Former ENRON adviser Paul Krugman calls for even more spending, but what advice did he give ENRON? He was an adviser to ENRON at the same period when he was an adviser to then President Clinton. Sure it does stink, but ENRON was a national problem.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2011 5:21 PM
Comment #327958

adrienne

ah yes, the old “it’s enrons fault” lie. the trouble started with the deals davis made with the power providers. he signed long term contracts. he was in over his head when dealing with these companies, and as a result we all got screwed. if he had let things run thier course prices would have come back down as they always do.

pete wilson actually left us with a surplus. the main problem though was the fact gumby committed one time tax windfalls from the dot com boom to permanent programs. when the bubble burst we were stuck with permanent increases, and not enough revenue. so what did they do? they borrowed, and the rest is history. it is and always will be a spending problem.

Posted by: dbs at August 20, 2011 5:25 PM
Comment #327968

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/texas_labor-2.png

Posted by: Tom Jefferson at August 20, 2011 6:38 PM
Comment #327969

People often believe things inspite of the facts surrounding them. Often experts are like what Texans call snowbirds, people that come and go and then endow us with their instant knowledge. The state department is like that. I was watching a speaker on C-span discuss the difference between Richard Holbrook and a British Viceroy in India. The viceroy was in India for thirty years before becoming the viceroy. Holbrook tended to fly in and out for six months visits at most. We then wonder why our policies often don’t work very well. Ask a Texan if the economy is booming here. It isn’t.

Posted by: Tom Jefferson at August 20, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #327970

Tom

Linking to partisan sites is bad enough. Linking to a chart made by a partisan site is worse. Linking to a chart by a partisan site is worst.

My guess is that you are trying to trash Texas with the chart, but it doesn’t count without some explanation, whatever that might be. Just because somebody makes a chart doesn’t mean it means anything.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #327974

dbs,
Why are you lying? It’s ridiculous to lie about this.
It is common knowledge that our economic problems stem from what Enron did to this state in 2000 — so please go look up the California Energy Crisis and stop trying to talk out of your butt.
Davis definitely didn’t do any of the right things at the height of the crisis because of his ties to the power companies in this state and he was recalled due to his failure. I’m in total agreement with you there. Yet, Arnold didn’t even try to get any of the Enron-scammed money back — and I consider that just as outrageous a failure as Davis’ failure.

And let’s face facts here: Enron did nothing while Wilson was still in office because he had given them the deregulation laws they wanted, yet after he was gone and Davis came in, Enron started right off on their scamming in this state. When Davis asked Bush to help intervene with a federal cap on energy prices at the height of the crisis, Bush absolutely refused to help. Wouldn’t even meet with the governor of California. Lay of course had been a “Bush Pioneer” who had donated and raised major bucks for the Bush’s campaign and so “KennyBoy” Lay and his friends at Enron were allowed to rob California blind while the Federal government simply looked the other way.

If you look at our serious budget problems there is absolutely NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that they began from the start of Enron’s manufactured “energy crisis” and continue on until today. 45 billion is after all, an enormous budget shortfall.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 20, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #327976

Jack, Texas got the second most money from Obama’s stimulus. California got the most, but this state has been so deep in the hole for so long it didn’t even make much difference. I’m glad you’re in full agreement that the reason that any jobs could be created in Texas was because of Washington stimulus money. This is contrary to what Perry is now claiming to be the case, and that is transparently false.
My point to you is that next year Texas is going to descend into trouble with their budget — and that they will have to face the same kinds of massive cuts that other states have already been forced to face. Indeed, an enormous number of jobs are going to end up being lost in Texas the very moment they have to face up to those massive cuts — because they will be forced to dip into their rainy day fund to meet their budget shortfall if no more stimulus money comes their way.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 20, 2011 7:24 PM
Comment #327993

C&J,

So, you got my point exactly then. Pot, meet the Kettle. BTW, the chart is legit, where’s it’s posted has little relevance or substance as a defense. As a Texan, I do know what reality here is, and as the chart shows, it’s no economic love fest. Miniscule job creation in a swelling population, doesn’t mean very much at dinner time when there’s nothing to eat. I love Texas’ rugged beauty in spite of the hold the wealthy have on it’s politics and the way they play the racist rednecks. There are lot’s of free thinkers in Texas who don’t give a rat’s ass about Mr.Goodhair and his empty hat Even A&M doesn’t think too highly of his abysmal record on Texas education. But thanks for passing through, and enjoying some BBQ. We don’t hold it against you for being another phony from back east.

Posted by: Tom Jefferson at August 20, 2011 8:41 PM
Comment #328002
I guess you didn’t read any of what I wrote. Is it really unprincipled to accept your own money?

Please Royal what makes you think it was your own money? I did read your nonsensical argument and your repeat of it in this paragraph. Face facts Royal if it was your money would you have spent it on the stimulus? No but you did. Why because it isn’t your money once you give it to someone else. Try buying a burger at McDonald’s and then taking “your” money back again.

That the stimulus failed makes no difference in the argument.
But Royal jobs were created in Texas so how do it fail? This conservative mythology you spread is just not factual.
The money that Texas received will be paid back by the taxpayers in Texas. If they had not taken the money, they would be paying it back anyhow.

Which of course is irrelevant. The fact remains, despite this nonsense, that the repubs in general and Perry in particular accepted this money and tax cuts yet railed against it and also claimed it to be unsuccessful. Puleeze Royal.

What the liberal line on taxes etc seems to be is that if you are against higher taxes, you should still pay them but not get any benefits.

C&J you to? With this nonsense, what have you been doing down there drinking the cool aid? No one is saying Texas wasn’t entitled to their fair share of the stimulus. It is the hypocritical stance they took against the stimulus that is the point. If they knew it was to be a failure why would they implement it in their state? If they didn’t know, why criticize it and then take it. There is but one logical answer despite the conservative babble on this issue,C&J.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 21, 2011 3:07 AM
Comment #328003

Adrienne

I am not defending Perry. You want to attack him, go ahead. I don’t think he will be the Republican nominee. He is one of those guys who rides in, makes a splash and then rides off with everybody saying how great (or terrible) he would have been.

The Texas example is just really simple. All the states got stimulus money. Experts argue about how much good it did, but states got money roughly in proportion to their size and population, so we would expect all recipients to have similar results. Texas results were significantly better than the average.

The shocking statistic is that Texas produced 36% of all jobs. Other measures are also remarkable.

NOBODY has denied the basic statistics. Some people have tried to attack other aspects of Texas or attack its current governor.

I understand that things happen over time and that many people and events are responsible for outcomes, both good and bad. So looking at the past decade, what policies pursued in Texas have resulted in this success? What did Texas get right that others did not?

If you want to be pro-Obama, you can ask what policies and factors in the states (besides places like Texas or N. Dakota) caused the stimulus to fail, since we “know” it cannot be Obama’s fault.

Re Texas having trouble next year - let’s see. Most troubles (and opportunities) that we predict don’t happen. There is a whole pundit industry that predicts and then explains why they were wrong.

Tom

The chart may or may not be “legit”. You have not provided sufficient evidence for anybody to judge. We cannot figure out exactly where the information came from or how it was processed. Putting information on charts can dramatically change the meaning conveyed. THAT is why you cannot legitimately post a chart w/o explanation and background.

Re your Texas roots - I appreciate that you live there, but you don’t represent all the people of Texas. Warped, who wrote very differently is also from Texas. So are many people I know. Maybe others know more about your state than you do by the your mere fact of presence. To paraphrase your comment, we won’t hold it against for being another phony whose confidence exceeds his knowledge.

J2T2

Why not take the money? This is the fundamental danger of intrusive government. It can bribe people with their own money and those that disagree with the direction have the option of taking some of their money back or just letting others have it.

Did the stimulus create jobs? Of course it did. But moving the money also costs jobs. Government action moved jobs from innovative sectors to established interests. It protected union jobs at the expense of entrepreneurial jobs, for example. It also seems to have moved activity from the future to the present (now the past), so that the debt overhang from the stimulus is now slowing recovery.

Politicians claim credit for jobs “created or saved” in the sectors favored by government money and can usually safely ignore those jobs never created because the money was sucked up by government programs. But this shows up in the bigger picture. We have a jobless recovery because the stimulus moved lots of jobs around but didn’t really create many.

It matters HOW you spend money. The idea of building or fixing needed infrastructure - investment - was good. Unfortunately, Obama didn’t do much of this. Instead, most of the money went into existing jobs and allowed states and municipalities to avoid needed reforms. Now that this money is running out, they have to do what they should have done earlier.

The bottom line is that the stimulus (not TARP which turned out better than I thought it would) probably made the recession a bit shallower, but in return made it longer and increased the possibility of a double dip. The IDEA of a stimulus was not bad, but the Obama folks messed up the implementation.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2011 7:11 AM
Comment #328004

The Texas miracle of job creation may not be such a miracle when the growth in the Texas labor force is taken into account. Texas, while adding 126,000 jobs in the 2 1/2 year since 2009 also added 437,000 workers during this period due to population growth (migration, immigration}. When that factor is accounted for, Texas actually ranked dead last in job creation relative to labor force expansion. Texas has been adding unemployed workers at a rate higher than its job creation. That is why the Texas rate of unemployment has been steadily increasing despite the touted job creation. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/08/17/297556/report-texas-ranks-dead-last-in-total-job-creation-accounting-for-labor-force-growth/

Posted by: Rich at August 21, 2011 8:48 AM
Comment #328008

adrienne

“Why are you lying? It’s ridiculous to lie about this.”

i’m lying about nothing.


“so please go look up the California Energy Crisis and stop trying to talk out of your butt.”

i don’t need to look it up adrienne i am a native californian and remember it very well. i lived through it.

californias energy problems are the doing of the eco-nazis. it is the same reason gas prices spike every time a rifinery goes down. you cannot import gasoline from other states because of the calif specific blends. calif. has grown but it’s ability to supply it’s own energy has not kept up, leaving it at the mercy of out of state suppliers when it runs short.

“When Davis asked Bush to help intervene with a federal cap on energy prices at the height of the crisis, Bush absolutely refused to help.”

you cannot cap energy prices. doing so only creates shortages, as suppliers just move to other markets.

Posted by: dbs at August 21, 2011 10:16 AM
Comment #328010

Rich

Good point, but why are people coming to Texas?

But let’s follow the links and ask the right questions. Your first link is to Think Progress, a liberal policy think tank that has a mission to attack conservatives. They gave their analyst the task of attacking Texas, which he did well. Now let’s follow his link. He relies on a Time Magazine report ALSO an opinion piece. Let’s go into this data.

Here are some of his quotes – “Texas has relatively low regulatory burdens compared, for example to California, has embraced pro-business tort reform and is a “right-to-work” state. “This state is a job creation machine,” says Orrenius.
Not bad. The idea is to attack Perry saying he didn’t create this boom that has been going on for a long time since … the Bush time. Okay. I never defended the current governor.
We also get this - Texas’ unemployment rate tells a different story. It has gone up from 7.7% to 8.0% over that same period. And by that measure, Texas has done worse than the rest of the country since the peak of national unemployment in October 2009: that month the U.S. rate was 10.1% and Texas was 8.2%. Texas peaked at 8.3% last December, dropping to 8.0% in April, while the national rate has dropped a point since it’s peak to 9.1%
This is just playing with numbers and choosing one point to emphasize. Let’s taken another.

When Obama took office, unemployment was 7.7% it went up to 10.1% and then came down to 9.1%. Texas did significantly better. It didn’t get as bad and now it is better.

The contention that BECAUSE Texas never got as bad as the rest of the country (unemployment at its worst in Texas was less than the country is now)so it had less room to improve and thus is failing is (pardon me) a typical liberal analysis. Liberals are always trying to find reasons to be pessimistic and they always succeed.

Obama would be delighted with an 8% unemployment. We can criticize Texas when – IF – the Obama record improves much faster.

Once again, the sources do not prove what you are trying to say. You link to an advocacy site, which did its best to pick the statistics that proved its case, but still didn’t succeed.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2011 10:29 AM
Comment #328012
Warped, who wrote very differently is also from Texas.

LMFAO!

I’m a hardcore Yankee who’d never dream of even visiting Texas. I was born & raised in Massachusetts; I go to school on Long Island. I think you are mixing me up with SD, who is from the Houston area.

Rich, thanks for providing the context for TJ’s link. It looks like TP took BLS numbers and subtracted the expansion in the labor force from the number of jobs created in each state. C&J asks “what did TX do that NY didn’t?”. I think we have the answer, TX experienced massive amounts of immigration. This immigration is mostly from three factors: proximity to the Mexican border, warm climate, cheap housing. NY isn’t going to be getting warmer or closer to Mexico anytime soon. Unlike TX, NY has very little open space in the place where it matters (NYC area). The only way for the population to grow is to increase density, which is limited by local regulations. I don’t know whether it’s wise or not to maintain those regulations or not. The innermost portions of NYC are already quite dense; so this would probably mean expanding Manhattan style density into suburban regions like Long Island.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 21, 2011 10:56 AM
Comment #328017

Hey everyone,

I’ve been upgrading the software behind WatchBlog and I’m running into some technical issues. If you leave a comment and get an error message, please email me at editor@watchblog.com

If you are publishing a new article and also get an error message from the Movable Type software, please email me as well.

I’m trying to track down what’s causing the database table corruption and your help debugging (by sending me the error message info) will help.

Thanks.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at August 21, 2011 2:02 PM
Comment #328018

warped

“I’m a hardcore Yankee who’d never dream of even visiting Texas. I was born & raised in Massachusetts; I go to school on Long Island.”


that’s a shame. texas is a great state that has a lot to offer. i grew up in so. cal., but enjoy spending time in other places. i now live in rural ohio, and while i do miss having a starbucks, or good restaurant every 10 feet, i do enjoy the surrounding open space and the lack of dense population, which includes the lack of traffic. i like being able to fit in with whatever crowd i choose to spend time with. upscale, or hillbilly, it’s all good. i’ve never been to newyork city, but would love to visit sometime. don’t let your political leanings cheat you out of a good time, where ever that may be.

Posted by: dbs at August 21, 2011 2:07 PM
Comment #328020

Sorry Warped

I was thinking of Royal. I know that you are from the colder part of the country. I would not be able to quote SD as defending Texas.

Re New York - New York has lots of open spaces. They make a special point of limiting their horizons and regulating their aspirations.

States and regions have different priorities. IMO, New York or Boston are great places to live if you are already established.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2011 2:51 PM
Comment #328021


As with every state, there are good and bad things about Texas.

A problem arises when Texas tries to export it’s ways to the entire nation via Washington D.C. That is what Bush did, with disastrous results. That is what Perry wants to do. It would be a Constitutional Amendment circus, in the name of defending the Constitution of course.

Posted by: jlw at August 21, 2011 3:21 PM
Comment #328023

Re: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/texas_labor-2.png

Data is a funny thing. It can be presented in infinite fashions which can dramatically alter the meaning. I have done data analysis for over 15 years and the one thing that I’ve learned is that the most important factor (other than the accuracy of the data, of course) is the premise. In other words, what is the presenter attempting to show, and is their logic sound how they are presenting it?

For the sake of argument, we’ll assume that ThinkProgress’ BLS data is correct. In this case, the problem is not the data, it’s that their premise is flawed. They are attempting to show the impact of population changes on job creation, but the formula they use leads to a misleading result.

Example:

State “A” created 100 jobs. During the same period, their population grew by 300. TP’s analysis puts them at -200 (100 - 300 = -200), or at the bottom of the chart, which gives a negative impression.

State “B” also created 100 jobs, but instead of increasing, their population decreased by 300. TP’s analysis would put them at 400 (100 - (-300) = 400), or at the top of the chart.

Here’s the problem: What does that mean, and how does it show that the job creation environment is better in one State than the other? It really doesn’t, unless you look at it backwards, meaning that despite conventional wisdom, this is a chart you want to be on the bottom of instead of the top.

Look at it this way. State A’s population increased, yet they still created jobs for a third of the new residents, resulting in a net job gain of 100. State B’s population decreased. Presumably, roughly 90% of the folks that left were employed, leaving 270 jobs that needed to be replaced, yet they only filled 100 of them, resulting in a net job loss of 170.

So, either the premise is flawed, or one would have to understand that sometimes being on the top of the chart is not a good thing.

Posted by: Kevin Nye at August 21, 2011 4:23 PM
Comment #328024


Where can I find this statistic? A comparison of the number of unemployed Americans in Texas with the number of illegal immigrants working in Texas. Illegal workers make up 8.7% of the Texas workforce?

C&J, you say that if the other states were doing as well as Texas, the country would be in an economic boom. I think you are right and Americans are going to have to get used to the fact that the new figure for full employment will be around 8% unemployed.

Posted by: jlw at August 21, 2011 4:49 PM
Comment #328026

jlw

Texas has created many jobs. People have come to Texas from other states looking for them. Presumably if other states were also creating jobs they would not come and the rate would be lower.

Besides, the Texas rate is still better than the American rate after Obama’s stimulus.

Kevin

You are right about data. I don’t have a problem with the data. What I believe is that Think Progress assigned someone to trash Texas. He looked through the data and found the ones that worked. What he says can be true, but it doesn’t show the whole picture.

The other thing to recall is that the pure probabilities do not apply. People are making decisions based on their perception of success. They are coming to Texas BECAUSE they think it is a better bet than wherever they are coming from.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2011 5:07 PM
Comment #328027

Why do some folks on WB find it necessary to thrash Texas simply because we have produced a few republican presidents and have a republican dominated state house?

I have not found one republican or conservative thrash the state of Illinois, the place obama calls home.

Don’t the libs and dems on WB understand that real people, many of which are of the same political belief as they are, live in Texas?

Can you folks imagine what would happen if your hatred of Texas was adopted by your party leaders and used in their campaigns?

Must one sink to such a low level that to enforce their political beliefs they must thrash an entire state?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2011 5:27 PM
Comment #328031

warped

“I’m a hardcore Yankee who’d never dream of even visiting Texas. I was born & raised in Massachusetts; I go to school on Long Island.”


that’s a shame. texas is a great state that has a lot to offer. i grew up in so. cal., but enjoy spending time in other places. i now live in rural ohio, and while i do miss having a starbucks, or good restaurant every 10 feet, i do enjoy the surrounding open space and the lack of dense population, which includes the lack of traffic. i like being able to fit in with whatever crowd i choose to spend time with. upscale, or hillbilly, it’s all good. i’ve never been to newyork city, but would love to visit sometime. don’t let your political leanings cheat you out of a good time, where ever that may be.

Posted by: dbs at August 21, 2011 5:58 PM
Comment #328032


Royal, could you repeat that? My speakers were turned off and I could not hear the violins. You’ve not heard a conservative trash Illinois? What about Chicago? What about California or any other state that might incur the wrath of conservatives?

It is a two way street, people are attacking and defending on both sides. The right has been trashing Chicago of a hundred years, no doubt for good reasons.

Speaking of conservatives, it appears that the Republicans have found a tax increase they are willing to pass.

Posted by: jlw at August 21, 2011 5:59 PM
Comment #328033

Royal,

Texas is just a proxy to attack Governor Perry. The current Administration doesn’t have a record that they can run on, so their supporters immediately attempt to marginalize the records of their opponents. In many cases, it’s justified to be critical of records and policies that have not been effective. This is fine if you have facts to support it, but when you don’t, there’s no other option but to attack them (or concede, which most won’t do because it interferes too much with their ideology).

Perry has only been in the race for a matter of days and yet, he’s pretty much been the top story. The media and activist organizations have been trying to cast a shadow on him 24/7, which shows that they’re absolutely terrified.

Posted by: Kevin Nye at August 21, 2011 6:05 PM
Comment #328035

jlw…your venom is dripping. I have not read republicans or conservatives thrashing Illinois, Chicago or California for anything other than their politics…have you?

The comments about the state of Texas, not its politics, are nasty, vile, and untrue. I lived in seven different states before moving to Texas. I found something to like in each one despite the political nature of the state. Some folks need to put on their long pants and grow up.

There are millions of dems and libs who call Texas home. Are you prepared to thrash them as well simply because they live here?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2011 6:10 PM
Comment #328037


“They are coming to Texas BECAUSE they think it is a better bet”

That would be another great statistic, the number of conservatives vs the number of liberals moving to Texas and what prompted them to choose Texas.

Royal, when conservatives tout Texas as some kind of economic Messiah of states, with 8.2 percent unemployment and 8.7% of the workforce composed of illegal workers, you have to expect some disagreement.

Posted by: jlw at August 21, 2011 6:19 PM
Comment #328040

jlw

Right and left attack Chicago style politics. It has been a shame for the U.S. I think you can make a case that Obama practices Chicago style politics, but that is an attack on his methods, not the people of Chicago. But I don’t recall anybody attacking Chicago itself the way that we have seen the Texas hatred.

Re moving to Texas - I think people move there because they think there is more opportunity there. I don’t think many people move to different states because of politics, which may change, BTW. California, back when it ran better, used to be a more of a Republican state and Texas back in the old days was solidly Democratic.

The only time I ever heard of lots of people planning a move to a state for political reasons was when a group of libertarians tried to move en-masse to New Hampshire.

People do seem to self-select at the zip-code level, however and I suppose they might want to move where people shared their values.

Kevin

I agree that they are attacking Texas because they want to attack Perry. They did it before because they wanted to attack Bush. It is odious even if we can explain it.

Royal

See above. I also have lived or worked in lots of places and liked something about all of them. But we are practical people who are more tolerant of others than some on this blog, who would trash a whole state to get at one potential presidential candidate.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2011 6:57 PM
Comment #328041

Royal, when conservatives tout Texas as some kind of economic Messiah of states, with 8.2 percent unemployment and 8.7% of the workforce composed of illegal workers, you have to expect some disagreement.

Posted by: jlw at August 21, 2011

Disagree with the politics and all is well. Trash Texas, the state, and you will find yourself alone, or among bad company.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2011 7:41 PM
Comment #328043

C&J,

I have spent some time in Texas. I have worked in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Corpus Cristi, and San Antonio. For the most part, other than a seemingly misplaced pride in all things Texas, it doesn’t seem much different than any other state I have visited, and I have visited all but 4 of the states in America. One major difference I have seen is that Texas stands alone as the most polluted state in America. Perhaps the Texans can take pride in that, but it makes Texas merely a nice place to visit.

Right now I am working in Edmonton, Alberta, and I am amazed to see how clean the air is here, how friendly the people are, and how screwed up they think American politics are.
One thing I find interesting here is that they announced yesterday that there have been 34 homicides in Edmonton this year, and how appalling that is. This in city of just over 1.1 million people.
Perhaps they would be even more appalled at the murder statistics for Dallas or Houston.

Now to Perry. I just couldn’t see myself voting for him, any more than I would vote for any of the rest of the ridiculous crop of candidates that has stepped forward from the right, except maybe Romney.
And that said, I don’t think, as the Republicans purge themselves of anything that might seem even remotely moderate, that Romney would stand a chance in hell of being nominated, let alone elected. Frankly I just can’t see the tea party Evangelicals holding their noses en masse to vote for a Mormon.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 21, 2011 8:17 PM
Comment #328044

Rocky

Canada is a success story. They cut their budget and got it under control

Canada’s government got smaller over the last 15 years & Federal debt as a share of the Canadian economy went from nearly 80% to a little over 40% over the same period.

Capital gains taxes in Canada were reduced twice and currently stand at 14.5%. A series of cuts to the corporate income tax beginning in 2001 have seen the rate slashed to 15% from 28%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904800304576476402881011290.html?KEYWORDS=canada+budget

We have to give credit to our Canadian neighbors. They did what we hope we can.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2011 8:40 PM
Comment #328049

C&J,
So, you got my point exactly then. Pot, meet the Kettle. BTW, the chart is legit, where’s it’s posted has little relevance or substance as a defense. As a Texan, I do know what reality here is, and as the chart shows, it’s no economic love fest. Miniscule job creation in a swelling population, doesn’t mean very much at dinner time when there’s nothing to eat. I love Texas’ rugged beauty in spite of the hold the wealthy have on its politics and the way they play the racist rednecks. There are lots of free thinkers in Texas who don’t give a rat’s ass about Mr.Goodhair and his empty hat Even A&M doesn’t think too highly of his abysmal record on Texas education. But thanks for passing through, and enjoying some BBQ. We don’t hold it against you for being another phony from back east.

As to why people come to Texas, one might ask why people invest in an overinflated market. Of more interest to me is why people stay.

Rocky,

I’ll grant you that there are braggarts in every corner of the world. Texas is different. I’ve lived here over 30 years and came from Ohio. At times I felt as you do. Over time the culture seeps into your skin like the sun in august. Real Texans aren’t braggarts, and while a sizeable portion of idiots and rednecks live here, the genuine article is in good supply as well. They don’t jump on board with the idiots, racists and johnny-come-latelies. They are friendly and cordial, and stand back and watch with a cowboy’s squint. All hat and no cattle is a common phrase here to describe the amount of fertilizer that comes from some folks. You are right that there are good people and beauty in lots of places.

Posted by: Tom Jefferson at August 21, 2011 10:04 PM
Comment #328050

Tom

I addressed your chart up above. Please read that. The chart is “legit” but the logic is misleading.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2011 10:17 PM
Comment #328055
Presumably if other states were also creating jobs they would not come and the rate would be lower.

C&J are you asking us to believe that the only reason one would move to Texas is for a job?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/281855

Texas is just a proxy to attack Governor Perry.

But it was Perry that came out with the misinformation and half truths. It was Perry’s exaggerated claims that have caused many reporters to do their jobs. Why such sniveling by those on the right? Do you guys really expect everyone to stay quiet and let Perry’s propaganda pass as truth?


I agree that they are attacking Texas because they want to attack Perry. They did it before because they wanted to attack Bush. It is odious even if we can explain it.

Really C&J what are you drinking down there? It seems to me Perry is being questioned for his statements not Texas being attacked, this is conservative mythology. Perry is using the state of Texas as some weird proof that he is the “jobs candidate”. People disagree with this and use other facts to prove all is not as Perry says it is. Why are you guys so sensitive when one of your guys is caught fudging the stats to make himself look like more than he is?

Comparing GWB the former governor of Texas and President of the USA with Perry the current governor of Texas and presidential candidate seems wise to me. How many jobs did GWB create in Texas and how many as president? You know now that I think about it perhaps we should actually attack Texas, or better yet ask it to secede for yet another presidential candidate that appears to make the first one actually look good. First time shame on us second time…

Posted by: j2t2 at August 21, 2011 11:06 PM
Comment #328056

j2t2

How many jobs has Obama created so far?

Of course, as you know, presidents and governors really cannot create jobs. They can only create the conditions where jobs can grow.

Your linked article is interesting. It says that Texas is attracting retirees. Bottom line is that Texas is attracting people from other states. We have all been to Texas. The weather is not the best in the Union and the scenery is nice, but not as spectacular as some others. So they must be doing something right down there.

Re attacking Texas - The attacks are not on Perry so much as Texas. You could argue that Perry has not achieved much or that he is taking credit for things he didn’t do, but the comments on this blog simply attacked the state.

Posted by: C&J at August 22, 2011 12:04 AM
Comment #328061

So they must be doing something right down there.


Yes, they tell the fly-by’s to take a hike.

Posted by: Tom Jefferson at August 22, 2011 1:33 AM
Comment #328065
The weather is not the best in the Union and the scenery is nice, but not as spectacular as some others. So they must be doing something right down there.

C&J does it always have to be the best weather for someone to chose to live there or the best scenery for that matter? Perhaps like Nevada no sales tax and cheap housing attracts some people.

The attacks are not on Perry so much as Texas. You could argue that Perry has not achieved much or that he is taking credit for things he didn’t do, but the comments on this blog simply attacked the state.

C&J The title of your post is “Trashing or Defending Texas”. The definition of attacking is

1. To set upon with violent force.
2. To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner.
3. To start work on with purpose and vigor: attack a problem.
4. To begin to affect harmfully: a disease that attacks the central nervous system.
v.intr.
To make an attack; launch an assault: The enemy attacked during the night.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/attack

I cannot find an instance in this thread where anyone has attacked Texas as you claim. It still seems to be conservative mythology based upon the state of Texas simply being mentioned in a comment. It appears to be sophistry, exaggeration on the part of you and Royal and Murdoch’s WSJ.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 22, 2011 7:43 AM
Comment #328083

dbs,

that’s a shame. texas is a great state that has a lot to offer.

Texas’ economy sucks; if I moved there I’d have a lot of trouble finding a decent job. Also, it’s impossible to live in TX without an automobile. Owning an automobile is an expense I’d rather not undertake. Also, I would never give up the open town meeting, a staple of New England local government.

C+J,

but why are people coming to Texas?

Warm climate, proximity to the Mexican border and cheap housing.

Re New York - New York has lots of open spaces. They make a special point of limiting their horizons and regulating their aspirations.
I think New Yorkers cherish their last bits of open space quite a bit. I don’t think anyone is eager to develop NYC’s public parks or to expand the suburbs up into the Catskills. I guess it would be sensible to invest more money upstate where space is a bit more plentiful, but the political will isn’t there. IMO, New Yorkers would probably be better off if NYC was separated from NYS.
IMO, New York or Boston are great places to live if you are already established.
I’m curious what you mean by “already established”. I’m a native Bay Stater, but I don’t see why I’m the only one who would see Boston to be a great place (I have my own gripes about NY).

KN, It’s good that you are taking a good look at the TP chart. Partisan sources require scrutiny, which is why I always accept a link to Heritage Foundation or similar groups with a grain of salt. However, I don’t think your conclusion is correct:

this is a chart you want to be on the bottom of instead of the top.

This is wrong. TP was illustrating that the growth in TX jobs was a result of TX’s population growth. The demand for jobs in several industries (mostly service jobs) is directly proportional to population.

Look at it this way. State A’s population increased, yet they still created jobs for a third of the new residents, resulting in a net job gain of 100. State B’s population decreased. Presumably, roughly 90% of the folks that left were employed, leaving 270 jobs that needed to be replaced, yet they only filled 100 of them, resulting in a net job loss of 170.

This is the wrong way of looking at it. Jobs do not exist as fixed entities in a vacuum. When 300 people left state B, they did not leave “270 jobs that needed to be replaced”.

RF,
I’m sorry if I every came across as bashing the state as a whole. Federalism lets each state adopt its own policies in a variety of areas; Louis Brandeis called states the “laboratories of democracy”. I don’t mind Texas, it’s just that their policies (and poor economy) just aren’t my cup of tea. I also don’t like that Rick Perry is citing one statistic and arriving at a flawed conclusion from it.

OTOH, WB conservatives have repeatedly used by Massachusetts upbringing and my current status as a university student to bash me. I understand that I might be a little naive about some things because I have limited personal experience, but often times the bashing is merely a statement that my university has turned my mind into mush (I believe the mush meme comes from Rush Limbaugh). Hopefully WB conservatives would stop and think in the future before saying such things. Keep in mind that there are plenty non-liberals at most universities, especially when you get away from the social sciences. In fact, it’s been at my school where I’ve had the most exposure to ideas different than my own; libertarian ideas in particular are easy to find at the universities that I am experienced with.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 22, 2011 2:13 PM
Comment #328086


It is typical conservatism, they are right even when they are wrong. If you challenge conservative claims about their great economic accomplishments in Texas, you are attacking all the citizens of Texas and the ground they stand on.

As far as I know, the only person that has attacked Texas was Gene Simmons.

Personally, I have verbally attacked conservative Texas politicians and anti-democratic liberal Texas caucus lovers.

Posted by: jlw at August 22, 2011 2:29 PM
Comment #328089

Thinkprogress: Under Rick Perry, Government Jobs Grew Twice As Much As Private Sector Jobs

Wall Street Journal: Public Sector Added to Texas Job Boom
Schools Staffed Up as Population Jumped; Now, Cuts Loom

From the link:

About 300,000 of the new Texas jobs were in government. Well over half of them, fueled by the surging population, were at public schools. Employment in the state’s public sector has jumped 19% since 2000, compared with a 9% rise in the private sector.

Now layoffs loom. State budget cuts, championed by Mr. Perry to address a big budget shortfall, are prompting school districts around the state to lay off hundreds of teachers and other workers going into the school year starting next month.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 22, 2011 3:49 PM
Comment #328091

warped

“it’s impossible to live in TX without an automobile. Owning an automobile is an expense I’d rather not undertake.”


that pretty much goes for any large state, or city for that matter. in so. calif. a car is a must, if you want any type of freedom. hell some of my best memeories were in cars at the drive-in, and cruising around with my friends as a teenager. you don’t know what you’re missing, i mean other than the expense.

Posted by: dbs at August 22, 2011 3:55 PM
Comment #328093

I drove a car when I was in HS, but now my younger brother drives it. Driving a car had some advantages, but they are nowhere near the costs. For me, a trustworthy bicycle and a decent public transportation infrastructure is what I want. In the Boston area we have an excellent public transportation network; that’s not the case in TX (or rural OH).

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 22, 2011 4:30 PM
Comment #328097

warped

i can understand not wanting to drive in boston, or NYC for that matter. from what i understand it’s a nightmare, and i have many years experience in LA traffic. my understanding is boston, and NYC are even worse. i can see how in certain situations public transit could be less of a hassel. what i can’t imagine is not having the ability to travel where and when i want to without having to consider a schedule.

Posted by: dbs at August 22, 2011 5:31 PM
Comment #328100
not having the ability to travel where and when i want to without having to consider a schedule.
That’s what my bike is for.

BTW, the worst part about driving in NYC or Boston is finding parking.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 22, 2011 6:00 PM
Comment #328102

Warped,

That was just an example I was giving and not necessarily my opinion. There are an infinite number of variations one could use when presenting data. My point is simply that you have to ask the questions and not just accept the pretty chart for what it appears to be.

The truth is that it’s all useless because BLS doesn’t have enough detailed data. The only way to truly analyze the impact of population change is to know everyone’s employment status (pre and post move) and why they moved. Then, and only then, could you make a case one way or the other with any level of accuracy. The “what” is just a guess without the “why”.

Posted by: Kevin Nye at August 22, 2011 7:08 PM
Comment #328104

KN,

That was just an example I was giving and not necessarily my opinion.

Fair enough.

However, I think it is pretty clear that the hypothesis that TX’s job growth is mostly attributable to population growth is on pretty solid ground. I haven’t seen an alternative hypothesis with more evidence.

You said before:

Data is a funny thing. It can be presented in infinite fashions which can dramatically alter the meaning.
I think we can safely conclude that the Perry team is misusing the datum that Texas created “37% of new jobs since 2009”.

Posted by: Warped Reality at August 22, 2011 7:35 PM
Post a comment