Rich, this isn’t quite a syllogism, but it’s such an elegant procession that it feels like one.
From Paul Krugman on Sunday:
“At the same time, the rapid growth in the Texas work force keeps wages low — almost 10 percent of Texan workers earn the minimum wage or less, well above the national average — and these low wages give corporations an incentive to move production to the Lone Star State.”
From Kevin Williamson’s point-by-point response on Monday:
“All of [these factors are] too obvious for Paul Krugman to have overlooked. . . . And I expect he didn’t. I believe that he is presenting willfully incomplete and misleading information to the public, and using his academic credentials to prop up his shoddy journalism.”
From Political Math yesterday:
Texas median hourly wage is $15.14 . . . almost exactly in the middle of the pack (28th out of 51 regions). Given that they’ve seen exceptional job growth (and these other states have not) this does not seem exceptionally low.
But the implication here is that the new jobs in Texas, the jobs that Texas seems to stand alone in creating at such a remarkable pace, are low paying jobs and don’t really count.
If this were true, all these new low-paying jobs should be dragging down the wages data, right? But if we look at the wages data since the beginning of the recession. . . .
And it turns out that the opposite is true. Since the recession started hourly wages in Texas have increased at a 6th fastest pace in the nation. . . . [T]he only blue state that has faster growing wages is Hawaii.
Kevin also points out that Krugman is straight up wrong that ten percent of Texas workers make minimum wage. It’s ten percent of Texas hourly workers. The number for salaried workers is half that.
Except for his Crony Capitalist shenanigans with his donor pals, what exactly did Perry do to facilitate job creation in Texas other than just showing up? Texas never had a state income tax and the energy economy pretty much runs on its own.
Perry appears to be the state equivalent of Bill Clinton.
There may be something there with Perry, but then again, maybe not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not a big Perry fan, but even not doing anything to harm an economy counts for something.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter the last three years, it counts for a lot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe state equivalent of Bill Clinton would be a massive improvement over the status quo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI remember watching a Larry King show a long time ago and some (R) guest was on, I can't remember who. But they were talking about Clinton and the guest was critical of him and King said - but shouldn't Clinton get credit for a good economy because he never got in the way?
It's not just Perry, it's the overall political climate of Texas, which is friendly to business.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's so true about the "political climate" in Texas helping their economy.
As time goes by it seems that our troubled "Obama economy" isn't about any particular issue as much as the overall "political climate" in America that changed abruptly back in Sept. 08.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe assumption in your question is wrong.
Perry just said "I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, DC, as inconsequential in your life as I can."
His philosophy is to reduce bureaucratic red tape (which notably included NOT putting in place the sort of regulations that distorted mortgage lending practices in other states).
You assume that "just showing up" is somehow not worthy of praise. In reality, it is a sign of poor leadership to instinctively "do something"; a true leader knows when to humbly keep his sticky fingers out of the market.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's not my point. Perry may or may not be ineffectual. As as for carving up the Federal Leviathan, he can't be passive doing that. I'd like to see Perry's proposals.
And speaking of Leviathans re: "I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, DC, as inconsequential in your life as I can."
A trillion dollar Military-Security Complex is anything but inconsequential. How does Perry square that with his money for the Military-Security Complex is no object and Neocon sensibilities?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhen was the last time you had an interaction with the military-security complex ? outside of TSA screening at the airport my bet is never ... so I'd say that part of the federal government is already pretty inconsequential in your life ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince the military is in the Constitution, it should be funded as it's a federal responsibility. You can make the case for other national security as well, although, if I was queen, the TSA would be gone, gone, gone.
Other parts of the federal leviathan that should be make inconsequential or perhaps non-existent would be a better term, include, Departments of Education, Energy, HUD, much of the EPA, and parts of Trans, Commerce and Labor. And that's work just for the first year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe: "Since the military is in the Constitution"
There's nothing in the Constitution about maintaining a hyper-expensive global empire.
I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers envisioned the United States maintaining over 700 military installations world-wide and assuming the role of Global Cop.
But that's 'ol Rick's vision. Only we can't pay for it with tax cuts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteveM I doubt that our Founding Fathers could picture 19 souless fools flying airplanes into very tall buildings you accessed through magic cars zipping up 100 floors either.
Just think how much of it could be funded if you reduced the size of the government by eliminating or drastically cutting back various departments and their duties.
Not only is that ol' Rick's vision but the vision of many conservatives.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSteve,
I'm happy to see your newfound love of the limitations of power to be consistent with the intent of the founders.
Pop quiz:
Who assumed the role of 'global cop' and ordered the military to attack the Barbary pirates?
Which President vetoed a bill giving aid to states stating that it was not in the constitution?
Where in the constitution is the power of the government to force people to buy a product?
Where in the constitution is the power to redistribute wealth?
Please answer the above questions. I'll be more than happy to keep asking them until you do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou have to remember that SteveM is one of those guys that believes the military should be cut back to just the coast guard, and a vastly reduced coast guard at that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs Krugman "straight up wrong" or is he just "straight up lying"? My guess is that it's the later and not the former.
Krugman is a crazy, bed-wetting leftist, but he's also a genius. What's more likely: That he makes a mistake a 1st-year economics student wouldn't make, or that he's being intentionally deceptive.
With some frequency, Krugman plays fast and loose with the facts. He's not sloppy or even lazy, he's just a lying scumbag.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's not quite right. It's not half for the salaried workers it's essentially zero for salaried workers. As Kevin points out it's closer to 5% for ALL workers because hourly worker make up only 56% of the total workforce. So 10% of hourly workers who make up a little over half the workforce means the overall rate is around 5% with no salaried workers earning minimum wage (which makes sense since a salaried worker making minimum wage is illegal as it would be viewed as attempting to get around overtime rules for non-exempt employees).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCould it be as simple that the population self skews the stats because people who want jobs move to Texas?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes--see the last chart on the "Political Math" blog.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf they ever hooked the "Insane-O-Meter" up to Krugman, it would immediately explode as it's needle passed the "Extreme Wacko" setting!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn his defense, being a brazen liar often makes him seem crazier than he really is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse