Comments on: Perry’s employment record in Texas A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dogman11 Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:38:34 +0000 The chart doesnt take into account the large Hispanic pop which has a higher birthrate and therefor a larger percentage of children who are not in the work force at all but are counted as unemployed for this survey had to look hard to find something to get on perry nice try but no cigar

By: Dogman11 Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:38:30 +0000 The chart doesnt take into account the large Hispanic pop which has a higher birthrate and therefor a larger percentage of children who are not in the work force at all but are counted as unemployed for this survey had to look hard to find something to get on perry nice try but no cigar

By: TheSteelGeneraI Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:29:33 +0000 BigBend, thanks for your insightful work.

On the retirees: We would need to know how rich these immigrants from other states were. It stands to reason that poor seniors would die younger than rich ones.
So, the number of seniors might be the same, but if the group got wealthier, this too, might account for some job growth.

So, the original blogger, FS, point stands:
Perry did worse than the national average in job creation.

Aside from that, Krugmans critique was “Texan experience offers no useful lessons on how to restore national full employment” because “every state can not lure jobs away from every other state”, which is what Texas has been doing. Ya can’t leech upon yourself. Well, you can, but you’d be dead.

Why did Texas do well? Cos of a “strict regulation of mortgage lending.” Also not Perry’s credit.

Finally, Krugman points out to us that providing more jobs for a growing population is not a great trick. An example: you have a population of 500 people, 220 are working. The population grows to 750 people, now 300 are working. Is that good? No. because if jobs had kept up, it should have been 330 jobs, not 300.
It’s even WORSE, if the other states have shrinking populations, yet, they still manage to have some job growth.

Also, Perry used a lot of federal cash in creating jobs like teachers. That wouldn’t be so bad, if he had had the cojones to admit that he took federal money. He doesn’t because he knows that as long as hey SAYS he didn’t, NO ONE will hold that against him. I don’t mean Teabaggers, but all the interviewers from serious media of course, excluding FoKKKs.
If Perry becomes the nominee, it will be because the press hasn’t grilled him on his hypocrisies, his poor decision making in harassing pregnant women instead of focusing on jobs, and his megalomania with his Toll Roads for Texas. Yes, Capitalist Cronyism is a good word for him.

By: BigBend Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:32:27 +0000 People moving to Texas does have SOME importance, but only 1/4 of our growth is explained by that. In the same way not everyone HAS to apply to college, not everyone HAS to move, and very few people do move, relatively speaking. But the media and many others keep harping on migration and immigration, when it’s the high birth rate that’s causing 3/4 of TX growth. (To be fair, that in turn is partly the result of historical migration over the last 150 years, or 500 years, depending on how you look at it.) It’s not a “freak demographical storm” if it goes on for decades, and it’s not anything one governor can take credit or blame for, and it has not successfully been dealt with or our unemployment rate would be lower. Like the nation, Texas has not been able to recover to pre-recession levels of manufacturing or other private-sector jobs — so what “outperformance” do you mean? I went back to 1991 (US Bureau of Econ Analysis website) and local govt jobs (2/3 of which are in schools) grew by 53% between then and 2009 — about 1 in every 8 new jobs in TX. Private-sector grew by 44% (and how many of those jobs are because teachers, coaches, cafeteria workers, etc. had paychecks to spend? Or because schools were built?) The oil and gas booms/busts affect per capita income; TX is near the US avg on that. Our other economic statistics, you won’t hear much about on the campaign trail: poverty, low-wage/no-benefit jobs, illiteracy, income inequality, to name a few. Texas’ showing on these has stunk for decades — but didn’t stop GWB from becoming president, just as Clinton’s Arkansas didn’t sink him. You know what else TX ranks really low on? Voter turnout.

By: JohnOmeara Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:26:37 +0000 It is not remarkable to you that Texas gets it movers from the large states because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that people are choosing to move to Texas has any importance. Your university analogy only makes sense if you look at it the same way too – people have to apply to college, people have to move to Texas. A real analogy would be to compare universities in different states. If a school in one state was getting lots more applications from residents of every other state than any other school then it might be reasonable to expect there is a reason behind that. And dude, if you want to believe that IL, MI and OH factory workers are moving to Texas to become teachers then go right ahead. Felix’s original post and your responses keep trying to prove that the better employment situation there is due to some freak demographical storm while ignoring the fact that Texas has outperformed the country in every significant employment statistic (public and private workers) during this recession. I don’t know enough about the state to say if Perry did something to make that happen or perhaps it is benign neglect or how big a factor the oil and energy boom has been but attempting to say that Texas has been no better economically than the rest of the country over the last few years is silly.

By: BigBend Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:53:07 +0000 JohnOmeara: My thoughts on why “that many people [130,000?] are moving to Texas?” My thought is, that’s not that many people, as a share of how many live in other states (.05%), or are already here in TX (0.5%), or compared to how many are born here every year (over 400,000). Previously you said, “…all those people moving to Texas from California, Illinois, Florida, Michigan and Ohio must be doing so because of the poor record of employment growth in Texas.” It’s just not remarkable (to me anyway) that TX gets its “movers” from large-population states, especially when 98.5% of their residents, like TX’s, aren’t leaving at all. (If I were a U.S. university president and my freshman applicants were mostly from CA, TX, NY, IL, etc.–isn’t that what I should expect?) Migration data, personal anecdotes aside, don’t explain all or even most of the job growth. People are moving to TX, yes, and people are leaving TX (would help to know why, or even who they are; families with children? retirees? military spouses?) But that’s only one part of pop. change. The # of children born in Texas is in fact 405,242 (in 2008 – similar to 05, 06, 07), says the TX Dept. of State Health Services – over three times the 130,000 people you cite as moving to TX from other states. The long-term effect of lots of births (& a high birth rate): I’ll go back to ’91 when I find comparable #s, but meanwhile, the Texas Workforce Commission database AreaSelection.asp?tableName=Ces shows that the local govt-education sector in TX gained 39,452 jobs between 2008 Q1 and 2011 Q1. State govt-education [universities] gained 15,348 jobs. The TX private sector lost 203,460 jobs in that same period, of which 109,833 were manufacturing jobs lost. Maybe those IL, MI, and OH workers who came here for factory jobs would like to teach instead? Sorry, looks like they got here just in time for public school job cuts (which other states have been making for a couple years now; the federal stimulus propped up Texas school employment for a couple years, but time’s almost up on that).

By: joeenuf Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:20:58 +0000 4 points
First of all, the political/media battle is already lost: in the media, texas has a lot of jobs; media people aren’t reflective, so that is sort of set in stone. Check out the 1st page of todays Boston Globe, an article titled “Romney stands firm amid Perry whirl” quote”despite the strong record of job growth in TX under Perry’s leadership…”
Ok, the battle, in the sense that counts (influencing undecided voters ) is already over.
Remember, a national election isn’t about you and me – it is about the small% of undecided voters who live in swing states. For them, the argument is over, cause they pay attention to newssources that are not gonna deviate from the line.

This post by salmon, and similar posts by krugman, and posts on the other side ( 0)
are lazy and half assed and not very convincing.
I don’t know what the truth is, but it is clear that neither salmon nor krugman nor political math blog have spent anywhere near the amount of time and energy it would take to get an accurate picture – as one commenter on this blog noted, what about stay at home moms, how does that skew the #s vs other states

I work with a guy from texas, he just got back from visiting his mother, and his comment is, its booming donw there – construction is just everywhere.

Lets say salmon is right. How on earth are complex arguments like this gonna win against perry, looking good in a suit on TV, saying: I created more jobs then obama. Does anyone on this blog actually think convoluted graphs are gonna play well (and, for this discussion, the graph is convoluted; I can calculate a std deviation on a regression line, so I’m not talking about me or you – again, I’m talkin about the undecided voters paying attention for 5 seconds to the TV)

By: JohnOmeara Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:52:02 +0000 Uh, still yes. Looking at the percentage of people of people leaving a state is still useless without looking at the percentage moving in. Again, if Texas and California each traded 1.5% of their population every year then there would be a net migration to Texas for the next 13 years. Exactly how helpful is the fact that they each had the same percentage of ‘leavers’ in that case?
The original blog post didn’t just compare the population growth to employment, it said that it showed Texas has been as poor or worse as the rest of the nation at job creation. I am asking, if that is the case, why is Texas getting an outsized portion of the migrating population?
You could easily say that a net increase of 400,000 kids born in Texas is creating all the jobs in the state but would that have any basis in fact or would you just be making it up? From my reading of the BLS statistics, 75% of the jobs created in Texas since 2001 have been in the private sector but maybe you have a better source for your number. I can point to the fact that (according to the Census Bureau) 130,000 people migrated to Texas from other parts of the country last year. Of all the people I know who have ever moved to another state, job availability is one of the primary reasons why. If you do not think that job opportunity is a major cause of the net migration perhaps you could share your thoughts on why that many people are moving to Texas.

By: BigBend Wed, 17 Aug 2011 04:46:31 +0000 Uh, still no. Looking at the total # of people leaving a state is not all that helpful, without adjusting for the total # of potential leavers (most of whom stay put or relocate within a state). I do agree that NET migration is the issue; not just domestic, which the TX Tribune maps are about, but also international. Beyond migration, there are also births & deaths; it’s the sum (net) total of all of those that increase a state’s population. The original blog compared population growth to employment. You can’t pick out one component of it and say that it alone explains how Texas is better at job creation. I could just as easily say the 400,000 kids born in TX every year created the need for thousands of public school jobs (govt jobs). Is that the Texas model for job creation? Jobs paid for with taxes?

By: JohnOmeara Wed, 17 Aug 2011 03:50:35 +0000 Uh, yes. It is the net migration (moving in – moving out) between states that matters not the percentage leaving each individual state because they all have different denominators. If Texas and California were the only states in the union and each year they lost 1.5% of their population to the other state then more people would leave California for Texas every year until they had equal populations. Would you call that equal migration? Looking at the percentage of people leaving a state without looking at how many are coming in is ridiculous.
Your first sentence gives the primary fact, more people moved to Texas than moved out and this is a zero sum game. The only question is why. I would guess that job opportunities would be a prime reason. Felix seems to think that despite the fact that Texas outpaced the country in job growth (both before and since 2008) from the time Perry took office until now and despite the fact that people are moving there that Texas has been no better at job creation then the rest of the country.