Beat the Press

Beat the press por Dean Baker

Beat the Press is Dean Baker's commentary on economic reporting. He is a Senior Economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). To never miss a post, subscribe to a weekly email roundup of Beat the Press. Please also consider supporting the blog on Patreon.

The Washington Post told readers that the current generation of young people is finding it much harder to become homeowners than young people did in the past. The data disagree with this claim. While young people (under age 35) did become homeowners at higher rates in the early and mid-eighties and the late 1990s until the collapse of the housing bubble, the group that was young from 1990 to 1997, and since 2011, were less likely to be homeowners that those under age 35 today, as shown below.
The Washington Post told readers that the current generation of young people is finding it much harder to become homeowners than young people did in the past. The data disagree with this claim. While young people (under age 35) did become homeowners at higher rates in the early and mid-eighties and the late 1990s until the collapse of the housing bubble, the group that was young from 1990 to 1997, and since 2011, were less likely to be homeowners that those under age 35 today, as shown below.
In the wake of the Great Recession there was a spate of news articles warning of the menace of deflation. The story was that something really bad would happen if the rate of inflation went from a modest positive rate to a modest negative rate. This means something really bad would happen if the rate of inflation was -0.5 percent, as opposed to 0.5 percent. This made zero sense then and it also makes zero sense now.
In the wake of the Great Recession there was a spate of news articles warning of the menace of deflation. The story was that something really bad would happen if the rate of inflation went from a modest positive rate to a modest negative rate. This means something really bad would happen if the rate of inflation was -0.5 percent, as opposed to 0.5 percent. This made zero sense then and it also makes zero sense now.
I just saw a piece touting the tax on share buybacks as the basis of the investment boom we are seeing in factory construction. I’m a bit skeptical on that one, I think the incentives provided by the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are a far bigger deal, but if taxing buybacks gave a little extra kick, I’m fine with that.
I just saw a piece touting the tax on share buybacks as the basis of the investment boom we are seeing in factory construction. I’m a bit skeptical on that one, I think the incentives provided by the CHIPS Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) are a far bigger deal, but if taxing buybacks gave a little extra kick, I’m fine with that.
It would be hard to imagine a much better jobs report than what we got Friday. The economy generated 187,000 jobs for the month, somewhat fewer than the consensus. The jobs numbers for the prior two months were also revised down by 90,000. At the same time, the unemployment rate edged down to 3.5 percent, just 0.1 percentage point above the half-century low reached in April. We have now have had below 4.0 percent unemployment for the last 18 months. The last time we had a streak this long was in
It would be hard to imagine a much better jobs report than what we got Friday. The economy generated 187,000 jobs for the month, somewhat fewer than the consensus. The jobs numbers for the prior two months were also revised down by 90,000. At the same time, the unemployment rate edged down to 3.5 percent, just 0.1 percentage point above the half-century low reached in April. We have now have had below 4.0 percent unemployment for the last 18 months. The last time we had a streak this long was in
The first decade of this century was pretty awful for manufacturing workers. In December of 1999, we had 17.3 million manufacturing jobs. This number had fallen to 11.5 million by December of 2009. This amounted to a loss of 5.8 million jobs, or one-third of all the manufacturing jobs that had existed at the start of the decade. That looks like a pretty big deal.
The first decade of this century was pretty awful for manufacturing workers. In December of 1999, we had 17.3 million manufacturing jobs. This number had fallen to 11.5 million by December of 2009. This amounted to a loss of 5.8 million jobs, or one-third of all the manufacturing jobs that had existed at the start of the decade. That looks like a pretty big deal.
GDP growth in the United States is always reported as an annual rate. This means that if the economy grew 0.5 percent from the first quarter to the second quarter, it would be universally reported as 2.0 percent growth, with reporters always giving the annual rate. This is basically four times the quarterly rate. (It's actually the first quarter's growth rate taken to the fourth power, but this will be the same for small numbers.)
GDP growth in the United States is always reported as an annual rate. This means that if the economy grew 0.5 percent from the first quarter to the second quarter, it would be universally reported as 2.0 percent growth, with reporters always giving the annual rate. This is basically four times the quarterly rate. (It's actually the first quarter's growth rate taken to the fourth power, but this will be the same for small numbers.)
The full title of this book is The Myth that Made Us, How False Beliefs About Racism and Meritocracy Broke Our Economy and How to Fix It. The book is a direct attack on how economists, and probably most people, are inclined to see the economy and society, arguing against the idea that outcomes reflect merit and effort.
The full title of this book is The Myth that Made Us, How False Beliefs About Racism and Meritocracy Broke Our Economy and How to Fix It. The book is a direct attack on how economists, and probably most people, are inclined to see the economy and society, arguing against the idea that outcomes reflect merit and effort.
Along with everyone else (okay, not Republicans), I have been celebrating the great economic news we’ve been getting the last few weeks. Inflation is clearly slowing, the unemployment rate remains low, real wages are rising, investment is growing rapidly, and the green conversion is going faster than any of us could have imagined, even if it’s nowhere near fast enough.
Along with everyone else (okay, not Republicans), I have been celebrating the great economic news we’ve been getting the last few weeks. Inflation is clearly slowing, the unemployment rate remains low, real wages are rising, investment is growing rapidly, and the green conversion is going faster than any of us could have imagined, even if it’s nowhere near fast enough.
Mark Paul has done a useful public service in etching out the goals of progressive economic policy. Many of us get bogged down in debate over things like whether the Average Hourly Earnings series is more accurate than the Employment Cost Index, or whether Section 230 protection is giving Facebook, Twitter and other Internet giants a subsidy compared to competitors in print and broadcast media.
Mark Paul has done a useful public service in etching out the goals of progressive economic policy. Many of us get bogged down in debate over things like whether the Average Hourly Earnings series is more accurate than the Employment Cost Index, or whether Section 230 protection is giving Facebook, Twitter and other Internet giants a subsidy compared to competitors in print and broadcast media.
The New York Times ran a piece this morning claiming that Gilead delayed the introduction of a new drug for treating HIV because it wanted to take full advantage of the patent life for its drug Truvada, which was a huge blockbuster for the company. The new drug has a patent life that runs to 2031. Truvada’s patent expired in 2017.
The New York Times ran a piece this morning claiming that Gilead delayed the introduction of a new drug for treating HIV because it wanted to take full advantage of the patent life for its drug Truvada, which was a huge blockbuster for the company. The new drug has a patent life that runs to 2031. Truvada’s patent expired in 2017.

Want to search in the archives?

¿Quieres buscar en los archivos?

Click Here Haga clic aquí