Paul Krugman said Friday, without evidence, that is was possible the much better than expected jobs numbers might be wrong or cooked.
After an enormous backlash from fellow economists and market-watchers, Krugman partially back off the unsubstantiated claims and said he “starting to believe that the modest job gains may well have been real.”
The claim that the gains were modest is extraordinary in light of the fact that May saw the largest ever monthly gain in jobs.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the economy added 2.5 million jobs and the unemployment rate fell to 13.3 percent, upending expectations for around 9 million jobs lost and an unemployment rate of close to 20 percent.
While some forecasters expected the economy to begin adding jobs this summer, few saw a comeback of this scale in May.
Krugman, a columnist for the New York Times and one of the nation’s most prominent economists, immediately raised unfounded doubts about the BLS figures. Other Trump critics also joined in. They did not offer any evidence to substantiate their claims. As CNBC’s Eamon Javers said, this amounts to a claim that the BLS numbers were “cooked.”
Well, the BLS reports a GAIN in jobs and a FALL in unemployment, which almost nobody saw coming. Maybe it's true, and the BLS is definitely doing its best, but you do have to wonder what's going on. 1/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 5, 2020
This being the Trump era, you can't completely discount the possibility that they've gotten to the BLS, but it's much more likely that the models used to produce these numbers — they aren't really raw data — have gone haywire in a time of pandemic 3/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 5, 2020
Prominent economists and others responded by pointing out that this was entirely unwarranted.
Jason Furman, an economist and professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government who chaired Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said there was no chance the numbers were cooked.
You can 100% discount the possibility that Trump got to the BLS. Not 98% discount, not 99.9% discount, but 100% discount.
BLS has 2,400 career staff of enormous integrity and one political appointee with no scope to change this number. https://t.co/Cden6rQyN6
— Jason Furman (@jasonfurman) June 5, 2020
Former BLS COmmissioner, Erica Groshen also said there were no signs the numbers had been politically manipulated.
@jasonfurman is spot on. As former BLS Commissioner, I see no red flags. And, knowing the processes used and integrity of BLS staff, I think it very unlikely. Commissioners see no number before it's final. If I hear anything different, I'll trumpet it loudly. @Friends_of_BLS https://t.co/yjyXUuxAtA
— Erica Groshen (@EricaGroshen) June 5, 2020
CNBC’s Eamon Javers said on air that “high profile commenters, sort of a BLS truther crowd” had expressed skepticism but “there is no evidence there is anything wrong with this number here.”
On Twitter, Javers pointed out that the Trump critics were engaging in tactics they formerly deplored when Trump himself or critics of Obama used them.
I’m seeing a LOT of Trump critics on Twitter saying that these unexpected jobs numbers must have been “cooked” to help the president. Remember, candidate Trump made the same allegation against Obama in 2016. There was no evidence for it then and there’s no evidence for it now.
— Eamon Javers (@EamonJavers) June 5, 2020
When I asked Sean Spicer about President Trump saying the jobs reports were phony under Obama but taking credit for jobs reports once he got elected, Spicer said: “they may have been phony in the past, but they’re very real now.” https://t.co/anknmzEW9f
— Eamon Javers (@EamonJavers) June 5, 2020
Chris Arnade, author of the book Dignity, was driven to despair over the baseless claim by Krugman.
It is hard to communicate just how embarrassing this is.
It would be bad enough coming from any Pundit, but that it comes from Dr Krugman, who positions himself as being the rational, sane, & voice of elite reason, is shaking my head sad. pic.twitter.com/OauAMq76KO
— Chris Arnade 🐢 (@Chris_arnade) June 5, 2020
Krugman later backed off of the claim and apologized after the pushback.
And as I look at the data, I'm starting to believe that the modest job gains may well have been real, not an artifact of the models. I was already on record saying that predictions of a huge job loss didn't look right 2/ https://t.co/v6KvqREFWx
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 5, 2020
@paulkrugman has been clear that he misspoke when tweeting quickly, we all do it. The rest of his analysis of the numbers themselves is spot on. https://t.co/9WvIvZRiFT
— Jason Furman (@jasonfurman) June 5, 2020
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.