I like the way he wrote "tax cuts have pushed the deficit into the deep red" just days after we learned that the deficit is actually going to be considerably lower than expected due to a surge in tax receipts. I'd make a "Laffering all the way to the bank" joke here, but I already used that one in a headline last week, and this morning I got a dead fish in a FedEx envelope with a handwritten note stapled to it that said "You thinka you funny boy." I ate the fish and gave it a bad review on my blog.

Krugman's never wrote a non-political article.
What do the statistics say about people who have come into the workforce under the table? What if part of the increase in the workforce comes from immigrants who are not paying taxes or counted in these reports. I believe that's the case in Oregon.
The tax cuts have increased revenues, 90 billion? More money in the economy means more jobs and more tax payers.

Stephen, How do you think Krugman would have "analyzed" these numbers if Gore were president? I'd say they'd be singing and dancing in the streets.

In the midst of an unprecedented war on terrorism and a world media which is keeping up a drum beat of bad news and hand wringing, somehow the economy isn't tanking.

That isn't good news, that's a miracle.

"there are at least 1.6 million and possibly as many as 5.1 million people who aren't counted as unemployed but would take jobs if they were available."

If no one's looking for a job, how is it unavailable?

"The bad news is that it's hard to see where further expansion will come from."

1. Social security reform and private accounts. That money will then be pumped into the world econmny

2. Tax reform - simplfing the tax system though either a flat tax of a sales tax would release a lot of pent up activity

3. Greater use of technology in certian key fields - goverment, medicne, eductation, and insurance

There is plenty of loss econmic efficiency that could be gained through major reforms.

I have two points. One, my neighborhood in California is full of nannies, yardmen, roofers, housecleaners, etc. I bet you many of them are illegal, and legal or not, most of them work off the books. We all pay cash here for domestic help. Second, I work in the welfare/poverty "industry". I can tell you with certainty that a lot of people, especially black men, are simply unemployable. Many of them have felony convictions, prison time, drug convictions, or other barriers to meaningful employment. Many of them cannot read at a second grade level. This starts by age 16 and gets worse as they get older. This fact help explain the always high rate of unemployment among blacks. Both of these factors, cash wages and chronic unemployability, partly explain why the country is not awash in qualified people looking for work.

I have trouble with the notion of Krugman or anyone else suddenly asserting that a low unemployment rate is a statistical illusion now that it's happened while Bush is in office. Maybe the low rate is an illusion, but in that case wouldn't it likely have been an illusion for all previous unemployment rates? Unless there was a dramatic change in the way the employment rate is calculated, the direction and general magnitude of any change should be roughly the same as it always has been. So a low rate now is the same as a low rate during any previous period (at least in recent memory).

You have to compare apples to apples. You can't suddenly declare your apple is in fact an orange once the fact that it's an apple becomes politically inconvenient for you.

I'm not sure that last paragraph is terribly clear, but hopefully you know what I mean...

Krugman is essentially asserting that the economy is poor (after all the "public isn't feeling prosperous") even though the generally accepted data says that things are pretty good. Naturally since the data doesn't show what he knows is the correct answer - poor economy - he goes looking for other data that might confirm his beliefs.

I completely agree that DoL metrics are antiquated and probably don't do a good job of assessing the economy. But this piece is about finding ways to claim that things are bad, not admiting that nobody knows.

Hmmm tight job market.

Here's a thought: as we all know, the Army is having trouble meeting its recruting goals. Part of this is because they are actually trying to increase the end strength by 30,000 more people - meaning that recruting is expected to not only replenish the ranks, but to actually add extra bodies.

Now I'm sure that the prospect of actually going to Iraq is a big disincentive to those looking for 20 years as a garrison trooper, but the combat arms are actually doing relatively well compared to the support arms. And the Marines, which are far more subject to both deployments and casulties than the Army are doing far better in terms of recruiting (though there are some problems).

Now here's another data point - the last time the Army had this trouble was, if memory serves, back in 1999 at the height of the tech bubble and the lowest unemplyment rate in half a century. Thus, it is not crazy to postulate that at least some the Army's recruiting woes are the result of a tighter labor market and a good (though certainly not stellar) economy.

"If all that wasn't enough to give us a full economic recovery, what will?"

Pity he didn't describe this F.E.R. so that when it is delivered, we could know it and cherish it under glass.

Meanwhile, you can get a job, there's plenty of moolah to buy stuff and take vacations, taxes are lower, and the deficit is falling.

Most important--so unmentioned by Krugman--is that the deficit share of GDP is down to 2.7%. By contrast, it was 6.7% in the worst deficit year of the 80s provided by Mr. Reagan's free spending Democratic Coingress. Sorry, Congress.

I'd have to agree with Stephen. As far as I can see this *is* a full economic recovery.

Don Luskin has some other comments at his blog...best to read there but I think he essentially postulates that things are good enough now that a lot of reluctant workers are doing well enough to leave the workforce. E.g. working mothers are a relatively recent phenomenon and was only partially voluntary on the part of women; many were forced into the workforce to make the family ends meet. Perhaps the economy is now strong enough to allow some return to a single worker family.

Not sure how to verify that theory but I would call that plausible based on recent local experience...I know several women who have been fortunate enough to be able to take that route.

Krugman is an idiot! Nobody anticipates where the future expansion is coming from. Who in the 1950s anticipated the personal computer/telecom/internet expansion of the 80s and 90s? Who can accurately anticipate the near and mid-term future effects of the biotech and nanotech breakthroughs?
These f****k***g idiots who seem to believe in a static world and a static economy should be in a soupline instead of writing for the big papers for big bucks.

--If Bradbury's bigger number is closer to the truth, then it's difficult not to conclude that our economy is not yet robust enough to employ everyone who wants to work.--

Wants to work at what?

I personally know of 3 very picky people, I'm 1 of them.

I can get a "job," but what about the job I want at the pay I want?

Big difference.

Actually, I don't want to work but hubby says it's time.